Gahagan v. United States Citizenship And Immigration Services et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

E.D. La.May 22, 2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN ) CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 15-6218 "A"(3) ) v. ) JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) MAGISTRATE KNOWLES IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Michael W. Gahagan ("Plaintiff") hereby files Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”); and Plaintiff hereby moves this Honorable Court for summary judgment with regard to Plaintiff's Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") cause of action. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff submits the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, his Local Rule 56.1 Statement, a proposed Order, and a Notice of Hearing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an order granting summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor, and order that: (1) USCIS shall properly respond to Plaintiff's FOIA requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552, and produce forthwith any and all non-exempt responsive information. (2) USCIS shall produce all reasonably segregable information withheld within all responsive agency records pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (3) USCIS shall conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis of all withheld responsive agency information, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 2 2 (4) This Honorable Court shall conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis of all withheld responsive agency information pursuant to its FOIA de novo review mandate and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (5) USCIS shall produce a legally adequate Vaughn index of any and all responsive agency records withheld under claim of exemption as enumerated under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)- (9); or in the alternative, USCIS shall present all responsive agency records withheld under any lawful FOIA exemption for an in camera inspection. (6) USCIS is enjoined from continuing to withhold any non-exempt responsive agency information pursuant to Plaintiff's FOIA request, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2017. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. La. State Bar #31165 The Immigration Law Firm of New Orleans 3445 North Causeway Blvd., Ste. 524 Metairie, LA. 70002 Tel: (504) 931-5355 Fax: (504) 836-0070 MichaelGahagan@ImmigrationLawNewOrleans.com Pro Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of such filing to all counsel of record to this proceeding by ECF. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN ) CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 15-6218 "A"(3) ) v. ) JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) MAGISTRATE KNOWLES IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COMES NOW Plaintiff Michael W. Gahagan ("Plaintiff"), who submits this Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff requests summary judgment as to his FOIA cause of action in his Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint"). R. Doc. 1. Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) has the burden of proof beyond material doubt to show that it has produced to Plaintiff all nonexempt responsive information pursuant to Plaintiff's FOIA request, which it cannot do. See id. at 6 n.3; see also Exhibit 25. Therefore, because there is a genuine issue of material fact, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law under FOIA. 5 U.S.C. § 552. I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 1. The Fifth Circuit has held that "the FOIA expressly places the burden on the agency to sustain its action.” Flightsafety Servs. Corp. v. Dep't of Labor, 326 F.3d 607, 610-611 (5th Cir.2003)(quoting Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 755 (1989))(quotation marks omitted). “Unlike the review of other agency action that must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, the FOIA expressly places the burden1 on 1 See R. Doc. 1, at 6 n.3. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 12 2 the agency to sustain its action and directs the district courts to determine the matter de novo2.” United States Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989); Avondale Industries, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 90 F.3d 955, 958 (5th Cir.1996). “Congress vested the courts with the responsibility ultimately to determine de novo any dispute as to whether the exemption was properly invoked in order to constrain agencies from withholding nonexempt matters.” Dept. of the Air Force, Et Al. v. Rose, Et Al., 425 U.S. 352, 379 (1976). 2. In Batton v. Evers, the Fifth Circuit held that: We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Flightsafety Servs. Corp., 326 F.3d at 610. In general, summary judgment is appropriate only if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In the FOIA context, however, the traditional standard is modified because “the threshold question in any FOIA suit is whether the requester can even see the documents the character of which determines whether they can be released.” Cooper Cameron Corp. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 280 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir.2002). Accordingly, the FOIA statute provides that, when the Government withholds information from disclosure, the agency has the burden to prove de novo that the information is exempt from disclosure. § 552(a)(4)(B). Thus, “because the burden to establish an exemption remains with the agency, the district court should not grant summary judgment based on a ‘conclusory and generalized’ assertion, even if the FOIA requester has not controverted that assertion.” Cooper Cameron Corp., 280 F.3d at 543 (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 169 F.3d 16, 18 (D.C.Cir.1999)). In applying this standard, we are mindful of the purpose behind the FOIA. The FOIA was enacted to “pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.” Dept. of the Air Force, Et Al. v. Rose, Et Al., 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976)(quotation marks and citation omitted). The exemptions to disclosure are explicitly limited by statute and should be construed narrowly. Id. Thus, in a FOIA case, a court “generally will grant an agency's motion for summary judgment only if the agency identifies the documents at issue and explains why they fall under exemptions.” Cooper Cameron Corp., 280 F.3d at 543 (emphasis added). ... This court has stated that, while the FOIA “leaves to the [district] court's discretion whether to order an examination of the contents of the agency records at issue, in camera,” in determining whether the claimed exemptions apply, “the legislative intent for exercise of this discretion is relatively clear.” Id. at 1144. 