UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
)
NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION
)
Room 6150
)
950 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW
)
WASHINGTON, DC 20530-0001
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT
OVERSIGHT, INC.
1100 G St NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005,

Case No: 18-2990

COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Project On Government Oversight (“POGO”), brings this action against the
Defendant, U.S. Department of Justice, National Security Division (“NSD”) under the Freedom
of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2201 and 2202, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel compliance with the
requirements of FOIA, including immediate release of records requested by POGO.
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION

POGO asserts violations of FOIA by NSD for failing to provide responsive

documents concerning leaks and unauthorized disclosure of information from government
agencies, entities and offices from January 2007 to the present.
2.

POGO filed a request with NSD regarding this subject on June 12, 2018.

3.

NSD acknowledged receipt of POGO’s request on June 16, 2018.

 4.

FOIA requires NSD to respond within 20 business days, excluding Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays. To date, NSD has not produced any responsive documents.
5.

POGO seeks a declaration that NSD violated FOIA by failing to disclose

responsive records by the statutory deadline and an injunction ordering NSD to produce all nonexempt, responsive records by a date certain, without further delay.
II.
6.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5

U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(4)(B) and 552(a)(6)(C)(i). This Court also has jurisdiction over this action
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201(a), and 2202. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
III.
7.

PARTIES

Plaintiff POGO is a nonpartisan independent organization based in Washington,

DC organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Founded in 1981, POGO
champions reforms to achieve a more effective, ethical, and accountable federal government that
safeguards constitutional principles. POGO’s investigators and journalists take leads and
information from insiders and verify the information through investigations using FOIA,
interviews, and other fact-finding strategies. POGO’s investigative work has been recognized by
Members of Congress, executive branch officials, and professional journalism organizations. For
instance, in 2015, POGO won the Society of Professional Journalists Washington, D.C.
Professional Chapter’s highest journalistic award, the Robert D.G. Lewis Watchdog Award, for
reporting on the Department of Justice’s opaque system for handling allegations of attorney
misconduct within its ranks. POGO extensively used records obtained under FOIA for this
investigation.

Complaint
Page 2

 8.

Defendant NSD is a division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), a federal

agency within the meaning of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1), and headquartered in Washington,
DC. NSD has possession, custody, and control of the records POGO seeks in this action.
IV.
9.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

FOIA requires federal agencies, upon request, to make records “promptly

available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
10.

The agency must provide the public records when they are requested by the

public, in order “to ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning democratic society.”
See NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978).
11.

An agency must determine whether to comply with a FOIA request within twenty

business days and “shall immediately notify the person making such request of such
determination and the reasons therefor.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i); see also 15 C.F.R. § 4.6(b).
12.

The twenty-day deadline for an agency to determine whether to comply with a

request begins on the earlier of: l) the date “the request is first received by the appropriate
component of the agency” or (2) “ten days after the request is “first received by any component
of the agency that is designated in the agency’s regulations . . . to receive [FOIA] requests.” 5
U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii).
13.

In unusual circumstances, the time limits prescribed may be extended by written

notice to the person making such request setting forth the reasons for such extension and the date
on which a determination is “expected” to be dispatched. No such notice shall specify a date that
would result in an extension for more than ten working days. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i).

Complaint
Page 3

 14.

If an agency does not respond to a FOIA request by the statutory deadline, the

requester is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies and may immediately pursue
judicial review. Id. §§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i), 552(a)(4)(B).
V.

BACKGROUND AND PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE RECORDS SOUGHT
i.
15.

National Security Division

NSD, a division of the DOJ, was created in March 2006 by the USA PATRIOT

Reauthorization and Improvement Act (Pub. L. No. 109-177).
16.

The NSD consolidated the national security components of the Department of

Justice under a new Assistant Attorney General (“AAG for National Security”).
17.

The creation of the NSD consolidated DOJ’s primary national security operations:

the former Office of Intelligence Policy and Review; and the Counterterrorism and
Counterintelligence and Export Control Sections of the Criminal Division. The Office of Law
and Policy and the Executive Office, as well as the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas
Terrorism (which previously operated out of the Criminal Division) complete the NSD.
18.

The AAG for National Security acts as the Department's liaison with the Office of

the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of
Defense, and other intelligence community agencies in order to improve coordination against
terrorism and other threats to national security.
19.

The mission of the National Security Division is to protect the United States from

threats to national security by pursuing justice through the law.

Complaint
Page 4

 ii.
20.

