Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice Document 1: Complaint

California Northern District Court
Case No. 4:20-cv-02469-KAW
Filed April 13, 2020

COMPLAINT against All Defendants. Filed by Marc Cohodes. (No Process) (Attachments: # (1) Civil Cover Sheet)(Shapiro, David) (Filed on 4/13/2020) ($400 filing fee receipt #0971-14366344)Modified on 4/14/2020 (haS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 4/14/2020 (ajsS, COURT STAFF).

BackBack to Cohodes v. United States Department of Justice

Tags No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.

  Formatted Text Tab Overlap Raw Text Right End
Page 1
David W. Shapiro (SBN 219265)
dshapiro@nortonlaw.com
Fred Norton (SBN 224725)
fnorton@nortonlaw.com
Matthew W. Turetzky (SBN 280997)
mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
THE NORTON LAW FIRM P.C.
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California Telephone:(510) 906-Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARC COHODES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MARC COHODES, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.
v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, and EXECUTIVE
OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT
COMPLAINT
Page 2 SUMMARY OF THE ACTION

1.
This Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeks the production of

certain records in the possession of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of

Investigation (FBI), and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA).

2.
The records at issue relate to communications between MiMedx Group, Inc.

(MiMedx) and its officers, directors, employees, and agents, including, without limitation,

its former Chief Executive Officer, Parker “Pete” Petit, and retired United States Senator

Johnny Isakson referring or relating to Plaintiff Marc Cohodes. Petit was a major

contributor to Senator Isakson.

3.
Disclosures to date reveal that Petit and his colleagues asked Isakson and his

staff to encourage the FBI to take action against Cohodes, after Cohodes publicly criticized

MiMedx and Petit. (Senator Isakson and his staff, and others working on his behalf or

speaking in his name, are referred to hereafter as “Isakson.”)

4.
In response to Isakson’s communications, two FBI Special Agents confronted

Plaintiff Marc Cohodes, his wife, and his son at their home in Sonoma County. The FBI

Special Agents told Cohodes (and subsequently Cohodes’s lawyer), among other things, that

Cohodes should stop making comments about Petit and MiMedx, and that if he did not, then

there would be “consequences.”

5.
The FBI’s conduct was part of an ongoing campaign by MiMedx and Petit to

silence Cohodes’s criticisms of MiMedx and Petit, punish Cohodes for criticizing MiMedx

and Petit, and violate Cohodes’s First Amendment rights. It was further part of a broader

scheme to silence and intimidate critics of MiMedx and Petit (other than Cohodes) who

feared the same kind of heavy-handed and illegal conduct directed at Cohodes. Those

campaigns to threaten, intimidate, and silence were accomplished through an improper

relationship between a United States Senator, Petit, and government agencies responsible for

enforcing federal criminal law.

6.
In and after January 2020, Cohodes submitted FOIA requests seeking the
communications between Isakson and any component agency of the DOJ (including, without
COMPLAINT
Page 3
limitation, the FBI and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New

York) that relate to Cohodes.

7.
The government agencies either ignored Cohodes’s requests or, in the case of

the FBI, produced only a few documents. These documents contained significant redactions

that are not justified by any FOIA exemption. Cohodes submitted timely appeals, which

were denied or ignored.

8.
This lawsuit seeks to compel the government to produce documents that will

reveal the FBI’s misconduct in violating Cohodes’s First Amendment rights, improper

influence brought to bear by Petit and his cohorts on a politician, and MiMedx’s efforts to

silence critics in violation of federal securities laws.
THE PARTIES

9.

California.

10.
Plaintiff Marc Cohodes is an individual who resides in Sonoma County,
Defendant United States Department of Justice is a government agency within

the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and is headquartered in Washington, District of

Columbia.

11.
Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation is a component of the United States

Department of Justice. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency within the meaning

of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and is headquartered in Washington, District of Columbia.

12.
Defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys is a component of the

United States Department of Justice that provides executive and administrative support for

the 93 United States Attorneys located throughout the 50 states, the District Columbia, and

various United States territories. The Executive Office for United States Attorneys is an

agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1) and has 93 field offices throughout the

United States.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13.
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal
jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This Court also has
COMPLAINT
Page 4
jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1346.
14.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a

substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because complainant Cohodes resides in this District.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

15.
Cohodes resides in Sonoma County. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 3-2(c), intradistrict

assignment in the San Francisco or Oakland Division is proper. This filing is captioned for

the San Francisco Division because, pursuant to General Order No. 73, the Northern

District’s operations have been consolidated to the San Francisco Division and the Oakland

courthouse is closed.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Government’s Efforts to Silence Cohodes
16.
Cohodes is a long-time stock market analyst who has provided valuable

information to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Department of Justice.

Cohodes’s information has led to federal civil and criminal law enforcement actions against

executives at companies such as Lernout & Hauspie, Media Vision Technology, NovaStar

Financial, AremiSoft, California Micro Devices, Network Associates, TakeTwo Interactive,

Krispy Kreme Donuts, Boston Chicken, and others.