2 See R. Doc. 1, at 10 n.4. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 12 3 This is because “in instances where it is determined that records do exist, the District Court must do something more to assure itself of the factual basis and bona fides of the agency's claim of exemption than rely solely upon an affidavit.” Id. at 1145. Finally, in analyzing the affidavits and declarations submitted by the government, the agency is entitled to a “presumption of legitimacy” unless there is evidence of bad faith in handling the FOIA request. U.S. Dep't of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 179, 112 S.Ct. 541, 116 L.Ed.2d 526 (1991). The presumption of legitimacy, however, does not relieve the withholding agency of its burden of proving that the factual information sought falls within the statutory exemption asserted. Stephenson v. IRS, 629 F.2d 1140, 1145 (5th Cir.1980). Batton, 598 F.3d 169, 175-76 (5th Cir.2010)(emphasis in original). 3. "Summary judgment is available to the defendant in a FOIA case when the agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA, after the underlying facts and the inferences to be drawn from them are construed in the light most favorable to the FOIA requester." Miller v. Department of State, 779 F.2d 1378, 1382 (8th Cir.1985)(citing Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1350 (D.C.Cir.1983)). All facts and inferences are viewed in the light most favorable to the FOIA requestor-plaintiff at every stage of FOIA litigation. See Mavadia v. Caplinger, 1996 WL 592742, at *1 (E.D.La.1996); White v. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2007 WL 1234987, at *2 (E.D.La.2007); Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2014 WL 4072119, at *1 (E.D.La.2014). "In order to prevail on an FOIA motion for summary judgment, the defending agency must prove that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements.” Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978). Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 12 4 II. FOIA ARGUMENT a. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR AN AGENCY TO FAIL TO PRODUCE RESPONSIVE INFORMATION FOR MORE THAN 20 WORKING DAYS. 4. FOIA has a strict twenty (20) working day production mandate. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). There must be "full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” Halloran, 874 F.2d at 323 (citing Rose, 425 U.S. at 360– 361); see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(l)-(9). On May 15, 2017, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) produced two partially withheld pages of responsive agency information to Plaintiff, which were originally concealed by USCIS from the Court and Plaintiff, until USCIS transferred the information to the FBI on April 4, 2017; and these records were discovered by USCIS in response to Plaintiff’s July 27, 2015 FOIA request. See Exhibit 25; R. Doc. 5-3. At no time during this lengthy litigation did USCIS ever notify either Plaintiff or this Court that it had fully withheld the responsive agency information in Exhibit 25 from Plaintiff; and USCIS transferred the responsive agency information in Exhibit 25 to the FBI on April 4, 2017 instead of producing the responsive information to Plaintiff. See Exhibit 25. USCIS knowingly and purposefully concealed the fact that it had discovered the responsive agency information in Exhibit 25 for the duration of this litigation until five (5) months after the deadline for Plaintiff to file a pretrial motion to challenge the unlawful withholding. Id.; see R. Doc. 41. 5. FOIA mandates that an agency that receives a FOIA request "shall" "determine within 20 days ... after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B). Because USCIS continues to unlawfully withhold responsive agency information within Exhibit 25 for more than 20 working days, without justifying the Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 12 5 legality of the withholdings by producing a Vaughn index and a segregability analysis; and because USCIS has violated FOIA by refusing to produce all responsive agency information within the FOIA 20 working day mandate, Plaintiff should be granted summary judgment on this basis alone. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i); See Exhibit 25. b. USCIS IS UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING SEGREGABLE RESPONSIVE AGENCY INFORMATION. 6. Agencies have a duty under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) to conduct a segregability analysis for each withheld record, and to prove beyond material doubt that it is not withholding any non-exempt information within each withheld record. See Gahagan, 2015 WL 7777982, at *9-10; Batton, 598 F.3d at 178-79; Oglesby v. U.S. Dep’t of Army, 79 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (D.C.Cir.1996). “[Simply] … showing that [a document] contains some exempt material” is not enough to “justify withholding [the] entire document.” Mead Data Cent., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C.Cir.1977). Instead, “non-exempt portions of a document must be disclosed unless they are inextricably intertwined with exempt portions.” Id. [A]n agency should … describe what proportion of the information in a document is non-exempt and how that material is dispersed throughout the document.” Id. at 261. FOIA requires that "[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Accordingly, once an agency identifies a document that it believes qualifies for a FOIA exemption, "it must undertake