President Trump Repeatedly Complains About Leaks

On a number of occasions, President Trump has publicly complained about

disclosures to the press, many of which he has asserted are illegal. The following are some of
those communications.
February 14, 2017: The real story here is why are there so many
illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be
happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/831510532318429184
February 15, 2017: Information is being illegally given to the
failing @nytimes & @washingtonpost by the intelligence
community (NSA and FBI?).Just like Russia
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/831840306161123328
February 16, 2017: Leaking, and even illegal classified leaking,
has been a big problem in Washington for years. Failing @nytimes
(and others) must apologize!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/832197515248275456
February 16, 2017: The spotlight has finally been put on the lowlife leakers! They will be caught!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/832198588201594880
February 24, 2017: The FBI is totally unable to stop the national
security "leakers" that have permeated our government for a long
time. They can't even......
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/835104946034991106
February 24, 2017: find the leakers within the FBI itself. Classified
information is being given to media that could have a devastating
effect on U.S. FIND NOW
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/835106143462703104
February 26, 2017: Russia talk is FAKE NEWS put out by the
Dems, and played up by the media, in order to mask the big
election defeat and the illegal leaks!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/835916511944523777
June 11, 2017: I believe the James Comey leaks will be far more
prevalent than anyone ever thought possible. Totally illegal? Very
'cowardly!'
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/873879934040780801
Complaint
Page 5

 July 22, 2017: While all agree the U. S. President has the complete
power to pardon, why think of that when only crime so far is
LEAKS against us.FAKE NEWS
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/888724194820857857
July 22, 2017: A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon
Washington Post,this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions.These illegal
leaks, like Comey's, must stop!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/888708453560184832
iii.
21.

DOJ and Attorney General Sessions Addresses Leak Investigations
In an August 2017 DOJ press release, Attorney General Jeff Sessions explained

that the DOJ has, “tripled the number of active leak investigations,” “the Department is
reviewing policies that impact leak investigations,” “For the past several months, we have
already made changes and are seriously ramping up our efforts,” and “Soon after I arrived here
in February, I initiated a review of our leak investigations and prosecutions. I reviewed how
these cases were being referred and handled and was concerned with what we found.” See
August 4, 2017 DOJ Press Release, attached hereto as Exhibit A, p. 2.
iv.

22.

President Trump Praises Attorney General Sessions
and Continues to Raise the Issue of Leaks

President Trump continued to raise the issue of unauthorized disclosures and

national security.
August 5, 2017: After many years of LEAKS going on in
Washington, it is great to see the A.G. taking action! For National
Security, the tougher the better!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/893969438139191296
April 27, 2018: Is everybody believing what is going on. James
Comey can’t define what a leak is. He illegally leaked
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION but doesn’t understand what he did
or how serious it is. He lied all over the place to cover it up. He’s
either very sick or very dumb. Remember sailor!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/989813047773614080
Complaint
Page 6

 May 1, 2018: So disgraceful that the questions concerning the
Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on
Collusion. Oh, I see...you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion,
that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked
classified information. Nice!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/991267863674675200
May 14, 2018: The so-called leaks coming out of the White House
are a massive over exaggeration put out by the Fake News Media
in order to make us look as bad as possible. With that being said,
leakers are traitors and cowards, and we will find out who they
are!
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/996129630913482755?l
ang=en
August 24, 2018: “Department of Justice will not be improperly
influenced by political considerations.” Jeff, this is GREAT, what
everyone wants, so look into all of the corruption on the “other
side” including deleted Emails, Comey lies & leaks, Mueller
conflicts, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr......
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1032934937962442754
v.

23.

Former Senate Employee Indicted For False Statements
Related to Release of “Controlled Information”

On June 7, 2018, the DOJ indicted James A. Wolfe, a former staffer of the Senate

Intelligence Committee, on charges of making false statements to the FBI during a leak
investigation that begun “in or around 2017.” The Justice Department press release mentioned it
is prioritizing the investigation and prosecution of unauthorized release of a broader array of
information than classified information:
“The Attorney General has stated that investigations and
prosecutions of unauthorized disclosure of controlled information
are a priority of the Department of Justice. The allegations in this
indictment are doubly troubling as the false statements concern the
unauthorized disclosure of sensitive and confidential information,”
said Assistant Attorney General Demers.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/former-us-senate-employeeindicted-false-statements-charges
Complaint
Page 7

 24.

