Gawker Media and its counsel Gregg Thomas filed a complaint against the FBI and EOUSA under the Freedom of Information Act seeking records related to a 2012 FBI investigation into a sex tape of Hulk Hogan. Gawker sought the records for its defense in a $100 million lawsuit Hogan filed against it for publishing excerpts of the tape. The FBI denied the request citing a law enforcement exemption, while the EOUSA failed to respond. Gawker alleges the agencies have wrongfully withheld records in violation of FOIA and seeks an order compelling their release.
Judicial Watch, Inc. filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State for failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to both agencies seeking records related to briefings about activities in Benghazi, Libya between 2011-2014. The agencies did not issue a determination or provide responsive records within the required 20-day period. Judicial Watch is suing to compel the agencies to search for and release responsive records.
This document provides discovery materials to the defendants in a criminal case involving charges related to exporting aircraft parts to Iran. It includes:
1) CDs and images of computer data seized from the defendants containing emails and files.
2) Reports of post-arrest interviews of the two defendants.
3) Notification that physical documents and items seized can be inspected by the defendants, and copies of documents ordered.
4) A request for reciprocal discovery from the defendants and commitment to provide ongoing discovery required by law, including Brady and Giglio materials.
This document is the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case. It argues that the Plaintiff's motion should be denied for the following reasons: 1) the records sought were compiled for a law enforcement purpose by the FBI; 2) Exemption 7(A) applies because disclosure of the records could reasonably interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation by another agency; 3) affidavits submitted by the FBI are presumed to be made in good faith and the FBI's invocation of exemptions is entitled to deference. The response provides undisputed facts and arguments supporting the application of Exemption 7(A) to withhold the requested records.
Howard hired a private investigator to conduct surveillance on his ex-wife Patricia after being ordered to pay her monthly maintenance. The investigator recorded extensive video and notes of Patricia and her partner Ellen, including intimate moments, without their knowledge or consent. Patricia's lawyer demanded copies of the investigator's materials from Howard's lawyer during discovery for a potential legal action, but was refused. Patricia has the right to obtain the materials during discovery even if they are not admissible in court. The notes would be admissible if the investigator testifies, but videos with audio may not be due to privacy laws. Patricia is considering suing Howard for invasion of privacy regarding the surveillance.
This letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office requests to admit evidence of uncharged acts by the defendants in a criminal case involving computer hacking and harassment. The defendants, Felix Roque (the mayor of West New York) and his son Joseph Roque, are charged with conspiring to disrupt a website critical of Felix's administration through hacking into email and social media accounts. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that after obtaining information from the hacked accounts, Felix contacted individuals associated with the website to harass and intimidate them, as this evidence directly proves the charged conspiracy and harassment offenses.
This document is a court opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding Daniel Guevara-Vilca's appeal of his convictions for possession of child pornography. The court found that the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose a statement Guevara-Vilca made to police before receiving his Miranda rights. This violation prejudiced the defense because it prevented them from pursuing suppression of all of Guevara-Vilca's statements. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also noted the sentencing issue of whether a life sentence in this case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment should be seriously considered if Guevara-Vilca is
U.S. Patent Reform 2011: America Invents ActMintz Levin
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011. It discusses revisions to standards for prior art and moving to a first-to-file system. The grace period for public disclosures is now limited to those by the inventor or derived from the inventor. Procedures for post-issuance review like inter partes review and post-grant review were established. Litigation changes include the best mode requirement and new rules for venue and joinder.
This document is an affidavit from Eugene F. Yeates, Chief of the Office of Policy at the National Security Agency (NSA), in support of NSA's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy seeking documents about UFOs under the Freedom of Information Act. The affidavit describes NSA's referral of documents located regarding UFOs from the Central Intelligence Agency to NSA. It explains that NSA has denied releasing the documents as they are classified and exempt from disclosure under relevant statutes. The affidavit also provides background on NSA's mission regarding signals intelligence and interception of foreign communications.
Judicial Watch, Inc. filed a complaint against the U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of State for failing to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests. Judicial Watch submitted FOIA requests to both agencies seeking records related to briefings about activities in Benghazi, Libya between 2011-2014. The agencies did not issue a determination or provide responsive records within the required 20-day period. Judicial Watch is suing to compel the agencies to search for and release responsive records.
This document provides discovery materials to the defendants in a criminal case involving charges related to exporting aircraft parts to Iran. It includes:
1) CDs and images of computer data seized from the defendants containing emails and files.
2) Reports of post-arrest interviews of the two defendants.
3) Notification that physical documents and items seized can be inspected by the defendants, and copies of documents ordered.
4) A request for reciprocal discovery from the defendants and commitment to provide ongoing discovery required by law, including Brady and Giglio materials.
This document is the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a FOIA case. It argues that the Plaintiff's motion should be denied for the following reasons: 1) the records sought were compiled for a law enforcement purpose by the FBI; 2) Exemption 7(A) applies because disclosure of the records could reasonably interfere with an ongoing law enforcement investigation by another agency; 3) affidavits submitted by the FBI are presumed to be made in good faith and the FBI's invocation of exemptions is entitled to deference. The response provides undisputed facts and arguments supporting the application of Exemption 7(A) to withhold the requested records.
Howard hired a private investigator to conduct surveillance on his ex-wife Patricia after being ordered to pay her monthly maintenance. The investigator recorded extensive video and notes of Patricia and her partner Ellen, including intimate moments, without their knowledge or consent. Patricia's lawyer demanded copies of the investigator's materials from Howard's lawyer during discovery for a potential legal action, but was refused. Patricia has the right to obtain the materials during discovery even if they are not admissible in court. The notes would be admissible if the investigator testifies, but videos with audio may not be due to privacy laws. Patricia is considering suing Howard for invasion of privacy regarding the surveillance.
This letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office requests to admit evidence of uncharged acts by the defendants in a criminal case involving computer hacking and harassment. The defendants, Felix Roque (the mayor of West New York) and his son Joseph Roque, are charged with conspiring to disrupt a website critical of Felix's administration through hacking into email and social media accounts. The prosecution seeks to introduce evidence that after obtaining information from the hacked accounts, Felix contacted individuals associated with the website to harass and intimidate them, as this evidence directly proves the charged conspiracy and harassment offenses.
This document is a court opinion from the District Court of Appeal of Florida regarding Daniel Guevara-Vilca's appeal of his convictions for possession of child pornography. The court found that the State committed a discovery violation by failing to disclose a statement Guevara-Vilca made to police before receiving his Miranda rights. This violation prejudiced the defense because it prevented them from pursuing suppression of all of Guevara-Vilca's statements. As a result, the court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also noted the sentencing issue of whether a life sentence in this case would constitute cruel and unusual punishment should be seriously considered if Guevara-Vilca is
U.S. Patent Reform 2011: America Invents ActMintz Levin
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011. It discusses revisions to standards for prior art and moving to a first-to-file system. The grace period for public disclosures is now limited to those by the inventor or derived from the inventor. Procedures for post-issuance review like inter partes review and post-grant review were established. Litigation changes include the best mode requirement and new rules for venue and joinder.
This document is an affidavit from Eugene F. Yeates, Chief of the Office of Policy at the National Security Agency (NSA), in support of NSA's motion for summary judgment in a lawsuit brought by Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy seeking documents about UFOs under the Freedom of Information Act. The affidavit describes NSA's referral of documents located regarding UFOs from the Central Intelligence Agency to NSA. It explains that NSA has denied releasing the documents as they are classified and exempt from disclosure under relevant statutes. The affidavit also provides background on NSA's mission regarding signals intelligence and interception of foreign communications.
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As DefendantJRachelle
This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court briefChris Harden
1. Vonlee Titlow was convicted of second-degree murder for participating in his uncle's murder with his aunt Billie Rogers in order to inherit the uncle's estate. Titlow had originally agreed to a plea deal but later withdrew the plea.
2. Titlow filed for habeas corpus relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his attorney Frederick Toca provided deficient counsel by allowing him to withdraw his plea and maintain his claim of innocence.
3. The Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief, but the state argues it failed to give appropriate deference to the state court ruling under AEDPA. The state argues Titlow failed to meet the Strickland and Lafler tests to prove ineffective assistance of counsel
The document provides background information on the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case:
1) Dred Scott sued for his freedom after living in states where slavery was illegal, but the Supreme Court ruled against him, finding that neither he nor any person of African ancestry could be US citizens.
2) The case had broad implications, establishing that Congress could not prohibit slavery in US territories and that slaves were property without rights.
3) The document outlines the facts of Dred Scott's case and the Supreme Court's decision, which had devastating consequences for the rights of African Americans.
The court ordered the FBI and EOUSA to turn over documents responsive to a FOIA request by certain deadlines. The FBI must turn over two CDs and 1,168 documents to plaintiffs by June 26th. The EOUSA must turn over non-exempt documents, reconsider redacted emails, and turn over segregable documents by the same date. Both agencies must also submit categorical indexes and declarations supporting claimed exemptions by June 30th. The court will hold a hearing on July 2nd to rule on the claimed exemptions and whether any withheld documents must be produced.
1. The case was registered against 5 accused from the USA - Ahmed Binadullah Ali, Khushida Yusuf, Mohd. Jamal, Rashida Binty Usup Ali, and Yu Sup for various offenses under the Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act, and IPC for violating Covid-19 restrictions while being in Delhi in March 2020.
2. The prosecution examined 56 witnesses and relied on documents to prove the charges. The accused denied the charges and knowledge of the restrictions.
3. The prosecution argued that ingredients of the offenses were proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court had to determine if restrictions were adequately communicated and if accused had knowledge of them
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is the government's response to the defendant's petition for review of the magistrate's order denying bond and ordering pretrial detention. The government argues that the defendant has not demonstrated any new information warranting reopening of the detention hearing. It also argues the magistrate's findings that the defendant poses a flight risk were not clearly erroneous. The government asserts the defendant's petition should be denied.
Ex-NSA Contractor Stole at Least 500 Million Pages of Records and SecretsThe Hacker News
The government is seeking the continued pretrial detention of Harold T. Martin based on the danger his release would pose to national security and the risk of flight. The evidence against Martin is overwhelming, as he was found in possession of over 50 terabytes of highly classified documents and information spanning two decades, including some marked Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Martin held positions of trust providing him access to classified information, but violated that trust through the theft and retention of documents he was not authorized to possess. His crimes were extremely serious and endangered national security.
The document is an appellate court opinion regarding a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Carlos Flores seeking to quash a trial court order compelling him to submit to paternity testing. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order, finding that Mr. Flores has established he would suffer irreparable harm if the order stood and that the order departed from the essential requirements of law. The court found that the trial court failed to determine whether good cause existed for the testing or whether it would be in the child's best interests.
This document provides instructions and information for completing Standard Form 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records. It explains that the form is used to request information from military records and certain identifying information is needed to locate records. It outlines where to mail the form depending on the type of record requested and provides definitions to help complete the form.
Dhs childhood arrival procedures are not childmcohenlaw
The editorial summarizes potential issues and hidden dangers with DHS's new deferred action program for certain individuals who entered the US as children:
1. Meeting the criteria of the program may be difficult to prove, as DHS does not always accept documents at face value and has strict definitions of terms like "continuous residence."
2. Applicants who traveled in and out of the country could be seen as lying about their intent to reside in the US.
3. It may be difficult to prove initial presence in the US on the required date.
4. The program's terms are ambiguous and open to strict interpretation by DHS, with denials potentially leading to deportation and felony prosecution.