17.
In about September 2017, Cohodes began to follow allegations about securities

and FDA improprieties at MiMedx. He became a vocal critic, posting negative information

about MiMedx’s publicly reported financial results and about the safety of MiMedx’s

products. Cohodes wrote to the company’s Board of Directors and its top management, as

well as its auditors, about his concerns. Because he made no secret about his own identity,

former and current employees reached out to Cohodes with information about wrongdoing at

MiMedx, including wrongdoing by its CEO Parker “Pete” Petit.

18.
Petit and MiMedx responded to Cohodes’s criticisms by attacking Cohodes.

They and their shills made false claims about the legality of Cohodes’s short sales, sent

personal attacks to Cohodes, and denied there was any validity to Cohodes’s (and others’)
COMPLAINT
Page 5
criticisms of the company’s public reporting and FDA compliance. (In the end, Cohodes

was proved right over and over again: MiMedx withdrew six years of financial statements,

its stock was delisted, it terminated many of its employees, federal prosecutors indicted Petit

and MiMedx’s COO William Taylor for securities fraud in 2019, and on April 6, 2020 the

company announced that it agreed to pay $6.5 million to resolve False Claims Act

allegations that it knowingly submitted false information to the Department of Veterans

Affairs.)

19.
Before law enforcement cracked down on MiMedx and its executives,
however, Petit obtained the FBI’s assistance in trying to silence Cohodes. On December 1,

2017 at about 1:20 p.m., two men arrived at Cohodes’s home in Cotati, California. They

approached Cohodes’s wife in the driveway. One man, with dark hair and a beard, quickly

flashed a badge and identified himself as an FBI agent. He told Ms. Cohodes not to write

down his name or take a photograph. That man then followed Ms. Cohodes as she walked

towards her house, even after she asked him to wait in the driveway because Mr. Cohodes’s

son is disabled and she did not want the son to become alarmed.

20.
Mr. Cohodes then came out of the house. The man asked if there was

someplace they could speak privately. The two men, Mr. Cohodes, and Ms. Cohodes then

walked into the Cohodes’s home. Mr. Cohodes asked if he needed to call his attorney, and

the man said “no, this is a courtesy call.”

21.
One of the men told Cohodes that he needed to “stop sending threatening

tweets” about “Mr. Petit.” He read two “tweets” to Cohodes. He repeated several times,

“do you understand, do you understand?” Cohodes asked the man several times to verify

who they were. One of the men pulled out a business card but refused to give it to Cohodes.

22.
Cohodes then called the police.

23.
Cohodes told the men that they should leave if they did not have a warrant.

One of the men told Cohodes that he would leave only when Cohodes acknowledged that the

tweets were threats and that he would not post other tweets in the future. The man told

Cohodes that “there would be consequences” if he came back to Cohodes’s home.
COMPLAINT
Page 6
24.
During their conversation, Cohodes called his attorney, who then spoke with a

man who identified himself as Paul Viglienzone. After some prodding by counsel, he

identified his colleague as Jeremy Heinrich. Viglienzone advised counsel that both men

were FBI Special Agents. He told counsel he was at the Cohodes residence as a “courtesy”

to stop Cohodes from posting “threatening” tweets or else he would come back.

25.
Viglienzone read the alleged threatening tweets to counsel and asked counsel

several times to tell Cohodes to stop posting “threatening tweets.” Counsel declined to do

so. Counsel asked whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office was involved in this investigation,

and Viglienzone declined to say.

26.
Counsel told Viglienzone that he had communicated what he wanted to

Cohodes and asked him to leave Cohodes’s property. Counsel told Viglienzone that if he

wished to speak to Cohodes again, then he should contact counsel – and have no further

direct communication concerning Cohodes’s tweets with Cohodes.

27.
Neither of the two FBI agents would leave a business card with Mr. and Ms.

Cohodes; both showed only a portion of their credentials. Both acted in a threatening and

heavy-handed manner to the Cohodeses and to counsel.

28.
As a result of this incident, counsel contacted the FBI and U.S. Attorney Brian

Stretch to determine whether the two men were in fact FBI Special Agents. Counsel had

also sought to understand why the FBI was threatening Cohodes at his home over certain

tweets that were not in fact “threatening.” Counsel also wrote to FBI director Christopher

Wray and the DOJ’s Office of Inspector General documenting this incident.

29.
After two years of complaints, without a substantive response from the FBI or
the DOJ, Cohodes sought information through a FOIA request.
B. The January 15, 2020 FOIA Requests
30.
On January 15, 2020, Cohodes, through counsel, submitted the three requests

at issue in this litigation (Requests Nos. EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI),

and EOUSA-2020-001161 (EOUSA)). Copies of these FOIA requests are attached to this

Complaint as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
COMPLAINT
Page 7
31.
The requests sought “all correspondence and communications between Senator

Jonny Isakson, his staff, his employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the [DOJ,

FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in the Southern District of New York (SDNY)]

referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes” and “all documents and

communications in the possession, custody, or control of the [DOJ, FBI, and the USAO

SDNY] referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.” The requests included a signed privacy

release by Cohodes on form DOJ-361 and his agreement through counsel to pay reasonable

duplication fees not to exceed $1,500 per request. The FOIA requires federal agencies to

respond within 20 working days of receiving a request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The

agencies did not respond within the 20 working-day deadline.
32.
The FOIA treats such failures to respond within the statutory time limit as

constructive denials. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i). Any person making a FOIA request is

“deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to such request if the

agency fails to comply with the applicable time limit provisions.” Id.

