Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 6

Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 1-2 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 2 Filed 06/24/2009 Page 1 of 1
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 3 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS)
v. )
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)

ANSWER

Defendant Department of Justice, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby answers

the individually numbered paragraphs of Plaintiff’s Complaint ("Complaint") as follows:

1. Defendant states that Paragraph 1 of the Complaint is a characterization of the

present action to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,

Defendant admits that Plaintiff purports to proceed under the Freedom of Information Act and

purports to seek the relief it describes in Paragraph 1.

2. The allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint state legal conclusions to which

no response is required.

3. Defendant is without information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the

allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.

4. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.

5. Defendant admits that it has conducted surveillance activities in accordance with

guidelines, but otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

6. The allegations in Paragraph 6 consist of characterizations to which no response

 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 3 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 2 of 4

is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations.

7. Defendant admits the allegations in the first, fourth and fifth sentences of

Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. Defendant admits that the Attorney General’s guidelines permit

investigative assessments but otherwise disputes the characterization of those assessments.

Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.

8. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.

9. Defendant admits that a letter dated December 15, 2008 was sent from Valerie

Caproni to Senator John D. Rockefeller IV. Defendant further admits that Paragraph 9 of the

Complaint purports to quote and summarize the content of that letter. Defendant respectfully

refers the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents.

10. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

11. Defendant admits that Plaintiff faxed a letter to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (“FBI”), and that Paragraph 11 of the Complaint purports to quote from that letter.

Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents.

12. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.

13. Defendant admits that the FBI sent a letter dated May 29, 2009 and that

Paragraph 13 of the Complaint purports to quote from that letter. Defendant respectfully refers

the Court to the letter itself for a complete statement of its contents.

14. Defendant notes that no Paragraph 14 appears in the Complaint.

15. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. The allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

2
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 3 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 3 of 4

allegations.

17. The allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

allegations.

18. The allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

allegations.

19. Defendant repeats its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint as if

fully set forth herein.

20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

allegations.

21. The allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

allegations.

22. The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint state a legal conclusion to

which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant denies the

allegations.

The remaining material in the Complaint constitutes Plaintiff’s prayer for relief, to which

no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendant repeats its

responses above as if set forth fully herein and denies that Plaintiff is entitled to relief it seeks.

3
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 3 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 4 of 4

Wherefore, Defendant prays that the Court enter judgment on its behalf and award it

costs and other relief as the Court deems fit.

Dated: July 24, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General

JOHN TYLER
Assistant Director
Civil Division

/s/Bryan R. Diederich
Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632,
NY Reg. # 4216164)
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, Room 7109
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 305-0198
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

4
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 4 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS)
v. )
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Please take notice of the appearance of the undersigned counsel on behalf the Defendant

in the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to LcvR 83.1(j), the undersigned certifies that he is
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 4 Filed 07/24/2009 Page 2 of 2

familiar with the Local Rules of this Court and the other materials set forth in LcvR 83.8(b) and

LcvR 83.9.

Dated: July 24, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General

JOHN TYLER
Assistant Director
Civil Division

/s/Bryan R. Diederich
Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632,
NY Reg. # 4216164)
Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883, Room 7109
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel: (202) 305-0198
Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

2
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 5 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 1:09-cv-01151 (EGS)
v. )
)
)
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)

JOINT PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to the Court’s minute order of August 3, 2009, plaintiff Electronic Frontier

Foundation and Defendant Department of Justice jointly move the Court to enter a briefing

schedule as proposed below. The parties have agreed upon and propose that the Court order

that:

1. Defendant will complete the processing of Plaintiff’s Freedom of Information of

Act Request by October 13, 2009;

2. Defendant will make any motion for summary judgment by November 13, 2009;

3. Plaintiff will oppose Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and/or cross

move for summary judgment by December 14, 2009;

4. Defendant will reply to Plaintiff’s opposition and/or oppose Plaintiff’s motion for

summary judgment (if any) by January 4, 2009;

5. Plaintiff will reply to Defendant’s opposition to any cross-motion for summary

judgment (if any) by January 19, 2009.

1
 Case 1:09-cv-01151-EGS Document 5 Filed 08/17/2009 Page 2 of 2

Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
/s/David L. Sobel
DAVID L. SOBEL JOHN TYLER
D.C. Bar No. 360418 Assistant Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation Civil Division
1875 Connecticut Ave, N.W.
Suite 650 /s/Bryan R. Diederich
Washington, DC 20009 Bryan R. Diederich (MA BBO # 647632, NY
(202) 797-9009 Reg. # 4216164)
Trial Attorney
MARCIA HOFMANN United States Department of Justice
D.C. Bar No. 484136 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Electronic Frontier Foundation P.O. Box 883, Room 7109
454 Shotwell Street Washington, D.C. 20530
San Francisco, CA 94110 Tel: (202) 305-0198
(415) 436-9333 Fax: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: bryan.diederich@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Defendant

Dated: August 17, 2009