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
U.S. Supreme Court Order On The Travel Ban Appeals, June 26, 2017Honolulu Civil Beat
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and partially stayed injunctions blocking enforcement of Executive Order 13780, which suspended entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. Lower courts had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, finding the order likely violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court's partial stay allows the 90-day travel ban to take effect but exempts foreigners with bona fide relationships with U.S. entities or individuals. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall on the constitutionality of the executive order.
Cia director grandiosity v. abilt justicePublicLeaks
This document is a declaration by John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting the state secrets privilege and CIA statutory privileges to prevent disclosure of classified information in a lawsuit brought by a former CIA employee. Brennan asserts these privileges to protect information about specific CIA intelligence operations, the identities and roles of covert employees, and sources and methods. He argues that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause serious or grave damage to national security.
This document provides guidance on preparing for and taking depositions. It recommends thoroughly researching the case file, conducting interviews, and using judicial discovery processes to learn essential information before depositions. The document outlines goals for depositions such as obtaining admissions, limiting testimony, and evaluating witnesses. It also provides tips for setting an agenda, knowing legal elements, and using available online tools and databases to efficiently research people, addresses, property records, and more for deposition preparation.
The document is a correspondence from the United States Department of State to Judicial Watch regarding a Freedom of Information Act request. It states that the Department has identified 41 additional documents responsive to the request, of which 25 can be released in full and 16 can be released with redactions. It also notes that 3 documents previously released in part can now have additional information released. The letter directs any further questions to the Department of Justice.
This document provides guidance on preparing for and conducting depositions. It discusses gathering documents and information in advance through discovery and interviews. It recommends talking to the client to understand the facts and potential witnesses, and talking to opposing counsel to understand their position without arguing your own case. The document outlines goals for depositions such as obtaining admissions, limiting testimony, and evaluating witnesses. It provides strategic advice such as having a structured plan and not volunteering extra information. The "Ten Commandments" section advises the client or deponent to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, and admit mistakes.
Apresentação oficial goobets - By Joaquina AbelhaJoaquina Abelha
A frase enfatiza que o caminho para o sucesso requer esforço contínuo, e que devemos acreditar em nosso potencial e nunca desistir para alcançar vitórias.
Order Granting Addition Of Susan Brown As DefendantJRachelle
This order grants the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add new parties and factual allegations learned during discovery. The plaintiff seeks to add three individuals ("Doe defendants") identified during depositions as being involved in removing property from the estate. The plaintiff also seeks to add an attorney and her law firm who received estate property from one of the defendants. The only opposition comes from the attorney and law firm, but the court finds that allowing the amendments would not be prejudicial or futile. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to amend is granted.
Titlow v. Burt U.S. Supreme Court briefChris Harden
1. Vonlee Titlow was convicted of second-degree murder for participating in his uncle's murder with his aunt Billie Rogers in order to inherit the uncle's estate. Titlow had originally agreed to a plea deal but later withdrew the plea.
2. Titlow filed for habeas corpus relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically that his attorney Frederick Toca provided deficient counsel by allowing him to withdraw his plea and maintain his claim of innocence.
3. The Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief, but the state argues it failed to give appropriate deference to the state court ruling under AEDPA. The state argues Titlow failed to meet the Strickland and Lafler tests to prove ineffective assistance of counsel
The document provides background information on the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court case:
1) Dred Scott sued for his freedom after living in states where slavery was illegal, but the Supreme Court ruled against him, finding that neither he nor any person of African ancestry could be US citizens.
2) The case had broad implications, establishing that Congress could not prohibit slavery in US territories and that slaves were property without rights.
3) The document outlines the facts of Dred Scott's case and the Supreme Court's decision, which had devastating consequences for the rights of African Americans.
The court ordered the FBI and EOUSA to turn over documents responsive to a FOIA request by certain deadlines. The FBI must turn over two CDs and 1,168 documents to plaintiffs by June 26th. The EOUSA must turn over non-exempt documents, reconsider redacted emails, and turn over segregable documents by the same date. Both agencies must also submit categorical indexes and declarations supporting claimed exemptions by June 30th. The court will hold a hearing on July 2nd to rule on the claimed exemptions and whether any withheld documents must be produced.
1. The case was registered against 5 accused from the USA - Ahmed Binadullah Ali, Khushida Yusuf, Mohd. Jamal, Rashida Binty Usup Ali, and Yu Sup for various offenses under the Epidemic Diseases Act, Disaster Management Act, and IPC for violating Covid-19 restrictions while being in Delhi in March 2020.
2. The prosecution examined 56 witnesses and relied on documents to prove the charges. The accused denied the charges and knowledge of the restrictions.
3. The prosecution argued that ingredients of the offenses were proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court had to determine if restrictions were adequately communicated and if accused had knowledge of them
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is the government's response to the defendant's petition for review of the magistrate's order denying bond and ordering pretrial detention. The government argues that the defendant has not demonstrated any new information warranting reopening of the detention hearing. It also argues the magistrate's findings that the defendant poses a flight risk were not clearly erroneous. The government asserts the defendant's petition should be denied.
Ex-NSA Contractor Stole at Least 500 Million Pages of Records and SecretsThe Hacker News
The government is seeking the continued pretrial detention of Harold T. Martin based on the danger his release would pose to national security and the risk of flight. The evidence against Martin is overwhelming, as he was found in possession of over 50 terabytes of highly classified documents and information spanning two decades, including some marked Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Martin held positions of trust providing him access to classified information, but violated that trust through the theft and retention of documents he was not authorized to possess. His crimes were extremely serious and endangered national security.
The document is an appellate court opinion regarding a petition for writ of certiorari filed by Carlos Flores seeking to quash a trial court order compelling him to submit to paternity testing. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order, finding that Mr. Flores has established he would suffer irreparable harm if the order stood and that the order departed from the essential requirements of law. The court found that the trial court failed to determine whether good cause existed for the testing or whether it would be in the child's best interests.