a segregability analysis, in which it separates the exempt from the non-exempt portions of the document, and produces the relevant non-exempt information." Edmonds Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 383 F.Supp. 2d 105, 108 (D.D.C. 2005)(citing Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 825). To prevail in a motion for summary judgment, the agency must demonstrate that it has satisfied its segregability analysis obligation, which it may do by using its Vaughn index in conjunction with an agency declaration. See e.g., Peter S. Herrick's Customs & Int'l Trade Newsletter v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. CIV.A. 04-003777 JDB, 2005 WL 3274073, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept.22, 2005). Under Fifth Circuit law, "[i]t is error for a district court to simply approve the withholding of an entire document without entering a finding on segregability, or the lack thereof." Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 5 of 12 6 Batton, 598 F.3d at 178 (citing Schiller v. NLRB, 964 F.2d 1205, 1210 (D.C.Cir. 1992)). Gahagan, 2015 WL 7777982, at *9. 7. Not only does the agency have a duty to conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis on each withheld document, but the District Court also has a sua sponte duty to conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis on each withheld document under FOIA’s de novo review mandate. Id.; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Trans-Pacific Policing Agreement v. U.S. Customs Service, 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 (D.C.Cir.1999); Batton, 598 F.3d at 178-79; Stolt- Nielsen Transp. Group Ltd. v. U.S., 534 F.3d 728 (D.C.Cir.2008). 8. “To show that all ‘reasonably segregable’ material has been released, the government ‘must provide a detailed justification for its non-segregability ….’” Perry-Torres v. U.S. Dept. of State, 404 F.Supp.2d 140, 144 (D.D.C.2005)(quoting Johnson v. Exec. Office for United States Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771, 776 (D.C.Cir.2002)). The agency’s declaration must be supported with a detailed justification for the agency’s reasoning for the withholding and a description of the portion of the information that is non-exempt. Id.; see e.g., Mead Data, 566 F.2d at 260 (holding that the segregability analysis concluding that there “were no factual portions … which could be reasonably segregated” was inadequate without more supporting justifications). “Moreover, the explanation must include a specific finding for each document withheld.” Perry-Torres, 404 F.Supp2d at 145 (emphasis added)(citing Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Dep’t of Air Force, 44 F.Supp.2d 295, 302 (D.D.C.1999)(“[T]he Defendant shall not offer one finding for all documents.”)). 9. USCIS is currently withholding responsive information within two pages of agency records without conducting a segregability analysis to justify the legality of its withholdings. See Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 of 12 7 Exhibit 25. It is clear that USCIS has not met its burden of proving that no segregable, nonexempt information remains withheld within the responsive information in Exhibit 25. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); Exhibit 25. Thus, USCIS has not conducted a legally adequate segregability analysis as mandated by FOIA on the previously concealed records in Exhibit 25. Id. 10. An agency is entitled to prevail on a FOIA motion for summary judgment only when "the agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under the FOIA." People for the American Way Foundation v. National Park Service, 503 F. Supp. 2d 284, 291 (D.D.C. 2007), quoting Greenberg, 10 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (emphasis added). Because USCIS has not proven that it has fully discharged its FOIA obligations by proving that it is unable to reasonably segregate all nonexempt information within the partially withheld responsive records, summary judgment should be granted in Plaintiff's favor on this basis alone. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); Exhibit 25. 11. In addition, this Court has not yet conducted its own segregability analysis as mandated by FOIA and the Fifth Circuit on the, previously concealed, withheld information at issue. See Exhibits 25; 5 U.S.C. § 552(b); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). “Under Fifth Circuit law, ‘[i]t is error for a district court to simply approve the withholding of an entire document without entering a finding on segregability, or the lack thereof.’” See Gahagan, 2015 WL7777982, at *9 (citing Batton, 598 F.3d at 178)); see also Trans-Pac. Policing Agreement v. United States Customs Service, 177 F.3d 1022, 1028 (D.C.Cir.1999)(In the final analysis, the Court “ha[s] an affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte.”). Thus, Plaintiff respectfully moves this Court to conduct a segregability analysis as Congress mandated in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). See Exhibit 25. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 7 of 12 8 c. USCIS IS UNLAWFULLY WITHHOLDING NONEXEMPT FACTUAL INFORMATION. 12. FOIA clearly reads that "Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Also, FOIA exemptions are to be construed narrowly, resolving all doubts in favor of disclosure, and the government bears the burden of establishing that any claimed exemption applies. Associated Press v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 554 F.3d 274 (2nd Cir. 2009). That burden remains with the government agency when it seeks to justify the redaction of identifying information in a particular document as well as when it seeks to withhold an entire document. Id. Only the exempt portions should be segregated and carved out or deleted from the written or electronic record. Mead Data Central, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Air Force, 566 F.2d 242, 260 (D.C.Cir.1977). 13. In USCIS’ most recent FOIA disclosure (via the FBI), USCIS withheld responsive agency information within two pages without segregating and producing the factual information within the withholdings. See Exhibit 25; cf. