Case 1:17-cv-03566 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GIZMODO MEDIA GROUP, LLC
114 Fifth Avenue
2nd Floor
New York, NY 10011,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530,
Defendant.
*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-03566

*

*

*

*

*

*

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Gizmodo Media Group, LLC brings this action against Defendant Department of
Justice pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., as amended
(“FOIA”), the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651.
JURISDICTION
1.

This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal

jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
VENUE
2.

Venue is appropriate under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

 Case 1:17-cv-03566 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 2 of 5

PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff Gizmodo Media Group, LLC (“Gizmodo”) is a business headquartered in

New York, NY. Gizmodo is a representative of the news media within the meaning of 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(A).
4.

Defendant Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is an agency within the meaning of 5

U.S.C. § 552(e), and is in possession and/or control of the records requested by Gizmodo which
are the subject of this action.
5.

The National Security Division (“NSD”) and Office of Information Policy

(“OIP”) are DOJ components.
BACKGROUND
6.

On 7 November 2016, Heat Street published an article alleging that the Federal

Bureau of Investigation had applied for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”)
warrant in June 2016 to conduct electronic surveillance of properties owned by Donald Trump or
his companies to investigate ties to foreign banks SVB Bank and Alfa Bank, but that the warrant
request was denied by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISA Court”). This same
article stated that the FISA Court granted a more narrowly drawn FISA warrant application in
October 2016.
7.

On 11 and 12 January 2017, the Guardian and the BBC, respectively, separately

reported purportedly independently-sourced stories corroborating these allegations. On 18
January 2017, McClatchy reported that a source had confirmed the report that a FISA warrant
application was approved in October 2016.
8.

On 3 March 2017, Breitbart News reported about the June and October 2016

FISA warrant applications, citing the Heat Street article for both allegations.
2

 Case 1:17-cv-03566 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 3 of 5

9.

On 4 March 2017, President Trump officially and publicly verified the existence

and nature of the June and October 2016 FISA warrant applications in a series of three tweets
from his @realdonaldtrump Twitter account:
•

“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just
before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”

•

“Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to
an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!”

•

“I’d bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President
Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!”

10.

The NSD Operations Section is responsible for preparing and filing all FISA

warrant applications with the FISA Court.
CAUSE OF ACTION
(RECORDS DENIAL – 17-143)
11.

Gizmodo repeats and realleges the allegations contained in all paragraphs set

forth above.
12.

On 6 April 2017, Gizmodo submitted to NSD the following FOIA request through

its undersigned counsel: “On 4 March 2017, President Donald Trump publicly disclosed on
Twitter that he and/or his associates had been a target of electronic surveillance during the 2016
Presidential campaign. . . . Accordingly, on behalf of my client Gizmodo Media Group, I
request all information provided to or received from the FISA Court pertaining to requests made
in 2016 for one or more warrants to conduct electronic surveillance on Mr. Trump, any of his
associates, any of his properties, and/or any foreign entities (including, but not limited to, SVB

3

 Case 1:17-cv-03566 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 4 of 5

Bank and Alfa Bank) with whom he or his associates were alleged to be in communication.”
Gizmodo requested a public interest fee waiver and expedited processing of its request.
13.

This request added, “[President Trump] specifically referred to a previous warrant

request which had been denied, which appears to be the request for a FISA warrant applied for
and denied in June 2016 described the previous day at http://www.breitbart.com/biggovernment/2017/03/03/mark-levin-obama-used-police-state-tactics-undermine-trump/.
Therefore, for the purposes of FOIA, he has both: 1) officially confirmed the previously
published reports that a FISA warrant was applied for and denied in June 2016 and again applied
for (more narrowly) and granted in October 2016; and 2) officially disclosed the existence and
nature of those warrant applications and orders.”
14.

On 14 April 2017, NSD acknowledged receipt of this request and assigned it Req.

No. 17-143. NSD refused to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of responsive
records (“Glomar response”). NSD did not make a determination regarding Gizmodo’s fee
waiver or expedited processing requests.
15.

The same day, Gizmodo appealed this determination to OIP, stating, “We

provided ample justification for a finding that the President officially disclosed the existence of
these records in the request letter, and so a Glomar response is entirely inappropriate here.” OIP
acknowledged receipt of this appeal and assigned it Appeal No. DOJ-AP-2017-003542.
16.

On 18 April 2017, OIP affirmed NSD’s determination.

17.

Gizmodo has a legal right under FOIA to obtain the information it seeks, and

there is no legal basis for the denial by DOJ of said right.

4

 Case 1:17-cv-03566 Document 1 Filed 05/12/17 Page 5 of 5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Gizmodo Media Group prays that this Court:
(1)

Order the Department of Justice to release all requested records to it;

(2)

Order preliminary and permanent injunctive and/or declaratory relief as may be

appropriate;
(3)

Award reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees as provided in 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(4)(E), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), or any other applicable law;
(4)

Expedite this action in every way pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657(a); and

(5)

Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Date: May 12, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kelly B. McClanahan
Kelly B. McClanahan, Esq.
S.D.N.Y. Bar #KM1958
National Security Counselors
4702 Levada Terrace
Rockville, MD 20853
301-728-5908
240-681-2189 fax
Kel@NationalSecurityLaw.org
Counsel for Plaintiff

5