This document provides instructions and information for completing Standard Form 180, Request Pertaining to Military Records. It explains that the form is used to request information from military records and certain identifying information is needed to locate records. It outlines where to mail the form depending on the type of record requested and provides definitions to help complete the form.
Dhs childhood arrival procedures are not childmcohenlaw
The editorial summarizes potential issues and hidden dangers with DHS's new deferred action program for certain individuals who entered the US as children:
1. Meeting the criteria of the program may be difficult to prove, as DHS does not always accept documents at face value and has strict definitions of terms like "continuous residence."
2. Applicants who traveled in and out of the country could be seen as lying about their intent to reside in the US.
3. It may be difficult to prove initial presence in the US on the required date.
4. The program's terms are ambiguous and open to strict interpretation by DHS, with denials potentially leading to deportation and felony prosecution.
A search warrant filed in U.S. District Court, obtained by 7 Eyewitness News, reveals while in the Niagara County jail – James Stivers requested to quote “make a phone call to his sister in order to have her throw out his computer so that he could beat his case.”
U.S. Supreme Court Order On The Travel Ban Appeals, June 26, 2017Honolulu Civil Beat
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and partially stayed injunctions blocking enforcement of Executive Order 13780, which suspended entry of nationals from six Muslim-majority countries. Lower courts had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions, finding the order likely violated the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court's partial stay allows the 90-day travel ban to take effect but exempts foreigners with bona fide relationships with U.S. entities or individuals. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall on the constitutionality of the executive order.
Cia director grandiosity v. abilt justicePublicLeaks
This document is a declaration by John Brennan, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, asserting the state secrets privilege and CIA statutory privileges to prevent disclosure of classified information in a lawsuit brought by a former CIA employee. Brennan asserts these privileges to protect information about specific CIA intelligence operations, the identities and roles of covert employees, and sources and methods. He argues that disclosure of such information could reasonably be expected to cause serious or grave damage to national security.
This document provides guidance on preparing for and taking depositions. It recommends thoroughly researching the case file, conducting interviews, and using judicial discovery processes to learn essential information before depositions. The document outlines goals for depositions such as obtaining admissions, limiting testimony, and evaluating witnesses. It also provides tips for setting an agenda, knowing legal elements, and using available online tools and databases to efficiently research people, addresses, property records, and more for deposition preparation.
The document is a correspondence from the United States Department of State to Judicial Watch regarding a Freedom of Information Act request. It states that the Department has identified 41 additional documents responsive to the request, of which 25 can be released in full and 16 can be released with redactions. It also notes that 3 documents previously released in part can now have additional information released. The letter directs any further questions to the Department of Justice.
This document provides guidance on preparing for and conducting depositions. It discusses gathering documents and information in advance through discovery and interviews. It recommends talking to the client to understand the facts and potential witnesses, and talking to opposing counsel to understand their position without arguing your own case. The document outlines goals for depositions such as obtaining admissions, limiting testimony, and evaluating witnesses. It provides strategic advice such as having a structured plan and not volunteering extra information. The "Ten Commandments" section advises the client or deponent to listen carefully, answer only the question asked, and admit mistakes.
Apresentação oficial goobets - By Joaquina AbelhaJoaquina Abelha
A frase enfatiza que o caminho para o sucesso requer esforço contínuo, e que devemos acreditar em nosso potencial e nunca desistir para alcançar vitórias.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms.
O documento discute o problema do trabalho infantil no Brasil, com cerca de 36,5% das crianças trabalhando em fazendas e 24,5% em fábricas e lojas. A fiscalização inadequada contribui para isso. O governo tenta diminuir esses índices com programas sociais como o Bolsa Família para gerar renda para as famílias.
Reflexión sobre estrategia digital presentada en la Jornada de ccyc - Comunicación, visibildad y relaciones a través de la red. Un reto para las organizaciones de salud – 14 mayo de 2015.
Reflexió sobre estratègia digital presentada a la Jornada de ccyc - Comunicació, visibilitat i relacions a través de la xarxa. Un repte per a les organitzacions de salut – 14 de maig de 2015.
Este documento describe los mundos virtuales y Second Life. Explica que los mundos virtuales recrean entornos 3D similares al mundo real pero sin sus limitaciones, permitiendo actividades como comprar, estudiar y socializar. Segundo Life es un metaverso lanzado en 2003 donde los usuarios interactúan a través de avatares personalizables y pueden crear objetos e intercambiar productos virtuales usando Linden Dólares. Finalmente, se enumeran algunas ventajas como escapar de la realidad y conocer gente, e inconvenientes como la falta de relaciones
La alumna Brisett Astorga Ishuiza le preguntó al profesor William Vegazo Muro, quien enseña Ciencia, Tecnología y Ambiente, sobre qué se debe considerar antes de exponerse a la radiación solar.
The document discusses the benefits of exercise for mental health. Regular physical activity can help reduce anxiety and depression and improve mood and cognitive function. Exercise causes chemical changes in the brain that may help protect against mental illness and improve symptoms for those who already suffer from conditions like anxiety and depression.
1. Gawker Media and its counsel Gregg Thomas filed a motion for summary judgment against the FBI and EOUSA in order to compel the release of records related to the FBI's 2012 investigation into a sex tape involving Hulk Hogan.
2. The FBI investigation looked into the source and distribution of the sex tape, including a Los Angeles lawyer who tried to sell the tape to Hogan. However, no one was ever prosecuted related to the investigation.