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)("Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt under this subsection."). By withholding the information in Exhibit 25 without a segregability analysis, USCIS prevents the Court and Plaintiff from determining whether USCIS is being truthful with its exemption or description of the information, and whether its withholdings are lawful under FOIA's nine enumerated exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)-(9). The law is clear that an overbroad abuse of FOIA exemptions is unlawful. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 8 of 12 9 14. The burden of withholding factual observations is always on the agency pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); and the agency must demonstrate that each element of the exemption was met. Bristol-Meyers Co. v. F.T.C., 598 F.2d 18, n. 13 (D.C.Cir.1978). The Supreme Court recognized that if facts and opinions can be separated when a FOIA request is made for an agency report "the Act allows the full light of publicity to be placed on the facts." Mink, 410 U.S. at 108. Agency documents that merely restate facts and do not involve legal or policy matters, and any comments or opinions about these same documents are not privileged. New York Times Co. v. U.S. Department of Defense, 499 F.Supp. 2d 501 (S.D. N.Y. 2007). The privilege also does not apply to emails or notes that contain purely factual material not reflecting the agency's deliberative process. Id. The burden of withholding factual observations is always on the agency pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); and the agency must demonstrate that each element of the exemption was met. Bristol-Meyers Co. v. F.T.C., 598 F.2d 18, n. 13 (D.C.Cir.1978). 15. FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed. Rose, 425 U.S. at 361. The duty of the agency is to segregate disclosable from exempt portions of the same document. The 1974 amendments to FOIA imposed a duty of disclosure for all "reasonably segregable" portions of a record. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). The agency cannot just declare a mass of records exempt; it has the burden of proof under the statute to support its asserted exemptions without making a blanket claim covering a large set of documents. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), on remand to, 383 F.Supp. 1049 (D.D.C. 1974), judgment aff'd, 523 F.2d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 1975). 16. The agency has the statutory burden of proving exempt status and of proving the inability to reasonably segregate portions of the record. A government agency's burden of proof for Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 9 of 12 10 withholding an entire document is heavy; and the government agency must show "that no segregable, nonexempt portions remain withheld." Paisley, 712 F.2d at 700, opinion vacated in part on other grounds, 724 F.2d 201 (D.C.Cir.1984); Allen v. Central Intelligence Agency, 636 F.2d 1287 (D.C.Cir.1980). 17. It is clear that USCIS has not met its burden of proving "that no segregable, nonexempt portions remain withheld," within the previously concealed responsive information within Exhibit 25. Paisley, 712 F.2d at 700; see Exhibit 25. As explained above, in a FOIA case, an agency is entitled to prevail on a motion for summary judgment only when "the agency proves that it has fully discharged its obligations under the FOIA." People for the American Way Foundation v. National Park Service, 503 F. Supp. 2d 284, 291 (D.D.C. 2007), quoting Greenberg, 10 F. Supp. 2d at 11 (emphasis added). Because USCIS has not proven beyond material doubt that it has fully discharged its obligations under FOIA by proving that it is unable to reasonably segregate nonexempt factual information within the withheld records, summary judgment should be granted in Plaintiff's favor on this basis alone; and USCIS should be compelled to release the segregable, nonexempt portions of the responsive agency records in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 25, which were previously concealed from both Plaintiff and the Court for the duration of this litigation. See Exhibit 25. d. USCIS MUST PRODUCE A VAUGHN INDEX EXPLAINING THE LEGALITY OF ALL WITHHELD INFORMATION. 18. "The burden is on the agency to demonstrate, not the requester to disprove, that the materials sought … have not been 'improperly' 'withheld'." U.S. Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 402 U.S. 136, n. 3 (1989). The agency must meet its FOIA burden of proof "beyond material doubt." See Gahagan, 2015 WL 350356, at n. 171. "In order to prevail on an FOIA motion for Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 10 of 12 11 summary judgment, the defending agency must prove that each document that falls within the class requested either has been produced, is unidentifiable, or is wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements.” Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C.Cir.1978). “While there is no set form for a Vaughn index, the D.C. Circuit has noted three important elements for an adequate Vaughn index: (1) the index should be one document that is complete in itself, (2) the index must adequately describe the withheld documents or deletions, (3) the index must state the particular FOIA exemption, and explain why the exemption applies.” Schoenman v. F.B.I., 604 F.Supp.2d 174, 196 (D.D.C.2009)(citing Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C.Cir.1979)). USCIS has not produced a Vaughn index to support the legality of withholding the responsive agency information within Exhibit 25. FOIA does not allow USCIS to withhold responsive agency information, and then fail (or refuse) to include the withheld information on a Vaughn index to prove the legality of the withholding. Gahagan, 2015 WL 350356, at *17. Thus, because USCIS has failed to produce a legally adequate Vaughn index to prove the legality of the withholdings in the previously concealed information within Exhibit 25 beyond material doubt, Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted on this basis alone. III. CONCLUSION 19. USCIS has the burden to prove beyond material doubt that it has not improperly withheld responsive agency information or segregable information within the previously concealed responsive agency records in Exhibit 25. Because USCIS cannot meet its mandated burden of proof as explained supra, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Employees v. City Pub. Serv. Bd., 40 F.3d 698, 712 (5th Cir. 1994). Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 11 of 12 12 Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2017. /s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. La. State Bar #31165 The Immigration Law Firm of New Orleans 3445 North Causeway Blvd., Ste. 524 Metairie, LA. 70002 Tel: (504) 931-5355 Fax: (504) 836-0070 MichaelGahagan@ImmigrationLawNewOrleans.com Pro Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of such filing to all counsel of record to this proceeding by ECF. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-1 Filed 05/22/17 Page 12 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN ) CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 15-6218 "A"(3) ) v. ) JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) MAGISTRATE KNOWLES IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS 1. For Plaintiff’s statement of material facts as required under Local Rule 56.1, Plaintiff states as follows: I. MATERIAL FACTS 2. Plaintiff is an Immigration Attorney at The Immigration Law Firm of New Orleans. R. Doc. 1, at ¶3. Plaintiff requested specific agency records on behalf of his client ("Plaintiff’s Client")1, which is in the possession of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services ("USCIS") and the United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), for the purpose of obtaining the information needed to properly represent Plaintiff’s Client in his currently pending removal proceedings at the New Orleans, Louisiana Executive Office for Immigration Review ("Immigration Court"). R. Doc. 1, at ¶¶2-3. 1 Plaintiff’s Client wishes to keep his name out of the court filings, so respectfully, Plaintiff wishes to refer to him as “Plaintiff’s Client.” Also, Michael W. Gahagan is both the FOIA requester and the Plaintiff in the instant proceedings, so Plaintiff’s Client’s name is irrelevant and immaterial to the instant lawsuit. In addition, Attorney-Client Privilege demands that Plaintiff maintain his client’s anonymity if his client so requests. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 11 2 3. Plaintiff's Client, a Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States, hired Plaintiff to represent him in his currently pending removal proceedings at the New Orleans, Louisiana Immigration Court. Id. at ¶18. a. USCIS FOIA Request 4. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff properly filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request for specific agency records with USCIS pursuant to FOIA via U.S. Postal Service certified mail, return receipt, so that Plaintiff can effectively represent his client and protect his client's Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and right to procedural due process. Id. at ¶19; R. Doc. 5-3. Plaintiff requested the following agency records from USCIS: 1. I am requesting a copy of Mr. [ ]'s entire alien immigration file ("A- File"), entire temporary file ("T-File"), entire Receipt File, and Form I-213 ("Record of Deportable Alien") in the possession of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2. I am requesting any and all documents, forms, or other written, photographic, electronic, computer generated, or recorded materials relating to Mr. [ ] in the possession of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. This includes, but is not limited to, any information relating to his entry into the United States; his stay in the United States; any investigation(s) carried out by any U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employee relating to his immigration status; and any and all documents and materials filed in support of his application for any visa, petitions for alien relative (USCIS Forms I-130), applications for lawful permanent residence (USCIS Forms I- 485), and petitions to remove conditions on residence (USCIS Forms I-751). 3. I am requesting any and all documents, forms, or other written, photographic, electronic, computer generated, or recorded materials relating to Mr. [ ] in the possession of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fraud Detection and National Security Unit. 4. I am requesting copies of any electronic and/or handwritten notes written by any USCIS employee in relation to the adjudication of Mr. [ ]'s visa application, his petitions for alien relative (USCIS Forms I-130), his applications for lawful permanent residence (USCIS Forms I-485), and his petitions to remove conditions on residence (USCIS Forms I-751). Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 11 3 5. I am also requesting a copy of any emails sent to, or sent from, any government employee working at the USCIS New Orleans Field Office which mentions Mr. [ ]'s name or Alien number (A[ ]), regardless of whether the email address that sent or received the email is an official government email address, an unofficial government email address, or a personal email address. The requested emails should be disclosed if they are located in, but not limited to, the recipient's or sender's Inbox folder, Drafts folder, Sent folder, Bulk Mail folder, Templates folder, and/or Trash folder. Id. (emphasis in original). 5. On August 6, 2015, USCIS acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's FOIA request, which was properly filed with the USCIS National Records Center on July 27, 2015. Id. at ¶20; R. Doc. 5-3. 6. As of the date that the Complaint was filed, USCIS had neither conducted a legally adequate search for the requested agency records, nor had USCIS produced any responsive agency records to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶21; R. Doc. 5-3; Exhibit 21. In addition, the lawfully required Vaughn index, fully describing the search methods employed and individually describing the lawful basis for each exemption on each page of information, had not been produced to Plaintiff as mandated by FOIA. Id. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C.Cir.1973)(The government must provide detailed justification of its exemption claims, and it must specifically itemize and index each document or portion thereof so as to show which were disclosable and which were exempt); Batton v. Evers, 598 F.3d 169, 173 (5th Cir.2010)("the district court abused its discretion by failing to order a Vaughn index"). 7. On December 11, 2015, Plaintiff received the first production of responsive agency records from USCIS. See Exhibit 9. The first USCIS production consisted of 1,261 total pages, of which 731 pages were produced in full, 240 pages were partially withheld, 222 pages were fully withheld (R. Doc. 5-5), two (2) pages were fully withheld and transferred in full to the U.S. Department of State (“DOS”) (R. Doc. 5-6, at 2-3), and 66 pages were fully withheld and transferred in full to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) (R. Doc. 5-6, at 4-69). Id.; Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 3 of 11 4 R. Doc. 5-5; R. Doc. 5-6. The first USCIS production was Bates stamped from #1 to #1261. This first production did not contain a Vaughn index, nor did it contain an affidavit explaining the adequacy of the search. 8. On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff received a second production of responsive agency records from USCIS. Exhibit 10. An email, written and sent by USCIS Office of Chief Counsel employee Howard S. Roth and delivered at 9:12 a.m., explained that “USCIS has processed approximately 1400 responsive pages that were not included in its initial release.” Id. There were no documents attached to this initial email. Id. A second email followed, sent by Mr. Roth on 9:17 a.m., and it contained an attachment consisting of a total of only 113 pages. The second USCIS production of 113 pages were Bates stamped from #1 to #113. The second USCIS production consisted of only 113 total pages, of which 92 pages were fully withheld (Exhibit 11), and 3 pages were fully withheld and transferred in full to CBP (Exhibit 12). Exhibits 10-12. This second production did not contain a Vaughn index, nor did it contain an affidavit explaining the adequacy of the search. Because USCIS only produced 113 out of the “approximately 1400” pages being withheld by USCIS, USCIS continued to withhold approximately 1,287 pages of responsive agency records from Plaintiff. Id. 9. Also, on January 29, 2016, Plaintiff received a “Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston” (“Eggleston Declaration”), as well as a document entitled “USCIS Vaughn Index” from Defense Counsel. 10. On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff received a third production of responsive agency records from USCIS, which was emailed to Plaintiff by Howard S. Roth. Exhibit 13. This email contained an attachment consisting of a total of only 216 pages. The third USCIS production of 216 pages were Bates stamped from #1,262 to #1,477. The third USCIS production consisted of Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 4 of 11 5 only 216 total pages; and this third production did not contain a Vaughn index, nor did it contain an affidavit explaining the adequacy of the search. Because USCIS only produced 216 out of the “approximately 1400” pages being withheld by USCIS, USCIS continued to withhold approximately 1,071 pages of responsive agency records from Plaintiff. Exhibits 10; Exhibit 13. 11. Included within USCIS’ first response, USCIS partially withheld 14 pages of responsive agency records without producing the nonexempt segregable information contained within those pages of records as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Exhibit 14. Also, included within USCIS’ third response, USCIS partially withheld 57 pages of responsive emails without producing the nonexempt segregable information contained within those emails as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Exhibit 15. The aforementioned records are in addition to the 320 fully withheld agency records that are being fully withheld without producing the nonexempt segregable information contained within those fully withheld records as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). See R. Doc. 5- 5; R. Doc. 5-6, at 2-3; R. Doc. 5-6, at 4-69 (as explained infra, one of these withheld records, entitled “Page 13 of 66,” is still currently being fully withheld from Plaintiff); Exhibits 11-12. 12. On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff received a letter directly from DOS stating that DOS would fully withhold the two agency records that were transferred to DOS from USCIS after the instant lawsuit was filed. See Exhibit 16. DOS did not produce the two fully withheld records, DOS did not produce a legally adequate Vaughn index to justify the legality of its withholding of all information within those two records, and DOS did not produce the nonexempt segregable information contained within the two withheld records as mandated by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). Id.; R. Doc. 5-6, at 2-3. 13. On February 12, 2016, Plaintiff received a third response directly from ICE, which contained copies of the same 65 records that were submitted in the first two productions, but Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 5 of 11 6 which also contained a new, fully withheld, record entitled “Page 13 of 66.” Exhibit 17. Plaintiff received a first, second, and fourth production of only 65 of the 66 fully withheld records on January 19, 2016, January 27, 2016, and February 18, 2016 respectively, but none of these three ICE productions contained the record entitled “Page 13 of 66.” Id.; see R. Doc. 5-6, at 4-69; Exhibit 18 (first, second, and third production of records only producing 65 pages out of the previously fully withheld 66 pages). ICE did not produce a Vaughn index to Plaintiff that included “Page 13 of 66.” 14. By letter dated March 2, 2016 from Defense Counsel, Plaintiff received a “Supplemental Declaration of Jill A. Eggleston” (“Supplemental Eggleston Declaration”), as well as a document entitled “USCIS Supplemental Vaughn Index.” These documents were filed into the record under seal by Defense Counsel. 