Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Louis
Flores
34-21
77th
Street,
No.
406
Jackson
Heights,
New
York
11372
louisflores@louisflores.com
1
(646)
400-1168
05
November
2015
BY
ECF
Honorable
Roanne
L.
Mann,
United
States
Magistrate
Judge,
United
States
District
Court,
Eastern
District
of
New
York,
225
Cadman
Plaza
East,
Brooklyn,
New
York
11201.
Dear
Hon.
Magistrate
Judge
Mann
:
Re
:
Louis
Flores
v.
United
States
Department
of
Justice
No.
15-CV-2627
(Gleeson,
J.)
(Mann,
M.J.)
In
response
to
Your
Honors
omnibus
order,
dated
16
September
2015
(See
Dkt.
No.
14),
the
parties
respectfully
file
this
joint
status
report.
The
Plaintiff
in
this
action
seeks
records
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(FOIA)
from
Defendant
U.S.
Department
of
Justice
(the
DOJ
or
Government)
regarding
the
Governments
prosecution
of
activists.
I.
Since
the
Initial
Conference
During
the
16
September
2015
Conference,
Your
Honor
encouraged
the
Government
to
voluntarily
search
the
files
of
Main
Justice
and
produce
any
written
guidelines
for
prosecution
of
activists,
and
to
consider
voluntarily
producing
at
least
some
of
the
documents
listed
on
an
index
that
Plaintiff
had
served
that
same
day.
(Id.).
Following
the
September
16,
2015,
conference
with
the
Court,
Defendant
DOJ
voluntarily
searched
within
the
Office
of
the
Assistant
Attorney
General
(OAAG)
of
the
Criminal
Division
in
Washington,
D.C.
for
any
written
guidelines
for
prosecution
of
activists.1
(Id.).
Defendant
also
voluntarily
searched
for
and
collected
some
documents
that
appeared
to
be
responsive
to
some
of
Plaintiffs
discovery
requests
set
forth
in
his
September
16,
2015
Index.
Defendant
conducted
these
searches
even
though
Plaintiffs
FOIA
request
that
is
the
subject
of
this
action
was
directed
solely
to
the
EOUSA,
which
processes
requests
for
USAOs
records,
and
did
not
seek
DOJ
Criminal
Division
records.
1
The
DOJ
asserts
that
the
OAAG
is
responsible
for
formulating
and
implementing
the
Department
of
Justices
criminal
enforcement
policies.
By
letter
to
Plaintiff
dated
October
13,
2015,
Defendant
provided
copies
of
two
declarations
outlining
the
searches
for
records
responsive
to
Plaintiffs
April
2013
FOIA
request
(as
suggested
by
Your
Honor
during
the
September
16,
2015,
conference),
and
provided
some
documents
sought
in
Plaintiffs
September
16,
2015,
Index
that
were
voluntarily
gathered.
In
doing
so,
Defendant
expressly
stated
that
it
was
not
waiving
its
objections
to
discovery
or
agreeing
to
the
broadening
of
the
FOIA
request
that
is
the
subject
of
this
action.
By
letter
dated
October
15,
2015,
Defendant
informed
Plaintiff
that
the
OAAGs
search
did
not
locate
any
guidelines
for
the
prosecution
of
activists.
On
October
16,
2015,
the
parties
had
a
conference
call.
During
that
call,
Plaintiff
indicated
that
he
would
review
the
materials
provided
to
him
and
provide
a
letter
outlining
remaining
issues
he
had
as
to
the
response
to
the
FOIA
request
and
the
additional
materials
voluntarily
provided.
On
October
26,
2015,
Plaintiff
served
Defendant
with
a
lengthy
letter
objecting
to
the
declarations,
seeking
clarification,
and
raising
numerous
questions
as
to
the
searches
(including
those
voluntarily
undertaken),
the
discretionary
release
of
publicly-available
documents,
and
Defendants
October
13,
2015
letter,
and
materials
provided
therewith.