C. The February 21, 2020 FOIA Appeals
33.
Cohodes nevertheless appealed the agencies’ constructive denials of his

requests on February 21, 2020 to obtain the requested documents through the agencies’

internal administrative appeal process. A copy of Cohodes’s appeal is attached to this

Complaint as Exhibit 4. Cohodes submitted the same letter to appeal all three FOIA

requests.

34.
The FOIA requires agencies to respond to appeals within 20 working days of

receiving the appeal. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). The agencies did not respond within the

20 working-day deadline.

35.
The FOIA treats an agency’s failure to timely respond to an appeal as a
constructive denial for exhaustion purposes. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
D. The FBI’s March 6, 2020 Response to Cohodes’s January 15, 2020 FOIA
Request
COMPLAINT
Page 8
36.
On March 6, 2020, the FBI purported to respond to Cohodes’s January 15,

2020 FOIA request by producing “documents from previous requests regarding your

subject.” The FBI’s March 6, 2020 letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5.

37.
Enclosed with the FBI’s March 6, 2020 letter were 12 pages of documents

containing numerous redactions. The enclosed documents are attached to this Complaint as

Exhibit 6.

38.
These disclosures reveal that in October and early November 2017, there was a

series of emails and calls complaining to Isakson, and Isakson made phone calls to the FBI

on behalf of that complainant. Then, in November 2017, Senator Isakson sent

correspondence from a “constituent” (name redacted). The correspondence appears to be an

email relating to communications with an “Agent,” about a subject that has been redacted.

In January 2018, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI wrote to Isakson assuring him that

the matter had been brought to the “attention of appropriate personnel for any action.”

39.
Also in January 2018, according to Petit’s own website, Petit, Taylor, Lexi

Haden (MiMedx’s General Counsel), two DOJ “agents”, and a DOJ criminal investigator

met in New York. At the meeting, Petit, Taylor, and Haden were asked “to forward to the

agents all fraudulent activities that Marc Cohodes was conducting against the Company.” In

response to his FOIA request, the DOJ never provided Cohodes any documents reflecting

Petit’s January 2018 meeting. A copy of Petit’s account of this meeting is attached to this

Complaint as Exhibit 7 and is available on the internet at

https://www.petepetit.com/mimedx/downloads/background-of-the-investigation.pdf.

40.
Petit, Taylor, and Haden also met with DOJ officials in 2018 specifically to

discuss Cohodes. Petit claims to have provided evidence to DOJ showing that Cohodes had

illegally shorted MiMedx shares. The DOJ never provided Cohodes any documents

reflecting what Petit himself claimed had happened, including notes or memoranda of this

meeting. A copy of Petit’s account of this meeting is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit
and is available on the internet at https://www.petepetit.com/mimedx/downloads/illegal-

short-selling-against-mimedx.pdf.
COMPLAINT
Page 9 41.

On December 27, 2018, the Wall Street Journal published a story describing

the FBI agents’ visit to Cohodes’s home and the involvement of Isakson and Petit. The story

quoted an FBI spokesperson as stating that, “In this instance the Special Agents complied

with FBI policy and we consider this matter closed.” A copy of that article is attached to

this Complaint as Exhibit 9 and is available on the internet at https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-

johnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group-11545934861.
42.

The government’s disclosures are virtually all redacted, and they do not

represent all of the communications sought by the FOIA requests. For example, there are no

notes of telephone conversations, no memos between the FBI and any United States

Attorney’s Office (which were required by the FBI’s own policies before infringing on a

person’s First Amendment rights), no documents from any United States Attorney’s

Office(s), and no FBI reports of the interview that the FBI conducted of Mr. Cohodes and his

wife.

43.
It is in the public interest to know whether a Senator has been the subject of

improper influence, whether a Senator has violated the law or his ethical duties, and whether

FBI Special Agents have misused their authority to advance the personal interests of

someone later indicted for fraud.

E. Cohodes’s March 11, 2020 FOIA Appeal Supplement
44.
Cohodes filed a supplement to his pending FBI appeal on March 11, 2020.
That supplement is attached as Exhibit 10.
45.
In his March 11, 2020 supplement, Cohodes argued that the FBI’s March 6,

2020 response had wrongfully withheld documents under FOIA exemptions (b)(6),

(b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). The FBI never responded to Cohodes’s supplement.

F. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys’ March 27, 2020 Response to Cohodes’s

February 21, 2020 FOIA Appeal

46.
On March 27, 2020, the EOUSA responded to Cohodes’s February 21,
FOIA appeal. The EOUSA asserted that it had not made an adverse determination on

Cohodes’s January 15, 2020 FOIA requests, but noted that Cohodes may immediately file a
COMPLAINT
Page 10
lawsuit because the agency had taken more than 20 days to respond. See 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(6)(C)(i). The EOUSA’s letter is attached as Exhibit 11.
47.

Because the DOJ and the EOUSA have not made a determination within the

time period required by statute and because the FBI have constructively denied Cohodes’s

administrative appeal, Cohodes filed this lawsuit.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 Request

to the Department of Justice

48.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-47.

