Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
AMERICAN OVERSIGHT,
)
1030 15th Street NW, B255
)
Washington, DC 20005
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
)
2201 C Street NW
)
Washington, DC 20520
)
)
and
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
)
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
)
Washington, DC 20530
)
)
Defendants. )
)

Case No. 19-1286

COMPLAINT
1.

Plaintiff American Oversight bring this action against the U.S. Department of

State and the U.S. Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552
(FOIA), 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.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202.
3.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(e).
4.

Because Defendants have failed to comply with the applicable time-limit

provisions of the FOIA, American Oversight is deemed to have exhausted its administrative
1

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 2 of 7

remedies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i) and is now entitled to judicial action enjoining
the agencies from continuing to withhold agency records and ordering the production of agency
records improperly withheld.
PARTIES
5.

Plaintiff American Oversight is a nonpartisan, non-profit section 501(c)(3)

organization primarily engaged in disseminating information to the public. American Oversight
is committed to the promotion of transparency in government, the education of the public about
government activities, and ensuring the accountability of government officials. Through research
and FOIA requests, American Oversight uses the information gathered, and its analysis of it, to
educate the public about the activities and operations of the federal government through reports,
published analyses, press releases, and other media. The organization is incorporated under the
laws of the District of Columbia.
6.

Defendant U.S. Department of State (State) is a department of the executive

branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, DC, and an agency of the federal
government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). State has possession, custody, and
control of the records that Plaintiff seeks.
7.

Defendant U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is a department of the executive

branch of the U.S. government headquartered in Washington, DC, and an agency of the federal
government within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). DOJ has possession, custody, and
control of the records that Plaintiff seeks.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
8.

On March 5, 2019, American Oversight submitted FOIA requests to State and

DOJ seeking records related to foreign leases, purchases, or other transfers of properties owned
or operated by the Trump Organization, including the Trump World Tower in New York.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 3 of 7

State Analysis FOIA
9.

On March 5, 2019, American Oversight submitted a FOIA request to State,

seeking:
Any final legal analyses or final opinions conducted at any time after
the November 2016 U.S. presidential election related to the Office
of Foreign Missions’ consideration, review, approval, or denial of
any foreign government leases, purchases, changes in use, or sales
of units at any properties owned or operated by the Trump
Organization (including any affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related
entities), including the impact, if any, of the foreign emoluments
clause of the U.S. Constitution thereon.
10.

American Oversight indicated that it believed State was in the best position to

determine where records responsive to this request may exist, but requested that State search, at a
minimum, the Office of Foreign Missions, the Office of the Legal Adviser, and the Designated
Agency Ethics Officer for responsive records.
11.

American Oversight requested all responsive records from November 8, 2016,

through the date a search is conducted.
12.

American Oversight has received no communications from State concerning this

request.
State Diplomatic Notes FOIA
13.

On March 5, 2019, American Oversight submitted a FOIA request to State

seeking:
1. All diplomatic notes, letters, or other correspondence from State’s
Office of Foreign Missions to any foreign missions indicating
approval, disapproval, or any other disposition of a request for
foreign diplomats or missions to lease, purchase, rent, sell, or
otherwise make any change in use of any property at Trump Tower
(845 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York).
2. All diplomatic notes, letters, or other correspondence from State’s
Office of Foreign Missions to the Trump World Tower indicating
approval, disapproval, or any other disposition of a request for
foreign diplomats or missions to lease, purchase, rent, sell, or

3

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 4 of 7

otherwise make any change in use of any property at Trump Tower
(845 United Nations Plaza, New York, New York).
14.

American Oversight indicated that it believed State was in the best position to

determine where records responsive to this request may exist, but requested that State search, at a
minimum, the Office of Foreign Missions, the Office of the Legal Adviser, and the Designated
Agency Ethics Officer for responsive records.
15.

American Oversight requested all responsive records from January 20, 2017,

through the date a search is conducted.
16.

American Oversight has received no communications from State concerning this

request.
DOJ Analysis FOIA
17.