The indictment against Wolfe does not mention or explicitly define what is meant

by “controlled,” “sensitive,” or “confidential” information – terms used in the press release. It
does refer to Wolfe’s false statements in relation to the release of information “that was not
otherwise publicly available.” (pages 10, 11:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4529875-Wolfe-Indictment.html)

25.

The day after the DOJ indictment and press release became public, on June 8,

2018, President Trump said:
It’s very interesting that they caught a leaker in a very important —
it’s a very important leaker. So it’s very interesting. I’m getting
information on it now. Happened last night. It could be a terrific
thing.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-onedeparture-8/
26.

The New York Times wrote that the Justice Department “secretly seized years’

worth of a New York Times reporter’s phone and email records” in the investigation that snared
Wolfe. The reporter is Ali Watkins, who had previously worked for Politico, Buzzfeed, and
McClatchy. The Wolfe indictment refers to the Justice Department questioning him about his
communications with four reporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/07/us/politics/timesreporter-phone-records-seized.html?module=inline

vi.
27.

The New York Times Op-Ed

On September 5, 2018, The New York Times published an anonymous Op-Ed

written by, “a senior official in the Trump administration,” entitled “I am Part of the Resistance
Inside the Trump Administration.” See September 5, 2018 The New York Times article, attached
here to as Exhibit B.

Complaint
Page 8

 The article focused on an alleged effort among some of the President’s senior

28.

advisors to “keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always
successful.”
‘There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from
one minute to the next,’ a top official complained to me recently,
exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flipflopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
Exhibit B, p. 2
29.

According to the author of the Op-Ed:
It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should
know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is
happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald
Trump won’t.
The result is a two-track presidency.
Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump
shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President
Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un,
and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to
allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the
administration is operating on another track, one where countries
like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly,
and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals.
On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so
many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a
former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about
senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the
United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its
malign behavior. But his national security team knew better —
such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

Exhibit B, pp. 2-3.

Complaint
Page 9

 vii.
30.

The White House’s Response

On Friday, September 7, President Trump requested that DOJ investigate the

author of the September 5 New York Times op-ed, based on a potential national security risk
caused by the author of the article.
31.

The Washington Post published an article that addressed the President’s response

to the op-ed, entitled, “Trump Says Justice Department Should Investigate Anonymous Op-Ed
Author.” In this article the President was quoted as saying:
‘We’re going to take a look at what he had, what he gave, what
he’s talking about, also where he is right now’…if the anonymous
author has a high-level security clearance, the president
emphasized, ‘and he goes into a high-level meeting concerning
China or Russia or North Korea or something, I don’t want him in
those meetings.’
See September 7, 2018 Washington Post article, attached here to as Exhibit C, p. 1.
32.

According to the Washington Post article:
Trump’s comment Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions
should investigate who wrote the newspaper op-ed isn’t the first
time he has demanded that the FBI or Justice Department look into
a disclosure that is embarrassing to the White House.
In the early days of the administration, the president and some of
his aides repeatedly pressed then-FBI Director James B. Comey
and other law enforcement officials to investigate not just leaks of
classified information but also disclosures of unclassified,
nonsensitive information, according to people familiar with the
discussions.
Federal law enforcement officials have responded privately to such
requests in the past by explaining an important distinction:
Disclosing classified information can be a crime worthy of
investigation; disclosing nonprotected information usually is not a
crime, and therefore would not be investigated by federal agents.

Exhibit C, p. 3.

Complaint
Page 10

 viii.
33.

WikiLeaks

On November 15, the Washington Post published an article concerning

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange having been charged under seal in relation to leaking
classified and sensitive government information. See November 15, 2018, Washington Post
article, attached here to as Exhibit D.
34.

According to the article, “the Trump administration, had begun taking a second

look at whether to charge members of the WikiLeaks organization for the 2010 leak of
diplomatic cables and military documents that the anti-secrecy group published. Investigators
also had explored whether WikiLeaks could face criminal liability for the more recent revelation
of sensitive CIA cybertools.” Exhibit D, p. 1.
ix. Public Interest
35.

The records POGO requested concern the operations of the federal government.

They concern the Justice Department and other agencies’ efforts to investigate and combat
unauthorized releases of information.
36.

POGO seeks details on the last decade of the Justice Department’s efforts to

investigate unauthorized releases of information. Some similar information was released for the
period prior to 2007. This information would cover the decade since. It would also provide more
detail about DOJ’s efforts beyond public statements by Justice Department and other government
officials.
37.