49.
Plaintiff properly requested the records described in the January 15,
FOIA request to the DOJ in compliance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552 and the

applicable internal regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.3.

50.
The records requested by Plaintiff are under the custody and/or control of the
51.
The DOJ did not respond to Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request within
DOJ.

the statutory time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The DOJ’s failure to respond

amounted to a constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request. 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(6)(C)(i).

52.
Plaintiff timely appealed the DOJ’s constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January

15, 2020 FOIA request on February 21, 2020. The DOJ failed to respond to Plaintiff’s

timely appeal. The DOJ’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s timely appeal amounts to a

constructive denial of Plaintiff’s appeal.

53.
Plaintiff has met the exhaustion requirement because (1) Plaintiff filed a

lawsuit after the DOJ failed to respond to his FOIA request within the time limit set forth in

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and (2) Plaintiff attempted to timely appeal the DOJ’s

constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request and the DOJ failed to

respond to Plaintiff’s appeal within the statutory time limit.
COMPLAINT
Page 11 54.

The DOJ has wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff and

has failed to comply with the statutory time limit for processing Plaintiff’s January 15,
FOIA request.
55.

The DOJ’s wrongful withholding of the records sought by Plaintiff’s January
15, 2020 FOIA request violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
56.

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure

of the requested documents under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because the DOJ continues to

improperly withhold and/or delay the production of agency records in violation of FOIA.
57.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury from and have no adequate legal remedy

for the DOJ’s illegal withholding of government documents pertaining to the FBI’s

participation in the campaigns to threaten, intimidate, and silence critics of a public company

through violations of individual constitutional rights.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 Request

to the Federal Bureau of Investigation

58.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-47.

59.
Plaintiff properly requested the records described in the January 15,
FOIA request to the FBI in compliance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552 and the

applicable internal regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.3.

60.
The records requested by Plaintiff are under the custody and/or control of the
61.
The FBI did not respond to Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request within
FBI.

the statutory time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The FBI’s failure to respond

amounted to a constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request. 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(6)(C)(i).

62.
When the FBI did respond on March 6, 2020, it wrongfully redacted and

withheld documents under FOIA exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). Those

exemptions do not apply to Cohodes’s requests.
COMPLAINT
Page 12
63.
Plaintiff timely appealed the FBI’s constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January

15, 2020 FOIA request on February 21, 2020. When the FBI finally responded to Plaintiff’s

January 15, 2020 FOIA request on March 6, 2020, Plaintiff promptly supplemented his

appeal on March 11, 2020 to challenge the FBI’s response. The FBI failed to respond to

Plaintiff’s timely appeals. The FBI’s failure to respond to Plaintiff’s timely appeals amounts

to a constructive denial of Plaintiff’s appeals.

64.
Plaintiff has met the exhaustion requirement because Plaintiff timely appealed

the FBI’s constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request and the FBI’s

adverse determination of March 6, 2020. The FBI failed to respond to Plaintiff’s appeals

within the statutory time limit.
65.
The FBI has wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff and

has failed to comply with the statutory time limit for processing Plaintiff’s January 15,
FOIA request.

66.
The FBI’s wrongful withholding of the records sought by Plaintiff’s January
15, 2020 FOIA request violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
67.
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure

of the requested documents under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because the FBI continues to

improperly withhold and/or delay the production of agency records in violation of FOIA.

Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury from and have no adequate legal remedy for the FBI’s

illegal withholding of government documents pertaining to the FBI’s participation in the

campaigns to threaten, intimidate, and silence critics of a public company through violations

of individual constitutional rights.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of the Freedom of Information Act for Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 Request

to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

68.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-47.
COMPLAINT
Page 13
69.
Plaintiff properly requested the records described in the January 15,
FOIA request to the EOUSA in compliance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 552 and the

applicable internal regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.3.

70.
The records requested by Plaintiff are under the custody and/or control of the
EOUSA.
71.
The EOUSA did not respond to Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request

within the statutory time limit set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The EOUSA’s failure

to respond amounted to a constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request.

5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

72.
Plaintiff timely appealed the EOUSA’s constructive denial of Plaintiff’s

January 15, 2020 FOIA request on February 21, 2020. The EOUSA dismissed Plaintiff’s

appeal on March 27, 2020 because the EOUSA had not made a final determination on

Plaintiff’s FOIA request.

73.
Plaintiff has met the exhaustion requirement because (1) Plaintiff filed a

lawsuit after the EOUSA failed to respond to his FOIA request within the time limit set forth

in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i) and (2) Plaintiff attempted to timely appeal the EOUSA’s

constructive denial of Plaintiff’s January 15, 2020 FOIA request, which the EOUSA

dismissed on March 27, 2020, citing the fact that the EOUSA had not made a final

determination on Plaintiff’s FOIA request.

74.
The EOUSA has wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff

and has failed to comply with the statutory time limit for processing Plaintiff’s January 15,

2020 FOIA request.

75.
The EOUSA’s wrongful withholding of the records sought by Plaintiff’s
January 15, 2020 FOIA request violates the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).
76.
Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure

of the requested documents under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) because the EOUSA continues to

improperly withhold and/or delay the production of agency records in violation of FOIA.
COMPLAINT
Page 14
77.
Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury from and have no adequate legal remedy

for the EOUSA’s illegal withholding of government documents pertaining to the FBI’s

participation in the campaigns to threaten, intimidate, and silence critics of a public company

through violations of individual constitutional rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Marc Cohodes respectfully prays for relief as follows:

A.