On March 5, 2019, American Oversight submitted a FOIA request to DOJ’s

Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) seeking:
Any advice prepared by OLC and provided outside OLC regarding
any foreign lease, purchase, rental, sale, or other change in use of
any properties owned or operated by the Trump Organization
(including any affiliates, subsidiaries, or other related entities),
including any opinion memoranda, letters, emails, or records
memorializing legal advice, such as file memoranda or talking
points.
18.

American Oversight requested all responsive records from November 8, 2016,

through the date a search is conducted.
19.

By letter dated April 9, 2019, OLC acknowledged the request and assigned it

tracking number FY19-107.
20.

American Oversight has received no further communications from OLC

concerning this request.

4

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 5 of 7

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
21.

As of the date of this complaint, Defendants have failed to (a) notify American

Oversight of any determination regarding its FOIA requests, including the scope of any
responsive records Defendants intend to produce or withhold and the reasons for any
withholdings; or (b) produce the requested records or demonstrate that the requested records are
lawfully exempt from production.
22.

Through Defendants’ failure to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests within the

time period required by law, American Oversight has constructively exhausted its administrative
remedies and seeks immediate judicial review.
COUNT I
Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552
Failure to Conduct Adequate Search for Responsive Records
23.

Plaintiff repeats the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates them

as though fully set forth herein.
24.

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

Defendants.
25.

Defendants are agencies subject to FOIA and must therefore make reasonable

efforts to search for requested records.
26.

Defendants have failed to promptly review agency records for the purpose of

locating those records that are responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests.
27.

Defendants’ failure to conduct an adequate search for responsive records violates

28.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief requiring

FOIA.

Defendants to promptly make reasonable efforts to search for records responsive to Plaintiff’s
FOIA requests.

5

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 6 of 7

COUNT II
Violation of FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552
Wrongful Withholding of Non-Exempt Responsive Records
29.

Plaintiff repeats the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs and incorporates them

as though fully set forth herein.
30.

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

Defendants.
31.

Defendants are agencies subject to FOIA and must therefore release in response to

FOIA requests any non-exempt records and provide a lawful reason for withholding any
materials.
32.

Defendants are wrongfully withholding non-exempt agency records requested by

Plaintiff by failing to produce non-exempt records responsive to its FOIA requests.
33.

Defendants are wrongfully withholding non-exempt agency records requested by

Plaintiff by failing to segregate exempt information in otherwise non-exempt records responsive
to its FOIA requests.
34.

Defendants’ failure to provide all non-exempt responsive records violates FOIA.

35.

Plaintiff is therefore entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief requiring

Defendants to promptly produce all non-exempt records responsive to its FOIA requests and
provide indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive records withheld under claim of
exemption.
REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, American Oversight respectfully requests the Court to:
(1) Order Defendants to conduct a search or searches reasonably calculated to uncover all
records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests;

6

 Case 1:19-cv-01286 Document 1 Filed 05/03/19 Page 7 of 7

(2) Order Defendants to produce, within twenty days of the Court’s order, or by such
other date as the Court deems appropriate, any and all non-exempt records responsive
to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and indexes justifying the withholding of any responsive
records withheld under claim of exemption;
(3) Enjoin Defendants from continuing to withhold any and all non-exempt records
responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests;
(4) Award Plaintiff the costs of this proceeding, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(E); and
(5) Grant Plaintiff such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: May 3, 2019

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sara Kaiser Creighton
Sara Kaiser Creighton
D.C. Bar No. 1002367
/s/ Katherine M. Anthony
Katherine M. Anthony
MA Bar No. 685150*
Pro hac vice motion to be submitted
AMERICAN OVERSIGHT
1030 15th Street NW, B255
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 897-3918
sara.creighton@americanoversight.org
katherine.anthony@americanoversight.org
*Member of the MA bar only; practicing in
the District of Columbia under the
supervision of members of the D.C. Bar
while application for D.C. Bar membership
is pending.
Counsel for Plaintiff

7