The records would be likely to contribute to public understanding of what the

Justice Department and other agencies are doing to investigate unauthorized disclosures, the
challenges these cases pose both practically but also balanced against other interests such as the
First Amendment rights of individuals and the news media.

Complaint
Page 11

 38.

The records would be a significant contribution because most of this information

is not public and little is known despite the importance and potential impacts of these Justice
Department activities. Some information previously provided on a proactive basis has not been
made public recently, such as the 2016 and 2017 annual reports on “Department of Justice Use
of Certain Law Enforcement Tools to Obtain Information from, or Records of, Members of the
News Media; and Questioning, Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media.”
39.

The requested records may shed significant light on statements by Attorney

General Jeff Sessions in the August 2017 DOJ press release.
40.

Additionally, the records will reveal new developments and new data in the

almost-year since the Attorney General made those remarks.
VI.
41.

PLAINTIFF’S FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
On June 12, 2018, POGO employee Nick Schwellenbach submitted a FOIA

request via electronic mail to NSD which requested:
1.
Tracking Reports, any other tracking or statistical
information on referrals from agencies and government sources,
crime reports sent, investigations, prosecutions, and other actions
related to leaks/unauthorized disclosures of information maintained
and/or compiled by the National Security Division since January
2007 - also please provide any data dictionary, code sheets, or
other documentation for users detailing the meaning of fields,
acronyms, etc. Please provide all field headers in the tracking
system even if some of the content in the fields is redacted (see this
link and this link for examples of leak investigation data in an
Automated Case Tracking System provided under FOIA
previously).
2.
All National Security Division closure letters sent
regarding leak investigation since January 2007 (see this link for
an example of such a letter provided under FOIA).
3.
Any email correspondence Assistant Attorney General John
Demers and any individuals with who.eop.gov, mail.house.gov, or
senate.gov email addresses regarding “leaks”, “unauthorized
Complaint
Page 12

 disclosures”, “insider threat”, “whistleblowers”, “whistleblowing”,
“Comey”, and “McCabe”.
4.
Any minutes by Task Forces, Working Groups,
Subcommittees, and other Justice Department-convened meetings,
including those with the News Media Dialogue Group, regarding
“insider threats”, “leaks”, or “unauthorized disclosures” since
January 2007 (see this link for an example of minutes provided
under FOIA previously).
5.
Any recommendations, analysis, presentation, memo,
guidance, and reports—including drafts of the aforementioned—
regarding the “Eleven Questions” that are used to assess whether to
launch a leak investigation since January 2007 (see this link for an
example of a recommendation provided under FOIA previously).
6.
Any recommendations, analysis, presentation, memo,
guidance, and reports—including drafts of the aforementioned—
regarding leak-related investigations, prosecutions, and sentencing
as well as compelling testimony and seeking records from and
about journalists and news organizations generally since January
2007.
7.
Any recommendations, analysis, presentation, memo,
guidance, and reports—including drafts of the aforementioned—
regarding investigating or prosecuting “controlled information”,
“controlled unclassified information”, “law enforcement
sensitive”, “Privacy Act,” or any other form of non-classified, nonpublic information leaked to the media since January 2007.
8.
Any recommendations, analysis, presentation, memo,
guidance, and reports—including drafts of the aforementioned—
mentioning “Signal”, “Whatsapp”, “Secure Drop”, “Proton Mail”,
“Telegram”, and “Confide” since January 2007.
9.
All annual reports detailing “Department of Justice Use of
Certain Law Enforcement Tools to Obtain Information from, or
Records of, Members of the News Media; and Questioning,
Arresting, or Charging Members of the News Media” and any
other records detailing statistics or tracking information related to
subpoenas, including national security letters (also known as
exigent letters), for records about members of the media and
regarding other non-government sources related to leak
investigations, including approvals and denials of subpoenas, since
January 2007 (see the 2014 and 2015 reports and this link as an
example of such data provided under FOIA previously).
Complaint
Page 13