Declare that the defendants’ failure to disclose the records requested by the
plaintiff is unlawful;
B.
Order the defendants to immediately conduct a thorough search for the
requested information;
C.
Order the defendants to process expeditiously the requested records in their
entirety;
D.
Order the defendants, upon completion of such processing, to disclose the
requested records in their entirety and make them available to the plaintiff;

E.
Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action;

F.
Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants order the

relief requested herein;
G.
Award to the plaintiffs their litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees
incurred in this action; and
H.
Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: April 13,
THE NORTON LAW FIRM P.C.

By:______________________________
David W. Shapiro
Fred Norton
Matthew W. Turetzky
Attorneys for Plaintiff
MARC COHODES
COMPLAINT
Page 15 EXHIBIT 1
Page 16 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA E-MAIL
FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
United States Department of Justice
Room LOC Building
Washington, DC 20530-Phone: (202) 616-E-mail: MRUFOIA.Requests@usdoj.gov
Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Department of Justice
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the United States Department of
Justice referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the United
States Department of Justice referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 17 Department of Justice
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 18 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Buth
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 19 EXHIBIT 2
Page 20 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION
David M. Hardy, Chief
Record/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Department of Justice
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 21 Federal Bureau of Investigation
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 22 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Buth
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 23 EXHIBIT 3
Page 24 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION
Kevin Krebs
Assistant Director
FOIA/Privacy Unit
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Department of Justice
175 N Street, N.E.
Suite 5.Washington, DC 20530-Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Dear Mr. Krebs:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the United States Attorney’s Office for
the Southern District of New York referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc
Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the United
States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York referring or relating to
Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 25 Department of Justice
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 26 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Buth
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 27 EXHIBIT 4
Page 28 NORTON
law firm pc
February 21, BY ONLINE SUBMISSION (FOIA STAR)
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy (OIP)
441 G Street NW, Sixth Floor
Washington, D.C. DOJ.OIP.FOIA@usdoj.gov
Re:
Freedom of Information Act Appeal of the DOJ, FBI, and EOUSA’s
Constructive Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request Nos.
EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA-2020001161 (EOUSA) submitted by Matthew Turetzky on January 15,
To Whom It May Concern,
I hereby appeal the constructive denials by the Department of Justice, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Executive Office of United States Attorneys of the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Nos. EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ),
1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA-2020-001161 (EOUSA).
I submitted these FOIA requests on January 15, 2020. The requests sought “all
correspondence and communications between Senator Jonny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the [DOJ, FBI, and the U.S. Attorney’s
Office (USAO) in the Southern District of New York (SDNY)] referring or relating to
MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes” and “all documents and communications in the
possession, custody, or control of the [DOJ, FBI, and the USAO SDNY] referring or
relating to Marc Cohodes.” The requests included a signed privacy release by Mr.
Cohodes on form DOJ-361 and my agreement to pay reasonable duplication fees not to
exceed $1,500 per request.
The FOIA requires agencies, such as the DOJ, FBI, and the EOUSA to respond
within 20 working days of receiving a request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). Here, the
agencies have not responded within the 20 working-day deadline. The FOIA treats such
failures to respond as constructive denials. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
Page 29 February 21, Office of Information Policy
Page I therefore appeal your denials of my FOIA requests and further request that you
respond to this appeal within 20 working-days as required by statute. 5 U.S.C
552(a)(6)(A)(ii).
If you have any questions about this administrative appeal, please contact me by
email at mturetzky@nortonlaw.com or telephone at 510-906-4905.
Sincerely,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosures (FOIA Request and Mr. Cohodes Signed Form DOJ 361 (Privacy Release))
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 30 EXHIBIT 5
Page 31 U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. February 28, MR. MATTHEW W TURETZKY
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
SUITE 299 THIRD STREET
OAKLAND, CA FOIPA Request No.: 1457448-Subject: MiMedx (Correspondence between
FBI and Senator Johnny Isakson)
Dear Mr. Turetzky:
The enclosed 10 pages of records were determined to be responsive to your subject and were
previously processed and released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Please see the
selected paragraphs below for relevant information specific to your request as well as the enclosed FBI
FOIPA Addendum for standard responses applicable to all requests.
In an effort to provide you with responsive records as expeditiously as possible, we are
releasing documents from previous requests regarding your subject. We consider your
request fulfilled. Since we relied on previous results, additional records potentially
responsive to your subject may exist. If this release of previously processed material does
not satisfy your request, you may request an additional search for records. Submit your
request by mail or fax to – Work Process Unit, 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602,
fax number (540) 868-4997. Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in your
correspondence.
r
r
Please be advised that additional records responsive to your subject exist. If this release
of previously processed material does not satisfy your request, you must advise us that
you want the additional records processed. Please submit your response within thirty (30)
days by mail or fax to—Work Processing Unit, 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602,
fax number (540) 868-4997. Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in your
correspondence. If we do not receive your decision within thirty (30) days of the date
of this notification, your request will be closed.
One or more of the enclosed records were transferred to the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Although we retained a version of the records previously
processed pursuant to the FOIA, the original records are no longer in our possession.
