UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY )
AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 11-01021 (JEB)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
This case concerns three FOIA requests sent to components of defendant U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) one and one-half years ago. Currently defendant is subject to an
order directing, inter alia, the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) to complete
processing of all responsive records and release all non-exempt portions by today. Rather than
comply with this order, EOUSA waited until the due date to seek a four and one-half month
extension, until October 31, 2012. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff respectfully opposes
the requested extension.
First, DOJ’s motion is premised in part on the claim it has been acting diligently yet still
has been able to process for release only “approximately two hundred pages of fully exempt
documents.” Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time (D’s M.), p. 1.1 In the same time
period, however, the FBI – whose documents also are at issue – has been able to process nearly
1 It appears from this description DOJ plans to release two hundred blank pages.
Moreover, as of the filing of this opposition plaintiff has yet to receive these documents.
Case 1:11-cv-01021-JEB Document 22 Filed 06/18/12 Page 1 of 3
1,700 of pages of documents, from which it made a release of 1,440 pages on May 18, 2012. As
this discrepancy illustrates, the pace at which EOUSA is processing the responsive documents
does not reflect an agency acting with due diligence.
Second, EOUSA has not adequately justified an extension until October 31, 2012. While
defendant claims it must review the documents “with scrutiny and care due to their sensitivity,”2
it also acknowledges it outsourced that review to a contractor, the Litigation Technology Service
Center, which presumably does not have the expertise necessary to make judgments about such a
“sensitive” subject. This may explain why EOUSA needs so much additional time to complete
what the Court ordered by completed by today. Moreover, defendant has failed to provide the
kind of detailed justification generally required of agencies seeking Open America stays, instead
vaguely claiming to exercise due diligence.
Third, although plaintiff has proposed several alternatives that would serve the interests
of both parties, defendant has rejected them out of hand. Defendant has refused plaintiff’s
request for a rolling production, insisting it can make no release until it has completed processing
all the documents located to date. Further, defendant has refused plaintiff’s request that the
parties discuss prioritizing the processing by categories, with the possibility that if the relevant
categories are identified, plaintiff might be able to eliminate some as not of interest. Again,
these are not the actions of a party acting with due diligence.
Fourth, given the age of this request, it is inherently unfair to ask plaintiff to wait until
October 31, 2012, to learn for the first time what, if anything, EOUSA is willing to release. Had
defendant advised plaintiff and the Court when it first realized it could not meet the Court’s
2 D’s M. at 1.
2
Case 1:11-cv-01021-JEB Document 22 Filed 06/18/12 Page 2 of 3
deadline, the parties might have been able to work out a solution, with the Court’s assistance if
necessary. Now, however, defendant has essentially made a “take it or leave it” offer that falls
far short of its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
While the EOUSA may not be in a position to make a full release today, it should be
ordered to provide the Court and plaintiff immediately with a timetable for producing documents
on a rolling basis and in two-week intervals, to be completed in 60 days. This approach would
accommodate the needs of both parties.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny defendant’s
motion for an extension.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Anne L. Weismann
ANNE L. WEISMANN
D.C. Bar No. 434584
MELANIE SLOAN
D.C. Bar No. 434584
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in
Washington
1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 408-5565
Facsimile: (202) 588-5020
Dated: June 18, 2012 Attorneys for Plaintiff
3
Case 1:11-cv-01021-JEB Document 22 Filed 06/18/12 Page 3 of 3
