There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 07-712 (ESH)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
JOINT STIPULATION
The parties hereby submit this joint stipulation regarding Plaintiff the Democratic
National Committee’s claims arising under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, as well as agency FOIA regulations. Following Defendant the
United States Department of Justice’s submission to Plaintiff of a draft Vaughn index on
November 20, 2007, Plaintiff’s identification of withholdings it intended to challenge on
December 20, 2007, and Defendant’s supplemental release and submission of a revised draft
Vaughn index on January 15, 2008, the parties have agreed to limit the claims that need to be
resolved by the Court.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate that:
1.
Defendant has completed processing of Plaintiff’s March 19, 2007 FOIA request
described in ¶ 6 of the Complaint (dkt. no. 1) (“FOIA Request”). The United States Department
of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy (“OIP”), which is responsible for responding to the
FOIA Request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and
Associate Attorney General, produced to Plaintiff (i) 1134 pages in full and (ii) 624 pages withPage 2 excisions, and withheld 1235 pages. OIP’s withholdings were made pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 2, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) (“Exemption 2”), FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)
(“Exemption 5”), FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (“Exemption 6”), and FOIA
Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (“Exemption 7(C)”).
2.
OIP also referred for direct response to Plaintiff 6 pages to the United States
Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), 2 pages to the
United States Department of Defense (“DOD”), 113 pages to the United States Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”), 4 pages to the United States Department of Health and Human
Services (“HHS”), 21 pages to the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”), 5 pages to the
United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), and 3 pages to the United States Office of
Personnel Management (“OPM”). EOUSA released 3 pages with excisions made pursuant to
Exemption 6, and withheld the other 3 pages in full pursuant to Exemption 6. DOD released
both pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6. DHS
released 52 pages in full and 61 pages with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2. HHS
released all 4 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6.
DOI released all 21 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2. DOL
released all 5 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6.
And OPM released all 3 pages referred to it in full.
3.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s search for documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
FOIA Request, and thus concedes that Defendant’s search satisfies Defendant’s burden under
FOIA to conduct a reasonable search.
2Page 3 Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 2,
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of portions of documents.
5.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 6,
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of documents and portions of documents.
6.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 7(C),
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of portions of documents.
7.
Except as specifically identified in Paragraph 10, Plaintiff will not challenge
OIP’s withholdings made pursuant Exemption 5 on the basis of the deliberative process
privilege, and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption on the
basis of the deliberative process privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and
portions of documents not otherwise identified in Paragraph 10.
8.
Plaintiff will not challenge EOUSA’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 6
in the document listed as Document No. 1 in EOUSA’s Vaughn index (attached as Exhibit C to
the Declaration of Dione Jackson Stearns, Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for United States
Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to be filed on January 24, 2008), and thus concedes the appropriateness of EOUSA’s
assertion of that exemption for the nondisclosure of portions of Document No. 1.
9.
Plaintiff will not challenge DHS’s, DOL’s, DOI’s, DOD’s, and HHS’s
withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6, and thus concedes the
3Page 4 appropriateness of those agencies’ assertion of those exemptions as grounds for nondisclosure of
portions of documents.
10.
Plaintiff limits its remaining claims against Defendant in this action to those
claims concerning the appropriateness of the following:
(a)
OIP’s assertion of Exemption 5 on the basis of the presidential
communications privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and portions of
documents listed in Document Group Nos. 3, 6, 21, and 26 in OIP’s Vaughn index (attached as
Exhibit K to the Declaration of Melanie Ann Pustay, Director of the Office of Information and
Privacy, United States Department of Justice, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed
on January 24, 2008);
(b)
OIP’s assertion of Exemption 5 on the basis of the deliberative process
privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and portions of documents listed in
Document Group Nos. 3, 6, 21, 25, 26, and 28 in OIP’s Vaughn index; and
(c)
EOUSA’s assertion of Exemption 6 as grounds for the nondisclosure of
documents and portions of documents listed as Document Nos. 2-5 in EOUSA’s Vaughn index.
11.
Defendant will only address Plaintiff’s remaining claims as identified in
Paragraph 10 in its dispositive motion, due on January 24, 2008.
4Page 5 Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Joseph E. Sandler
Joseph E. Sandler
D.C. Bar # 255919
Sandler Reiff & Young, P.C.
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Assistant Director
Federal Programs Branch
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Nicholas A. Oldham
Nicholas A. Oldham (D.C. Bar No. 484113)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Delivery Address
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 514-3367
Fax: (202) 616-8470
nicholas.oldham@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
Date: January 24, 2008
5
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:07-cv-00712-ESH
Document 10
Filed 01/24/2008
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL
COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 07-712 (ESH)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
JOINT STIPULATION
The parties hereby submit this joint stipulation regarding Plaintiff the Democratic
National Committee’s claims arising under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”),
5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, as well as agency FOIA regulations. Following Defendant the
United States Department of Justice’s submission to Plaintiff of a draft Vaughn index on
November 20, 2007, Plaintiff’s identification of withholdings it intended to challenge on
December 20, 2007, and Defendant’s supplemental release and submission of a revised draft
Vaughn index on January 15, 2008, the parties have agreed to limit the claims that need to be
resolved by the Court.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate that:
1.