3. Gawker requested the records under FOIA to aid in its defense against Hogan's $100 million lawsuit over Gawker's reporting on the sex tape. The EOUSA did not respond to the request, while the FBI denied it,
Roark v. usa plaintiff's reply and responseBaddddBoyyyy
This document is Plaintiff Diane Roark's reply to the Defendant's response to her cross-motion for summary judgment in her case against the United States. She argues that the government had no legal right to conduct additional searches of her seized materials without new search warrants. She also argues that the government is improperly withholding some of her documents and has failed to account for all documents seized. Finally, she maintains that the NSA and her former employer have overreached in their claims of authority over her unclassified materials.
This brief was submitted by the Georgia First Amendment Foundation as an amicus curiae in support of reversing the lower court's ruling. It argues that (1) personnel records, like Deputy Glisson's file, must be disclosed under the open records act and are not exempt just because they relate to a pending investigation, and (2) 911 tapes should be treated like initial police reports which are disclosable regardless of any investigation under the law. The brief provides background on the case, outlines the legal arguments, and urges the Supreme Court to reverse to ensure transparency as intended by the open records act.
The document is a Motion in Limine and Motion to Suppress Evidence filed by the defendant Jane M. Doe in a criminal case in Chatham County, Georgia. The motion seeks to suppress all evidence from the defendant's arrest for DUI and other offenses, arguing that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Specifically, the motion argues that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant, did not have probable cause to arrest without a warrant, conducted an illegal search and seizure, and failed to properly obtain consent for field sobriety tests or a breathalyzer test. If granted, the motion would suppress all evidence from the stop, arrest, tests, and statements made by the defendant.
The court denied Maria Nucci's petition for certiorari seeking to quash a discovery order compelling her to produce photographs from her Facebook account. The court found the photographs were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding Nucci's claims of injury and diminished quality of life. While individuals have some privacy interests in social media posts, Nucci's privacy interest was minimal given the broad scope of discovery and the photographs' relevance to assessing her claims of damages.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Annual FOIA Report for fiscal year 2008 provides information on FOIA requests received and processed. It summarizes that CEQ received 35 requests and processed 50 total requests, with 5 pending at the end of the fiscal year. Most requests were partially granted or denied based on FOIA exemptions. CEQ also received 3 administrative appeals and processed all 3, with none pending. Exemption 5 was cited most frequently for withholding information from both requests and appeals.
Using the attached information, you will prepare a Case Brief on a.docxdaniahendric
Using the attached information, you will prepare a Case Brief on a recent United States Supreme Court decision regarding a criminal justice topic. You must include the following sections: caption, facts, procedural history, issue, rule of law, holding, and rationale. The Case Brief must be 1–2 pages. Save your work as a Microsoft Word document and submit it to Blackboard. Prior to submitting the assignment, review the Case Brief Grading Rubric to verify that all components of the assignment have been completed.
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See
United States
v.
Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,
200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
SALINAS
v
. TEXAS
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
No. 12–246. Argued April 17, 2013—Decided June 17, 2013
Petitioner, without being placed in custody or receiving
Miranda
warn- ings, voluntarily answered some of a police officer’s questions about a murder, but fell silent when asked whether ballistics testing would match his shotgun to shell casings found at the scene of the crime. At petitioner’s murder trial in Texas state court, and over his objection, the prosecution used his failure to answer the question as evidence of guilt. He was convicted, and both the State Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, rejecting his claim that the pros- ecution’s use of his silence in its case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment.
Held
: The judgment is affirmed.
369 S. W. 3d 176, affirmed.
J
USTICE
A
LITO
, joined by T
HE
C
HIEF
J
USTICE
and J
USTICE
K
ENNEDY
,
concluded that petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege in response to the officer’s question. Pp. 3
−
12.
(a) To prevent the privilege against self-incrimination from shield- ing information not properly within its scope, a witness who “ ‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’ ” at the time he relies on it.
Minnesota
v.
Murphy
, 465 U. S. 420, 427. This Court has rec- ognized two exceptions to that requirement. First, a criminal de- fendant need not take the stand and assert the privilege at his own trial.
Griffin
v.
California
, 380 U. S. 609, 613–615. Petitioner’s si- lence falls outside this exception because he had no comparable un- qualified right not to speak during his police interview. Second, a witness’ failure to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination must be excused where governmental coercion makes his forfeiture of the privilege involuntary. See,
e.g.
,
Miranda
v.
Arizona
, 384 U. S. 436, 467
−
468, and n. 37. Petitioner cannot benefit from this principle
2
SALINAS
v.
TEX.
This document is a complaint filed on behalf of Lucius, a student with autism, and his mother against a school district and school officials. It alleges that Lucius was repeatedly suspended, excluded from school, and denied an appropriate education plan despite having autism. It claims the district incorrectly identified Lucius as having an emotional/behavioral disorder and refused accommodations for his autism. The complaint lists several legal errors and factual inaccuracies in the administrative law judge's decision regarding Lucius' treatment. It seeks damages and reversal of the administrative decision.
Government’s response to defendant’s petition for review of magistrate’s repo...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is the government's response to the defendant's petition to review the magistrate's order denying bond and granting pretrial detention. The government argues that the defendant has not demonstrated any new information that was unknown at the time of the initial detention hearing that would warrant reopening the hearing. Specifically, the government states that the defendant was aware of the investigation and charges against him at the initial hearing and that his personal background and circumstances have not changed. Therefore, the defendant is not legally entitled to have the detention hearing reopened or the magistrate's order reviewed.
This case concerns a lawsuit filed by Enrique Herrera against Gilligan's LLC and Robert Phillipps after Herrera was injured while working for Gilligan's. Gilligan's and Phillipps sought summary judgment claiming immunity under Wyoming's Worker's Compensation Act. Herrera argued he was not a covered employee under the Act because he was not legally authorized to work in the U.S. and Gilligan's did not have proper documentation of his work status. The district court initially denied summary judgment finding factual issues but later granted it without explanation. On appeal, the court will review the summary judgment decision de novo to determine if factual issues exist regarding Gilligan's compliance with documentation requirements and immunity under the Act.