If this release of the previously processed material does not satisfy your request, you may
file a FOIPA request with NARA at the following address:
National Archives and Records Administration
Special Access and FOIA
8601 Adelphi Road, Room College Park, MD 20740-
r
Records potentially responsive to your request were transferred to the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), and they were not previously processed pursuant to
the FOIA. You may file a request with NARA using the address above.
Page 32 r
r
r
One or more of the enclosed records were destroyed. Although we retained a version of
the records previously processed pursuant to the FOIA, the original records are no longer
in our possession. Record retention and disposal is carried out under supervision of the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) , Title 44, United States Code,
Section 3301 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1228; Title
44, United States Code, Section 3310 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1229.10.
Records potentially responsive to your request were destroyed. Since this material could
not be reviewed, it is not known if it was responsive to your request. Record retention and
disposal is carried out under supervision of the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) according to Title 44 United States Code Section 3301, Title Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 12 Sub-chapter B Part 1228, and 36 CFR
1229.10.
Documents or information referred to other Government agencies were not included in this
release.
Please refer to the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for additional standard responses applicable to
your request. “Part 1” of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. “Part 2”
includes additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records about yourself or any third party
individuals. “Part 3” includes general information about FBI records that you may find useful. Also
enclosed is our Explanation of Exemptions.
For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
correspondence concerning your request.
If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this
request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United
States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit
your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act
Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland
20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile
at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing
foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading
should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned
to your request so it may be easily identified.
Sincerely,
David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division
Enclosure(s)
Page 33 FBI FOIPA Addendum
As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA
Addendum provides information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply
to all requests. Part 2 includes standard responses that apply to requests for records about individuals to the extent your
request seeks the listed information. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records, searches, and programs.
Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests:
(i)
5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
requirements of the FOIPA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements
of the FOIPA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website.
(ii)
Intelligence Records. To the extent your request seeks records of intelligence sources, methods, or activities, the
FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and as applicable to
requests for records about individuals, PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2)]. The mere
acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption
(b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC §
3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that any such records do or do not exist.
Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals:
(i)
Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of
any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§
552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or
do not exist.
(ii)
Requests for Records about any Individual—Witness Security Program Records. The FBI can neither confirm
nor deny the existence of records which could identify any participant in the Witness Security Program pursuant to
FOIA exemption (b)(3) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. 3521, and (j)(2)]. This is a
standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
(iii)
Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records
which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to
FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)].
This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
Part 3: General Information:
(i)
Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by
searching systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A standard search normally
consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of
applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled by the FBI per its law
enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization, comprising records
of FBI Headquarters, FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide; Electronic Surveillance
(ELSUR) records are included in the CRS. Unless specifically requested, a standard search does not include references,
administrative records of previous FOIPA requests, or civil litigation files. For additional information about our record
searches, visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records.
(ii)
FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this
dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on
every person, subject, or entity.
(iii)
Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division
provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheet. These criminal
history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a
listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests,
federal employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History
Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summarychecks. Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please
contact CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590.
(iv)
National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name
check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic
threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private Citizens
cannot request a name check.
Page 34 EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION (b)(1)
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;
(b)(2)
related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(b)(3)
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the
matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding
or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(b)(4)
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(b)(5)
inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
the agency;
(b)(6)
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records
or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a
fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D )
could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any
private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;
(b)(8)
contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(b)(9)
geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a
(d)(5)
information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;