15. Also, by letter dated March 2, 2016 from Defense Counsel, Plaintiff received a “Declaration of Fernando Pineiro in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (“Pineiro Declaration”), as well as a document entitled “Detailed Description of Sixty Five (65) Pages of Responsive Records Referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” This document lists only “Sixty Five (65) Pages” withheld from Plaintiff, even though 66 pages were fully withheld from Plaintiff and transferred from USCIS to ICE after suit was filed. See R. Doc. 5-6, at 4-69. The full withholding of information within record “Page 13 of 66” is not legally justified in Mr. Pineiro’s Vaughn index, which only considered the other 65 pages of documents transferred from USCIS to ICE after suit was filed. Id.; Exhibit 17. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 6 of 11 7 b. CBP FOIA Request 16. On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff properly filed a FOIA request for specific agency records with CBP pursuant to FOIA via U.S. Postal Service certified mail, return receipt, so that Plaintiff can effectively represent his client and protect his client's Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel and right to procedural due process. R. Doc. 1, at ¶23; R. Doc. 5-4. Plaintiff requested the following agency records from CBP: Specifically, I am requesting any and all documents, forms, or other written, photographic, electronic, computer generated, or recorded materials relating to Mr. [ ] in the possession of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This includes, but is not limited to, any information relating to his entry into the United States, his stay in the United States, and any investigation(s) carried out by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection relating to his immigration status. Id. (emphasis in original). 17. CBP never acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff's FOIA request, which was properly filed with the appropriate CBP office on July 29, 2015. Id. at ¶24; R. Doc. 5-4, at 5; Exhibit 21. 18. As of the date that the Complaint was filed, CBP had neither conducted a legally adequate search for the requested agency records, nor had CBP produced any responsive agency records to Plaintiff. Id. at ¶25; Exhibit 21. In addition, at the time the Complaint was filed, the lawfully required Vaughn index, fully describing the search methods employed and individually describing the lawful basis for each exemption on each page of information, had not been produced to Plaintiff as mandated by FOIA. Id. See Vaughn, 484 F.2d 820; Batton, 598 F.3d at 173. 19. On January 5, 2016, CBP filed into the record a FOIA response letter, which was dated August 20, 2015. R. Doc. 15-2, at 1. This letter was never delivered or produced to Plaintiff prior to January 5, 2016. Id; Exhibit 21. On January 5, 2016, CBP also filed into the record fifteen (15) Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 7 of 11 8 pages of responsive agency records. Id. at 2-16. These records were also never delivered or produced to Plaintiff prior to January 5, 2016. Id.; Exhibit 21. 20. On January 29, 2016, Plaintiff received a “Declaration of Sabrina Burroughs” (“Burroughs Declaration”). Although, CBP states in its Burroughs Declaration that “by letter dated August 20, 2015, CBP issued its response to the Plaintiff,” this statement is false since Plaintiff never received any response whatsoever from CBP pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA request with CBP until January 5, 2016 when Defense Counsel filed the CBP documents into the record. See Defendants’ “Declaration of Sabrina Burroughs,” at ¶11; Exhibit 21. 21. CBP withheld a document filed into the record in toto while only describing the complete withholding of information as “REDACTED COPY FOR FOIA ID: 2015045065”; and CBP gave no description of the record, nor the legality of the withheld information within the record. R. Doc. 15-2, at 4. In addition, CBP withheld a document filed into the record in toto without any description of the record or the legality of the withheld information within the record. R. Doc. 15-2, at 16. 22. No legally adequate Vaughn index was produced to Plaintiff or the Court to account for the legality of the withheld information within the two aforementioned fully withheld responsive agency records. R. Doc. 15-2, at 4; R. Doc. 15-2, at 16. 23. On August 19, 2016, this Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment. R. Doc. 53. 24. On September 7, 2016, this Court issued another order in Plaintiff’s favor. R. Doc. 55. 25. On November 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Third Motion for Summary Judgment, and that Motion is currently pending with the Court. See R. Doc. 62. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 8 of 11 9 26. On November 15, 2016, Defendants filed their Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and that Motion is currently pending with the Court. See R. Doc. 63. 27. After November 15, 2016, pursuant to this Honorable Court’s Scheduling Order, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants are allowed to file any pretrial motions “unless good cause is shown.” R. Doc. 41, at 1. c. USCIS Secretly Withheld Responsive Agency Records from Plaintiff and the Court, and then Transferred the Records to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on April 4, 2017 28. On April 12, 2017,2 five (5) months after the Court’s pretrial motion deadline, Plaintiff received a letter from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) informing Plaintiff that USCIS had transferred agency records from USCIS to the FBI, which were responsive to Plaintiff’s original FOIA request filed with USCIS on July 27, 2015. See Exhibit 25; R. Doc. 41, at 1. In its letter to Plaintiff, the FBI wrote that USCIS transferred the fully withheld responsive agency information to the FBI on April 4, 2017; therefore, this responsive agency information was in the possession of USCIS at the time Plaintiff filed his FOIA request with USCIS on July 27, 2015, and throughout this lengthy litigation; and USCIS concealed the responsive agency information from the Court and Plaintiff for five months after the deadline for Plaintiff to file a pretrial motion on the concealed responsive agency information. Id. At no time during this litigation did USCIS ever notify either Plaintiff or this Honorable Court that it had discovered, fully withheld, and transferred responsive agency information to the FBI instead of producing the responsive agency records to Plaintiff. 