Motion for new trial -clu 12-19_14_no_51_14screaminc
This document provides a summary of case law updates from the week ending December 19, 2014 from the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia. It discusses cases related to motions for new trial, juvenile probation revocation, search and seizure/implied consent, forfeiture by wrongdoing, and jurisdiction/supersedeas. The document provides brief summaries of the facts, issues, and holdings of each case.
Running head Case study 1 – understanding the court system1Cas.docxsusanschei
The Supreme Court case Riley v. California ruled that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant to search the cell phone of an arrested individual. The case involved David Riley, who was arrested for weapons possession and had his cell phone searched without a warrant, revealing evidence linking him to additional crimes. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that warrantless cell phone searches violate the 4th Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches. This established that police generally need a warrant before searching digital information on arrested persons' phones.
Discovery Procedure Public Records And ContributionSuper1gator
(1) Discovery is part of the pre-trial litigation process where each party requests relevant information from the other side to learn pertinent facts. Workers' compensation discovery in Florida allows depositions, interrogatories, and requests for documents.
(2) A public records request is a non-adversarial way to obtain information from a government entity without formal discovery. It provides an advantage over a request to produce because the requesting party does not have to wait 30 days for the records.
(3) A carrier providing insurance services on behalf of a public entity has a duty to provide its records in response to a public records request regarding a workers' compensation claim due to the strong public policy for transparency in Florida.
BIA Remands of Immigration Judge Madline Garcia from 01/01/2014 to 05/26/2016Bryan Johnson
EOIR FOIA ID # 2016-23184. Also, see acknowledgment letter at following link: http://www.slideshare.net/abogadobryan/eoir-acknowledgment-letter-for-201623284
649 F.3d 1086United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit..docxalinainglis
649 F.3d 1086
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Melchor GUEVARA, Petitioner,
v.
Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08–72252.Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 2010.Filed June 3, 2011.
Synopsis
Background: Alien petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which reversed the immigration judge's (IJ's) decision to grant alien cancellation of removal based on purported legal permanent resident (LPR) status arising from prior approval of his request for employment authorization.
Holdings: The Court of Appeals, N.R. Smith, Circuit Judge, held that:
1 court would apply limited Skidmore framework in reviewing BIA's decision;
2 prior grant of employment authorization did not grant alien LPR status; and
3 employment authorization was not equivalent to participation in Family Unity Program (FUP).
Petition denied.
Fisher, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
West Headnotes (7)
Collapse West Headnotes
Change View
1
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals reviews de novo the determinations of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of purely legal questions, including the BIA's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 101 et seq., 8 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq.
2
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals applies Chevron deference to the interpretations of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) as to ambiguous immigration statutes, if the BIA's decision is a published decision; however, the court need not defer to the BIA if the statute is unambiguous.
1 Case that cites this headnote
3
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Court of Appeals follows the Skidmore framework, under which the measure of deference afforded to the agency depends upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade if lacking power to control, if the relevant decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals is unpublished and is not directly controlled by any published decision interpreting the same statute.
1 Case that cites this headnote
4
Administrative Law and ProcedureAliens, immigration, and citizenship
Aliens, Immigration, and CitizenshipLaw questions
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had not issued any precedential opinion on whether alien's receipt of employment authorization document equated to admission “in any status,” precluding Court of Appeals from according Chevron deference to BIA's interpretation of relevant statutes and instead Court of Appeals would apply more limited Skidmore framework, under which measure of deference afforded depended upon thoroughness e.
First, I need the outline, which is due tomorrow, Wednesday the 31.docxvoversbyobersby
First, I need the outline, which is due tomorrow, Wednesday the 31st CST.
Then the Key Assignment, which is due this Sunday, August 4th.
NEED TO FOLLOW AN OUTLINE FORMAT THAT IS SHOWN IN WORD (MICROSOFT WORD PROGRAM HAS SEVERAL OUTLINE TEMPLATES.)
Based on the following information, create a detailed outline for the Key Assignment
DO NOT MERELY REWRITE THE QUESTIONS IN OUTLINE FORM. Also, do not simply outline the assignment scenario. APA Format.
Key Assignment
Scenario: While working an undercover detail in a neighborhood known for drug activity, you notice a vehicle stopped at the intersection waiting for the light to change. The man in the vehicle makes eye contact with you. You approach his vehicle and begin carrying on a conversation with him. You ask him if he needs anything, and he responds by asking you, “What do you have?” You ask him what he is looking for, and he tells you he is looking to score. You show him a small bag containing a white powdery substance; he asks how much, and you respond, "20 dollars." He hands you a $20 bill, and you give him the bag and tip your hat to signal that the transaction was completed. At this time, the man drives off and is stopped a block away by a marked unit. The individual is placed under arrest for drug possession and purchasing drugs, and he is taken to jail.
The individual is charged with possession of a controlled substance. At his trial, he claimed that he was a victim of entrapment by the police. He was found guilty and sentenced to serve 5 years in jail and given credit for the 3 months he already had served in jail.
Assignment Guidelines
•Address the following in 1,250–1,500 words:
•Research and provide 2–3 case briefs on specific case law related to the entrapment defense as it may or may not apply in the case scenario. ◦Your case briefs should follow this format:
◾Title: Title of the selected case
◾Facts: Summary of the events, court timeline, evidence, and so forth
◾Issues: Issues that were present in this case
◾Decisions: The court's decision and the conclusion to the case
◾Reasoning: The rationale behind the final decision
◾Dissenting opinions: Any dissenting opinions, and an explanation of what they were and why they were raised
Answer the following questions:
◦Did you have probable cause to approach the defendant while he was parked at the traffic light? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
◦Do you feel that the entrapment defense is a valid one, considering the assignment scenario? Why or why not? Defend your answer.
◦Is providing the opportunity for someone to commit a crime the same as entrapment? Why or why not?