(j)(2)
material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime
or apprehend criminals;
(k)(1)
information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign
policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;
(k)(2)
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or
privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity
would be held in confidence;
(k)(3)
material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant
to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;
(k)(4)
required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
(k)(5)
investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;
(k)(6)
testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service
the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;
(k)(7)
material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person
who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
FBI/DOJ
Page 35 EXHIBIT 6
Page 36 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1457448-Total Deleted Page(s)
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 6 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 7 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 18 ~ Duplicate;
Page 19 ~ Duplicate;
Page 20 ~ Duplicate;
Page 21 ~ Duplicate;
Page 26 ~ Duplicate;
Page 27 ~ Duplicate;
Page 30 ~ Duplicate;
Page 31 ~ Duplicate;
Page 32 ~ Duplicate;
Page 33 ~ Duplicate;
Page 34 ~ Duplicate;
Page 35 ~ Duplicate;
Page 36 ~ Duplicate;
Page 37 ~ Duplicate;
Page 38 ~ Duplicate;
Page 39 ~ Duplicate;
Page 40 ~ Duplicate;
Page 41 ~ Duplicate;
Page 42 ~ Duplicate;
Page 43 ~ Duplicate;
Page 44 ~ Duplicate;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
Deleted Page(s)
X
No Duplication Fee X
For this Page
X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 37 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1405921-Total Deleted Page(s)
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 6 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 7 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 18 ~ Duplicate;
Page 19 ~ Duplicate;
Page 20 ~ Duplicate;
Page 21 ~ Duplicate;
Page 26 ~ Duplicate;
Page 27 ~ Duplicate;
Page 30 ~ Duplicate;
Page 31 ~ Duplicate;
Page 32 ~ Duplicate;
Page 33 ~ Duplicate;
Page 34 ~ Duplicate;
Page 35 ~ Duplicate;
Page 36 ~ Duplicate;
Page 37 ~ Duplicate;
Page 38 ~ Duplicate;
Page 39 ~ Duplicate;
Page 40 ~ Duplicate;
Page 41 ~ Duplicate;
Page 42 ~ Duplicate;
Page 43 ~ Duplicate;
Page 44 ~ Duplicate;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
Deleted Page(s)
X
No Duplication Fee X
For this Page
X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 38 ~-----------
------------------
No. • Nov. 20. 2017Case
11: 21AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 38 of
'
P.
'
\
·JOHNNY ISAKSON
UNITED STATES SENATOR · GEORGlA
Fax Cover Sheet
One Overton Park
.3625 Cumberland Boulevard
Suite Atlanta, Georgia 30339 ·
770-661-770-661-0768 (Fax)
---L-------....IL
To: _·__C_on_.g.,,_r_es_s_io_n_al_·_ _
From:
Fax:
Pages:Dincluding cover
202-3 24---------
bb7C
b7E
11/20/Date: - - - ----bb7C
Subject: -----'-------------..J-Comments:
assistance in reachin
b7E
out to the FBII
We
appreciate
all appropriate action in accordance with established policies and procedures. ·
I can be reached a~1..._ _ _----1i-;lw_;it_h..;.;...an......,y_g=u..:..;es=ti..;;.;.on;;.;;.s;_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
bb7C
Page 39 P. 2.
No. Nov. 20. 2017Case
11:21AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 39 of
JOHNNY ISAKSON
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
GEORGIA
CHAl~MAN
h1Jp;/Jisakgon.,ena1a.oov
l l T AU$5!LL SEN,._TE OFACE &UJLOJNO
WAeM1Na:ro", oc
2os
1202) 224-
·tJanitrd oStates ~enetr
WASHINGTON, DC
177DI 6tl1-0S
CHI\IRM/IN
FINANCE
HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOfl. AND PENSIONS
Or,f OvfAYON PAA~
3626 CUMBE~LAND BOULEVAAD, SUITE
AlUlf>ITA, GA 30339 .
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
November 20,
SuaCOMMITTEE ON
EMf\O'>'MtNY AN~ WOMFU\CE.
SAff/V, C11AIAMAN
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SU0COMMJ1TEE ON
Mr. Gregory Brower
Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw, Room Washington, D.C.
STATE 0EPA~TMENT ANO
USAJO
MANA~!MENT, l11•ERNATIONAL OPeMTJONs.
ANO 911.11,fAA• INYERNA110NA•
DEVELOPMENT, C~Al~MAN
bb7C
REI_ _ _ _ _ __
Dear Mr. Brower:
·Please find enclosed correspondence I received from the above-referenced constituent. I would appreciate
your review of this information in accordance with established policies and procedures. Upon completion
of your review, please forward clarification ofyou1· findings to the address below.
ln the event my office may be of fu1ther assistance, please do not hesitate to contac~
~tD
.___ _ _....~hank you for your efforts in this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.·
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senate
Enclosure (s)
One Ove1ton Park, Suite 3625 Cumberland Blvd
Atlanta, GA ATTN: I..__ _ _____.
bb7C
bb7C
Page 40 No. Nov.20 . 2017Case
1L:22AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 40 of
P.
L__ _ _ _ _Jr_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b7C
~Isakson)
FW: FBI
Subject:
From~
..,;,,__
bG
~ma ilt~..___ _ _ ____.I
·
Sent: Friday, November 17,..•.:.20:::.:1:::.:;7~3~:5=..;2:...P:..:.M.;.:....___________
1(1s~ksonJI.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.....
Subject: RE: FBI
To!
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
As a result, we made contact wit~
lwho put us in touc;-h....w__it.._h__A""""'e'""'n,....__ _...i.;..;..;a..;;;.i;;;.;a.;.=..;..;;..;..;=:.;;&.......&,;o;...v.;;..er
.. the phone
The next day; we provided Agent
information, includin
rovide It to you. Although Agent
We will be happy to
We sooke again with Agen~
lbut have not heard from him since this last co~tact~
bb7C
b7E
I
bb7C
b7E
Thanks,
....._I_ _____.I
bb7C
Page 41 V.S. nepartment of ,Justice
Federal Bureau ofinvestigation
Washington, D. C 20535-000!
The Honorable Johnny Isakson
United States Senator
Suite
JAN 2 5
One Overton Park
3625 Cumberland Boulevard
Atlanta, GA
Dear Senator Isakson:
I am \Vritin} in res ,onse to 1our Novernber 20. 2017 fotter to the FBI on behalf of vour
bb7C
constituent
ln order to protect the integrity of all investigations, the FBJ does not gtmt~rally comment
on the status or existence of any potential investigative matter. Please he assured this matter has
been brought to the attention of the appropriate personnel for any action deemed necessary.
I appredate your bri.ngfo this matter to our attention, and I hope this information
helpful to you in responding to
------------Sincerely,
wm he
bb7C
Page 42 o_0111111)11111(F_B_I_}_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~c
L__ _ _ _ _Jilc..
I
From:
Sent:
I
To:
Subject:
kDO) (FBIJ
Monday. October 16, 2017 8:58 AM
kAT) (FBI)
RE;Vk.tim Referral
bb7C
b
! gota messa e Sunda evenin from an attorney represent!n~
.
.
hn the vokernaH the attorney b7C
sai
I haven't called.him back yet, but! apologize for sending thlsyourwayLJ b7E
L----...,....,-------' The Senatorgave me the understand in~
lwhen you have a
chance could you give me a quick call. Thanks~
I
SSA!L._ _ _ __.
Office of Con ressiona! Affairs) FBI
bb7C
Deskr-L-------Cell
~:r
.. --··-Original• Message--.. ·Froml
too) (FBI)
Friday
bb7C
kA~~1~lJ.B-.·. 2_.0. ...17--4:_3_s_P_M_·...1----,
cc:
.
{Ob) (FBlSubject: RE: Victim Referral .___ _ _ _ ___.
bb7C
! spoke wltij.__ ____,~nd gavQour numberl..._ __.
-----Original Message----Fromt
l{DO) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:12 PM
To~
cc{ .
bb7C
!(AT) {FB. !).1,.,.I....,,.,,.._ _ _ __ _ _ . . . _
.
Koo) (rnq
Subject: Victim Referral