Defendant has completed processing of Plaintiff’s March 19, 2007 FOIA request
described in ¶ 6 of the Complaint (dkt. no. 1) (“FOIA Request”). The United States Department
of Justice, Office of Information and Privacy (“OIP”), which is responsible for responding to the
FOIA Request on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and
Associate Attorney General, produced to Plaintiff (i) 1134 pages in full and (ii) 624 pages with
PDF Page 3
Case 1:07-cv-00712-ESH
Document 10
Filed 01/24/2008
Page 2 of 5
excisions, and withheld 1235 pages. OIP’s withholdings were made pursuant to FOIA
Exemption 2, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2) (“Exemption 2”), FOIA Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)
(“Exemption 5”), FOIA Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (“Exemption 6”), and FOIA
Exemption 7(C), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C) (“Exemption 7(C)”).
2.
OIP also referred for direct response to Plaintiff 6 pages to the United States
Department of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys (“EOUSA”), 2 pages to the
United States Department of Defense (“DOD”), 113 pages to the United States Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”), 4 pages to the United States Department of Health and Human
Services (“HHS”), 21 pages to the United States Department of Interior (“DOI”), 5 pages to the
United States Department of Labor (“DOL”), and 3 pages to the United States Office of
Personnel Management (“OPM”). EOUSA released 3 pages with excisions made pursuant to
Exemption 6, and withheld the other 3 pages in full pursuant to Exemption 6. DOD released
both pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6. DHS
released 52 pages in full and 61 pages with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2. HHS
released all 4 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6.
DOI released all 21 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2. DOL
released all 5 pages referred to it with excisions made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6.
And OPM released all 3 pages referred to it in full.
3.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s search for documents responsive to Plaintiff’s
FOIA Request, and thus concedes that Defendant’s search satisfies Defendant’s burden under
FOIA to conduct a reasonable search.
2
PDF Page 4
Case 1:07-cv-00712-ESH
4.
Document 10
Filed 01/24/2008
Page 3 of 5
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 2,
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of portions of documents.
5.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 6,
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of documents and portions of documents.
6.
Plaintiff will not challenge OIP’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 7(C),
and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption as grounds for
nondisclosure of portions of documents.
7.
Except as specifically identified in Paragraph 10, Plaintiff will not challenge
OIP’s withholdings made pursuant Exemption 5 on the basis of the deliberative process
privilege, and thus concedes the appropriateness of OIP’s assertion of that exemption on the
basis of the deliberative process privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and
portions of documents not otherwise identified in Paragraph 10.
8.
Plaintiff will not challenge EOUSA’s withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 6
in the document listed as Document No. 1 in EOUSA’s Vaughn index (attached as Exhibit C to
the Declaration of Dione Jackson Stearns, Attorney Advisor, Executive Office for United States
Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment to be filed on January 24, 2008), and thus concedes the appropriateness of EOUSA’s
assertion of that exemption for the nondisclosure of portions of Document No. 1.
9.
Plaintiff will not challenge DHS’s, DOL’s, DOI’s, DOD’s, and HHS’s
withholdings made pursuant to Exemption 2 and Exemption 6, and thus concedes the
3
PDF Page 5
Case 1:07-cv-00712-ESH
Document 10
Filed 01/24/2008
Page 4 of 5
appropriateness of those agencies’ assertion of those exemptions as grounds for nondisclosure of
portions of documents.
10.
Plaintiff limits its remaining claims against Defendant in this action to those
claims concerning the appropriateness of the following:
(a)
OIP’s assertion of Exemption 5 on the basis of the presidential
communications privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and portions of
documents listed in Document Group Nos. 3, 6, 21, and 26 in OIP’s Vaughn index (attached as
Exhibit K to the Declaration of Melanie Ann Pustay, Director of the Office of Information and
Privacy, United States Department of Justice, which is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Memorandum
of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed
on January 24, 2008);
(b)
OIP’s assertion of Exemption 5 on the basis of the deliberative process
privilege as grounds for the nondisclosure of documents and portions of documents listed in
Document Group Nos. 3, 6, 21, 25, 26, and 28 in OIP’s Vaughn index; and
(c)
EOUSA’s assertion of Exemption 6 as grounds for the nondisclosure of
documents and portions of documents listed as Document Nos. 2-5 in EOUSA’s Vaughn index.
11.
Defendant will only address Plaintiff’s remaining claims as identified in
Paragraph 10 in its dispositive motion, due on January 24, 2008.
4
PDF Page 6
Case 1:07-cv-00712-ESH
Document 10
Filed 01/24/2008
Page 5 of 5
Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
/s/ Joseph E. Sandler
Joseph E. Sandler
D.C. Bar # 255919
Sandler Reiff & Young, P.C.
50 E Street, S.E. #300
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: (202) 479-1111
Fax: (202) 479-1115
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Assistant Director
Federal Programs Branch
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Nicholas A. Oldham
Nicholas A. Oldham (D.C. Bar No. 484113)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Delivery Address
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 514-3367
Fax: (202) 616-8470
nicholas.oldham@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
Date: January 24, 2008
5
Back to 