◦If the substance were marijuana, how much would be needed for a misdemeanor charge? A felony?
•Be sure to reference all sources using APA style.
Need outline checked, revised, & finished. I have started the outline, but have not finished it.
(TITLE OF OUTLINE) ENTRAPMENT
I. Introduction: Entrapment is when law enforcement office ...
ORDER MOTION TO COMPEL Doc.90 05-10-2016
READS and part:After discussing these issues with Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel, and in part with Defendants’ counsel’s consent, the motion to compel is GRANTED in part and it is hereby
ORDRED that:
(1) Defendants shall produce a digital log of the history of the videos as well as relevant metadata for each video that may indicate the identity of the officer who was wearing the camera and any other relevant information, such as the time, date, and location of the video’s creation.
(2) Defendants shall produce an affidavit from Captain Haley stating whether any of the interviews he conducted with Plaintiff were not recorded and, if not, explaining why any interview was not recorded.
(3) Defendants shall produce any written reports prepared by the officers in attendance at the execution of the search warrant. If any officers did not prepare a written report, Defendants have agreed to provide an affidavit stating which officers did not prepare reports. If any officers were not wearing a body camera at the time of the execution of the warrant, Defendants will include this fact in the affidavit and state which officers had no cameras.
(4) Plaintiff may re-issue his subpoena to Taser, International. This new subpoena shall be limited in scope to the date and time of the execution of the warrant and to the named defendant officers who were present during the search of Plaintiff’s residence. Plaintiff shall not include any request for any video footage from Captain Haley in this subpoena.
Defendants are to comply with the terms of this order within 21 days of the date of this order.
Any other relief requested in Plaintiff’s motions to compel is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this order to the pro se plaintiff at his address of
record.
It is so ORDERED.
Entered: May 5, 2016
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
GAWKER MEDIA, LLC and GREGG D.
THOMAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
and THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF UNITED
STATES ATTORNEYS,
Defendants.
Case No.________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned attorneys, allege:
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C.
§§ 552, et seq., brought by Gawker Media, LLC and its counsel Gregg D. Thomas, Esq.
(together, “Gawker”), for injunctive and other appropriate relief, seeking the release of agency
records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the Executive Office of United
States Attorneys (“EOUSA”) (together, the “Agencies”).
2. Through this lawsuit, Gawker seeks to compel the Agencies to provide records it
requested through FOIA relating to an FBI investigation, conducted in 2012, into the source and
distribution of video footage depicting Terry Gene Bollea, professionally known as Hulk Hogan
(“Hogan”), engaged in a sexual affair with Heather Clem, the wife of his best friend, the radio
shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge Clem.
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID 1
2. 2
3. The EOUSA has not responded at all to Gawker’s FOIA request. The FBI has
claimed that all responsive documents are exempt under FOIA because their release would
constitute an interference with a law enforcement investigation. But any law enforcement
investigation into the video footage that may once have existed is now long since over, and thus
the claim that release of records would “interfere” with it is demonstrably incorrect. Moreover,
even if there were an ongoing or prospective investigation, the FBI has made no showing, as it
must under FOIA, that release of specific records related to it would necessarily disrupt that
investigation.
4. Because the requested records have been ruled to be critical to Gawker’s defense
of a $100 million lawsuit brought by Hogan, first in this Court, and then in Florida state court
arising from Gawker’s publication a news report and commentary about the footage, along with
short excerpts of the footage itself (the “Florida Litigation”), it now institutes this lawsuit.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Gawker Media, LLC is an online news organization and publisher of the
website www.gawker.com, as well as seven other popular websites. Gawker Media, LLC is a
defendant in the Florida Litigation.
6. Plaintiff Gregg D. Thomas, Esq. is an attorney and counsel to Gawker Media,
LLC in the Florida Litigation, in which capacity he made the FOIA requests at issue in this
lawsuit.
7. Defendant FBI is an agency of the federal government that has possession,
custody and/or control of the records that Gawker seeks. The FBI is headquartered at 935
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20535-0001.
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID 2
3. 3
8. Defendant EOUSA is an agency of the federal government that has possession,
custody and/or control of the records that Gawker seeks. The EOUSA is headquartered at 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242, Washington, DC 20530-0001.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal
jurisdiction over the FBI and the EOUSA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(B).
10. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
11. Gawker has exhausted all available administrative remedies against the FBI
because the FBI has issued its final determination to deny access to all responsive records, and
Gawker’s administrative appeal therefrom has been denied.
12. Gawker is deemed to have exhausted all administrative remedies against the
EOUSA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C) because the EOUSA has failed to respond within
the statutory time limit.
FACTS
The FBI Investigation
13. In or around the fall of 2012, the FBI conducted an investigation into the source
and distribution of video footage of Hogan engaged in a sexual affair with Heather Clem.
14. Upon information and belief, the investigation ended shortly after it began, and no
criminal prosecutions were ever brought.
Gawker’s Requests
15. On November 8, 2013, Gawker requested from the FBI, via FOIA, public records
relating to the FBI investigation. Gawker sought these records in connection with its defense of
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID 3
4. 4
a $100 million lawsuit that Hogan filed against it arising from its publication in October 2012 of
a news report and commentary about the video footage of Hogan’s and Mrs. Clem’s affair, along
with short and heavily-edited excerpts of that footage. Hogan initially filed his case in this
Court, which denied his successive requests for injunctive relief on various theories. Hogan then
dismissed his federal court complaint and re-filed his claims against Gawker in state court,
where, after removal and remand, the case is now pending.
16. The FBI denied Gawker’s FOIA request on the sole basis of privacy concerns,
indicating that it would not process the request without formal records authorizations from
persons connected to the investigation.
