Louis

Flores
3421 77th Street, No. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
louisflores@louisflores.com
1 (646) 400-1168

26 August 2015

[By e-mail only : rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov]

Rukhsanah L. Singh, Assistant U.S. Attorney,

U.S. Attorneys Office - Eastern District of New York,
271 Cadman Plaza East, 7th Floor,
Brooklyn, NY 11201.

Dear Ms. Singh :

Re :

Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice

No. 15-CV-2627 (JG) (RLM)

On Monday evening, I received the DOJs response to my FOIA Request. I am still

reviewing the documents. However, at first blush, it should be apparent, even to you, that
the documents produced by the DOJ are not the documents I requested.

Im trying to figure out the DOJs rationale for producing these records, which appear to
only be a portion of the pleading file from the governments vindictive prosecution case
against Lt. Daniel Choi. For example, on page 26 of the Governments Opposition to
Petition for Writ of Mandamus to United Stated District Court, there is a reference to the
Government Exhibit at Tab J. Where is Tab J ? Meanwhile, where are the rest of the
exhibits ? Did the DOJ produce at its discretion only some of the pleadings filed in the
governments case against Lt. Choi ? What was the standard used to produce some
pleadings, but not all ?

I have to seriously question whether the DOJs decision to produce only some of the
pleadings wasnt just an effort at creating a red herring, whereby I now have to chase for
missing exhibits or annexes referenced in these documents, but lose my focus on going
after the documents and records that were identified in the FOIA Request. This is just
more indication of the DOJ acting in bad faith.

Furthermore, it seems inexplicable that the DOJ would invoke privacy as a reason to deny
the release of records pertaining to Lt. Choi (if any of the records being sought from the
DOJ in the FOIA Request should happen to be specific to Lt. Choi). For example, Lt. Choi
was not an employee of the DOJ. I am not seeking employment records, healthcare
records, financial or credit rating reports, or other records that one would consider to be

Rukhsanah L. Singh, Assistant U.S. Attorney

U.S. Attorneys Office - Eastern District of New York
26 August 2015
Page 2

private, unless the DOJ has collected such records about Lt. Choi but cannot disclose them
due to Lt. Chois privacy rights. Can you describe the privacy-encumbered records and
produce an index of the descriptions ?

Finally, I find it difficult to believe that no records were found responsive to the FOIA
Request. Is there a reason that the cover letter stated that the DOJ appeared to have
limited the search to only the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia ? What
was the process used by which the search for responsive records was conducted ?

As indicated to you in prior correspondence, I plan to request discovery in this case at our
Initial Conference with U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann. All these open questions,
and any others created by the DOJs response and non-response to the FOIA Request, are
an invitation to conduct discovery. I may make other requests to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Mann, as well. To follow-up on our telephone conference of 31 July 2015, if you plan to
apply to cancel the Initial Conference, I will oppose your application, because I believe we
must have an initial meeting with U.S. Magistrate Judge Mann.

As stated, I am still reviewing the documents, so I dont have a complete impression of the
random records that the DOJ has produced. Let me know if you have time on Friday
afternoon to schedule a telephone conference, so that we may speak more about the
DOJs response to the FOIA Request.

Thank you kindly.

Yours sincerely,

Louis Flores