2 The FBI’s first letter was dated April 5, 2017, and postmarked as mailed to Plaintiff on April 7, 2017. See Exhibit 25. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 9 of 11 10 29. On May 15, 2017,3 Plaintiff received two partially withheld pages of responsive agency information from the FBI, which were responsive to Plaintiff’s July 27, 2015 FOIA request to USCIS, but which were transferred to the FBI from USCIS on April 4, 2017 without notifying either the Court or Plaintiff that these records were discovered in direct response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request, and that they were being fully withheld from Plaintiff until they were transferred to the FBI on April 4, 2017. Id. These two partially withheld responsive agency records are not accounted for on any of USCIS’ Vaughn indices, nor has USCIS ever acknowledged that these responsive records exist, nor has USCIS ever notified either Plaintiff or the Court that these responsive records exist. USCIS knowingly and purposefully concealed the fact that it had in its possession certain responsive agency information for the length of this litigation and then transferred the responsive agency information to the FBI on April 4, 2017, five months after Plaintiff was allowed to file a pretrial motion to address this unlawfully withheld information. See Exhibit 25; R. Doc. 41, at 1. 30. USCIS has not conducted a segregability analysis on the two pages of partially withheld agency information that it transferred to the FBI on April 4, 2017. Id. Also, this Court has not conducted a segregability analysis on the two pages of partially withheld agency information that USCIS transferred to the FBI on April 4, 2017. Id. In addition, USCIS has not produced a Vaughn index to justify the legality of its withholding of information from the two pages of partially withheld agency records, which USCIS transferred to the FBI on April 4, 2017. Id. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2017. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. La. State Bar #31165 3 The FBI’s second letter was dated May 10, 2017, and postmarked as mailed to Plaintiff on May 10, 2017. Id. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 10 of 11 11 The Immigration Law Firm of New Orleans 3445 North Causeway Blvd., Ste. 524 Metairie, LA. 70002 Tel: (504) 931-5355 Fax: (504) 836-0070 MichaelGahagan@ImmigrationLawNewOrleans.com Pro Se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of such filing to all counsel of record to this proceeding by ECF. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-2 Filed 05/22/17 Page 11 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN ) CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 15-6218 "A"(3) ) v. ) JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) MAGISTRATE KNOWLES IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NOTICE OF SUBMISSION TO: ALL DEFENDANTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Michael W. Gahagan will bring on for hearing his Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment on May 31, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, Louisiana. Respectfully submitted this 16th day of May, 2017. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. La. State Bar #31165 The Immigration Law Firm of New Orleans 3445 North Causeway Blvd., Ste. 524 Metairie, LA. 70002 Tel: (504) 931-5355 Fax: (504) 836-0070 MichaelGahagan@ImmigrationLawNewOrleans.com Pro Se Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 78-6 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 282 3 22 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 16, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of such filing to all counsel of record to this proceeding by ECF. s/ Michael W. Gahagan Michael W. Gahagan, Esq. Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 78-6 Filed 05/16/17 Page 2 of 282 3 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MICHAEL W. GAHAGAN ) CIVIL ACTION ) Plaintiff, ) No.: 15-6218 "A"(3) ) v. ) JUDGE JAY C. ZAINEY ) UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND ) MAGISTRATE KNOWLES IMMIGRATION SERVICES, ET AL. ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) ORDER Considering the foregoing Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion for Summary Judgment, and the reasons stated therein, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) USCIS shall properly respond to Plaintiff's FOIA requests pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552, and produce forthwith any and all non-exempt responsive information. (2) USCIS shall produce all reasonably segregable information withheld within all responsive agency records pursuant to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (3) USCIS shall conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis of all withheld responsive agency information, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (4) This Honorable Court shall conduct a legally adequate segregability analysis of all withheld responsive agency information pursuant to its FOIA de novo review mandate and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). (5) USCIS shall produce a legally adequate Vaughn index of any and all responsive agency records withheld under claim of exemption as enumerated under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)- Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 1 of 2 2 (9); or in the alternative, USCIS shall present all responsive agency records withheld under any lawful FOIA exemption for an in camera inspection. (6) USCIS is enjoined from continuing to withhold any non-exempt responsive agency information pursuant to Plaintiff's FOIA request, as mandated by FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of _______________, 2017. ______________________________________ JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:15-cv-06218-JCZ-DEK Document 82-4 Filed 05/22/17 Page 2 of 2