17. Accordingly, Gawker sought to obtain such authorizations from Hogan and his
attorneys, who refused to voluntarily provide them. After nearly a year of litigating the matter in
the Florida Litigation, Hogan and his attorneys were eventually required to provide the
authorizations (and to provide to Gawker their own records related to the FBI investigation) on
the grounds that information about the investigation was critical to Gawker’s defense.
18. On November 7, 2014, Gawker renewed its request to the FBI and submitted an
identical request to the EOUSA, in both cases enclosing the records authorizations from Hogan
and his counsel (as well as one from Ms. Clem, which she voluntarily provided). In its requests,
Gawker specifically enumerated certain categories of records it was seeking relating to the FBI
investigation:
a. communications between Hogan and his counsel with the FBI;
b. documents related to video recordings depicting Hogan engaged in sexual
activity with Ms. Clem, including the recordings themselves;
c. statements by Hogan and/or his counsel; and
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID 4
5. 5
d. records pertaining to the source and distribution of the video recordings, or
attempts to disseminate or sell those video recordings.
19. The FBI acknowledged receipt of Gawker’s request on November 17, 2014. On
January 29, 2015, the FBI informed Gawker that it had located 1,168 pages of responsive records
and two CDs containing responsive video material.
The FBI Denial
20. Gawker responded to the FBI’s acknowledgement on February 3, 2015, accepting
all duplication charges.
21. The following day, however, on February 4, 2015, the FBI denied Gawker’s
request in full and declined to produce any records, citing FOIA’s Exemption 7(A), the law
enforcement exemption as the sole basis for its denial. Specifically, the agency stated: “The
records responsive to your request are law enforcement records; there is a pending or prospective
law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records, and release of the information
in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement
proceedings.”
22. Gawker submitted an administrative appeal from the FBI’s denial on March 4,
2015. In the administrative appeal, Gawker submitted substantial evidence that there was no
ongoing or prospective investigation, no plausible interference with any such investigation, and
thus no proper basis for the FBI’s wholesale denial. Gawker also explained that, under
governing law, the FBI had a responsibility to conduct its review (and justify withholding) on a
category-by-category basis, and requested that the FBI provide a specific explanation why it was
denying Gawker’s request for each category of documents.
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID 5
6. 6
23. On May 6, 2015, the Department of Justice affirmed the FBI’s decision not to
disclose any records (the “Final Determination”). The Final Determination did not dispute or
rebut any of the showings Gawker made in its administrative appeal – it neither asserted that any
investigation exists, nor claimed that any such investigation would be harmed by disclosure of
any responsive records. And it did not provide any explanation of the reasons Exemption 7(A)
might apply to particular categories of records. Rather, the Final Determination stated only:
“The FBI properly withheld certain information in full because it is protected from disclosure
under the FOIA pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A). This provision concerns records or
information compiled for law enforcement purposes the release of which could reasonably be
expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”
The EOUSA’s Denial
24. The EOUSA acknowledged receipt of Gawker’s request on December 4, 2014.
25. Thomas repeatedly attempted to follow up on the request, emphasizing the
absence of any basis for withholding records.
26. To date, the EOUSA has failed to respond to Gawker’s request, and has produced
no records. Therefore, it has constructively denied the request and Gawker has, by operation of
law under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(c), exhausted its administrative remedies.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(FBI’s wrongful withholding of records and
its failure to make them promptly available)
27. Gawker repeats, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in the foregoing
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
28. The FBI is an agency subject to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f), and therefore must
disclose in response to a FOIA request all responsive records in its possession at the time of the
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID 6
7. 7
request that are not specifically exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and must provide a lawful
reason for withholding any records as to which it is claiming an exemption.
29. The FBI’s final determination that it will not disclose any of the records requested
by Gawker, its failure to adequately explain its reasons for withholding them, and its failure to
make them promptly available violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), and the FBI’s
corresponding regulations.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(EOUSA’s wrongful withholding of records
and failure to make them promptly available)
30. Gawker repeats, realleges, and incorporates the allegations in the foregoing
paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
31. The EOUSA is an agency subject to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(f), and therefore must
disclose in response to a FOIA request all responsive records in its possession at the time of the
request that are not specifically exempt from disclosure under FOIA, and must provide a lawful
reason for withholding any records as to which it is claiming an exemption.
32. The EOUSA’s constructive denial of Gawker’s FOIA request violates FOIA, 5
U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A) and 552(a)(6)(A), and the EOUSA’s corresponding regulations.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Gawker respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Expedite consideration of this Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657;
b. Declare that the records requested by Gawker, including as more
particularly described above, are public records pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552
and must be disclosed;
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID 7
8. 8
c. Declare that Exemption 7(A) does not exempt the requested records from
disclosure;
d. Order the FBI to produce the requested records, including electronic
copies of records stored in electronic format, as provided in the request,
within 10 business days of the Court’s order;
e. Order the EOUSA to provide the requested records, including electronic
copies of records stored in electronic format, as provided in the request,
within 10 business days of the Court’s order;
f. Award Gawker the costs of this proceeding, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, as authorized by FOIA; and
g. Grant Gawker such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Dated: May 19, 2015
Of counsel:
Seth D. Berlin
Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Alia L. Smith
Pro hac vice application forthcoming
Patrick Kabat
Pro hac vice application forthcoming
LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH
& SCHULZ, LLP
1899 L Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 508-1122; Fax: (202) 861-9888
sberlin@lskslaw.com
asmith@lskslaw.com
pkabat@lskslaw.com
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS & LOCICERO PL
By: Greg D. Thomas
Gregg D. Thomas
Florida Bar No.: 223913
Rachel E. Fugate
Florida Bar No.: 0144029
601 South Boulevard
P.O. Box 2602 (33601)
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel: (813) 984-3060; Fax: (813) 984-3070
gthomas@tlolawfirm.com
rfugate@tlolawfirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 8:15-cv-01202-SCB-EAJ Document 1 Filed 05/19/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID 8