 10.
Any statistical or other records relating to administrative
actions taken against federal employees, contractors, and
uniformed military personnel related to leaks to the media since
January 2007.
11.
Any proposed legislative language, technical remarks on
proposed legislation, and other input on legal authorities current or
proposed regarding leaks/unauthorized disclosures since January
2007.
12.
Any proposed revisions to the Department’s “Policy
Regarding Obtaining Information From, Or Records Of, Members
Of The News Media; And Regarding Questioning, Arresting, Or
Charging Member Of The News Media.”
13.
Any records memorializing consultation with the Policy
and Statutory Enforcement Unit of the Criminal Division's Office
of Enforcement Operations related to leak investigations or other
investigations involving the media.
14.
Any records requesting the Attorney General’s (or
designee) authorization to subpoena members of the news media
since January 2007.
15.
Any email correspondence Assistant Attorney General John
Demers had with individuals in DOJ Office of Public Affairs
regarding Reality Winner, Ali Watkins, James Wolfe, leak
investigations, media-related subpoenas, or the news media
guidance (referred to above as “Policy Regarding Obtaining
Information From, Or Records Of, Members Of The News Media;
And Regarding Questioning, Arresting, Or Charging Member Of
The News Media”).
16.
Any guidelines, rules, policies, and proposed revisions or
changes involving the aforementioned for using National Security
Letters and so-called informal “exigent letters.”
See NSD FOIA Request (“Request”), attached hereto as Exhibit E, pp. 1-2.
42.

On July 16, 2018, POGO received an acknowledgment letter for the Request and

it was assigned the reference number FOIA/PA #18-229.
43.

Complaint
Page 14

NSD’s acknowledgment letter stated:

 Our policy is to process FOIA requests on a first-in, first-out basis.
Consistent with this policy, every effort will be made to respond to
your request as quickly as possible. The actual processing time
will depend upon the complexity of the request, whether it
involves sensitive or voluminous records, and whether
consultations with other agencies or agency components are
appropriate.
See July 16, 2018 Acknowledgment letter, (“Acknowledgment”) attached hereto
as Exhibit F, p. 2.
44.

On November 8, 2018, in response to POGO’s November 7, 2018 status update

request POGO was informed that “[NSD] is still conducting a search for possible responsive
documents to [POGO’s] request.” See November 2018 emails attached hereto as Exhibit G.
45.

To date, POGO has received no documents responsive to the Request.

46.

More than 30 business days have passed since the Request was acknowledged and

NSD has provided no further update on the status of this request.1
47.

Plaintiff POGO has a statutory right to the requested records, and there is no legal

basis for NSD’s failure to disclose them.
VII.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT 1
Violation of the FOIA for Failure to make Promptly
Available the Records Sought by Plaintiff’s Request
48.

Paragraphs 1-47 are re-alleged and reincorporated herein by reference.

49.

Plaintiff properly requested records within the possession, custody, and control of

Defendants.
50.

Defendant’s Failure to make promptly available the records sought by Plaintiff’s

request violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
1

FOIA allows the Agency 20 business days to respond to POGO’s request. An Agency
also has to right to requested and additional 10 days to respond. NSD has failed to do so.
Complaint
Page 15

 COUNT 2
Violation of the FOIA for Failure to
Timely Respond to Plaintiff’s Request
51.

Paragraphs 1-50 are re-alleged and reincorporated herein by reference.

52.

Plaintiff properly requested records within the possession, custody, and control of

Defendants.
53.

Defendant’s failure to respond timely to Plaintiff’s request violates the FOIA, 5

U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), and DOJ’s own regulation promulgated thereunder, 28 C.F.R. §
16.5(a).
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, POGO, prays for the following relief:
a. As to Count 1:
i. Order Defendant to immediately state which records it intends to disclose in
response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request;
ii. Order Defendant to provide a schedule of production to Plaintiff;
iii. Order Defendant to disclose all responsive, non-exempt records by a date
certain without further delay;
iv. Order Defendant to disclose a log identifying any document or parts thereof
that it withholds and the basis for the withholding;
v. Retain jurisdiction of this action to ensure no agency records are wrongfully
withheld;
vi. Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action;
and
vii. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
b. As to Count 2:
i. Order Defendant to immediately state which records it intends to disclose in
response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request;
ii. Order Defendant to provide a schedule of production to Plaintiff;
iii. Order Defendant to disclose all responsive, non-exempt records by a date
certain without further delay;
iv. Order Defendant to disclose a log identifying any document or parts thereof
that it withholds and the basis for the withholding;
v. Retain jurisdiction of this action to ensure no agency records are wrongfully
withheld;
vi. Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action;
and
Complaint
Page 16

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

Respectfully submitted this 18th day of December, 2018.

By:

Complaint
Page 17

___/s/Ross A. Nabatoff_____________
Ross A. Nabatoff, DC Bar # 376665
LAW OFFICE OF ROSS A. NABATOFF
1440 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 650-0037
Attorney for Plaintiff