On
November
3,
2015,
Defendant
provided
a
response
to
Plaintiffs
October
26,
2015,
letter,
which
Plaintiff
argues
is
only
a
partial
response.
In
preparation
for
the
making
of
this
joint
status
report,
the
parties
have
been
unable
to
reach
a
consensus
as
to
the
next
steps.
II.
Plaintiffs
Position
Due
to
the
large
number
of
open
issues,
Plaintiff
requests
an
extension
of
time
of
8
weeks
to
resolve
the
numerous
issues
about
the
records
being
unjustly
withheld
by
the
DOJ,
including
a
new
FOIA
Request
submitted
by
Plaintiff
to
the
Civil
Rights
Division
of
the
DOJ
for
applicable
records,
a
move
necessitated
by
the
DOJs
erroneous
assertion
that
the
DOJ
can
disclose
records
under
FOIA
at
its
own
discretion.
It
would
be
unjust
to
disallow
Plaintiff
the
right
to
conduct
due
diligence
on
the
few
records
produced,
consequently
leaving
open
so
many
issues,
particularly
if
the
open
issues
place
Plaintiff
in
a
position
to
be
unable
to
oppose
the
DOJs
anticipated
summary
judgment
motion.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
56(d).
As
Your
Honor
knows,
its
the
DOJs
pattern
and
practise
to
avoid
compliance
with
FOIA.
Plaintiff
requests
this
additional
time
to
help
the
DOJ
reach
compliance.
Moreover,
it
would
be
unfair
to
bring
the
numerous
details
of
these
unresolved
issues
for
Your
Honor
to
address
during
motion
practise.
Plaintiff
seeks
to
try
to
resolve
as
many
of
these
open
issues
as
possible,
before
providing
an
updated
status
report
by
8
January
2016,
at
which
time
the
parties
will
propose
a
briefing
schedule.
If
the
Court
cannot
grant
an
extension
of
time,
Plaintiff
will
ask
the
Court
to
make
a
determination
about
the
DOJs
obligations
to
produce
records
missing
from
the
DOJs
first
discretionary
release,
notwithstanding
that
they
may
be
publicly-available,
as
the
DOJ
asserts,
and
will
ask
the
Court
to
address
the
numerous
open
issues
without
the
benefit
of
possibly
being
able
to
reach
further
independent
resolution
with
the
DOJ.
III.
Defendants
Position
It
is
Defendant
DOJs
position
that
all
non-exempt
records
responsive
to
Plaintiffs
FOIA
request
to
EOUSA
that
is
the
subject
of
this
action
have
been
released
to
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff
will
not
agree
to
discontinue
this
action,
has
asserted
that
he
opposes
the
declarations
provided
as
to
the
searches
conducted
in
response
to
his
FOIA
request,
and
continues
to
seek
both
discovery
and
to
broaden
the
scope
of
this
litigation.
Defendant,
accordingly,
believes
that
motion
practice
is
necessary
and
does
not
believe
that
further
meet
and
confers
would
be
an
efficient
use
of
the
parties
time
and
resources
at
this
time.
IV.
Proposed
Briefing
Schedule
The
parties
propose
the
following
briefing
schedule,
subject
to
the
Courts
approval:
By
November
23,
2015,
Defendant
to
file
and
serve
its
motion
for
summary
judgment
;
By
January
8,
2016,
Plaintiff
to
file
and
serve
his
opposition
and
any
cross-motion
;
By
February
12,
2016,
Defendant
to
file
and
serve
its
reply
and
opposition
to
any
cross-motion
;
and
By
February
26,
2016,
Plaintiff
to
file
and
serve
his
surreply.
We
appreciate
the
Courts
attention
to
this
matter.
Respectfully
submitted,
cc
:
Louis
Flores
Pro
se
Plaintiff
[By
e-mail
only
to
:
rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov]
Louis
Flores
34-21
77th
Street,
Apt.
406
Jackson
Heights,
New
York
11372
Phone
:
(646)
400-1168
louisflores@louisflores.com