L---------'
As we discussed over the Phone, .I recently received a call from Senator Johnny Isakson, Who informed me that
Although! ordinarily offer the complaint hotline number to constituents seeldmito file a cnmi,,, ...+.I
r ~~~
b
I
bb7C
b7E
1.
Page 43 L--------.----.------........--.---~~----:-:;:,-----;-------:-;------:----;--~:--:---:------r-,
L - - - - - - - . . .ILet me Know wtuch makes more sense. If you have any questions or issues please let me knowj.__ ____.
SSAL...I---.---------'
bb7C
Office of Comuessional Affairs, FBI
Desk.
, . L - - - - - -....
CeU:IL - - - - - - - - '

bb7C
b7E
Page 44 L__ _ _ _ _....Jk.o_o_)_(_F_B_l)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
kisakson)L..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____,
Monda:y, October 16, 2017 ll:49 AM
I
l{DO) {FBI)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~~c
-
bb7C
RE: Senator Isakson of Georgfo
Thank you so muchJ1..__________,
ReaHy apprndate your fast help on a Friday.
Cat! on us if we can ever help VOLL
Best
bb7C
OfflCi; OF UN.ITfO STA'fes SENATOR JOHNNY lSAKSON
tJCptwm:,,
io2. :t24.:.lM:l
Atli.'lnta pht,f1$: rt0,66:! .o"l,::l ~m-iJi/:1..I_____________,
l(OO) (FBI) [mai!td.L,._ _ _ _ ___,
From~
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017.,_9,;;.:;.;;;1.;;.3.;..A..;.;M.;..•- - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
To~
l{lsaksonf
Subject: RE :.Senator Isakson of G.1,,,~e_o_r_g..,.la_______________
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
Thank vou for setting thls rnH u . i "'vas f.lble to s · eak \•vith the
ease t ,an t ·. e•, enato r · or ta king the time to ta Ii arid refer th !s tnatterto
us and ptease don't hesitate to reach out ff there is ,mvthlng else I can assist yow with from a Congrnssiona! Affalrs
standpoint And have a great \Veek!I
I
$5~.__ _ _ _ __
Offke of Congre.ssionaf Affairs, FBI
l:Jesk~
bb7C
I
I
ceuj
From~
..
.
!(Isakson} lm~
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 PM
L------------------'
bb7C
Page 45 To:I
l(oo} (FBl~.L...--.---------'
Subject: Senator Isakson ofGeorgia
bb7C
b7E
.,.H_e_-- - 1 - 1 Just left you a voice mail on you~.______lnne, but I wanted to also send you a note.
enator Isakson like!
'I
·30pm and 4pm today to pass along some !nforrnationfrom
______
to reach me, my cell is.__
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR JOHNNV ISAKSON
DC-phone: 202.224.Atlanta phone., 770-1,61.
email1L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.

bb7C
Page 46 -----------------------~~c
L__ _ _ _ _Jlilc_o_o_)_(F_B_l)_·
From:
L.......-...,...----koo) (FBI)
Sent:
,...i-!-i=~• November02, 201710:20 AM
bG
b7c
L---,----~D:.:::0~
• .1:F..::.B:!.il_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,.,7E
To:
(AT) (FBI)
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
FW:
bb7C
!and baskaHv informed him that it v,ras no. longer necessary to involve rne ln his
cornmunications with you ,rnd yovr office, Please call me !f voud like to discuss this rnatter further_. orH them fa
anvthing l c,m do to help you from a Congresslom.i! Affalrs standpoint,!
!just Spoke \Vit~
I
SSAL.I---~....I
bb7C
Fal Congressional Affairs
Desk:!
I
cent
I
ltmailtqL...,.,.......,..,,,....,.~......,.......,...-------'
From~
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 7:47 PM
~~/
Subject:
bb7C
b7E
kooi (Fail...._ _ _ _ ____.
!{AT) (FBI~
FwtL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Agent~.__ _ _ _ _ _ ____,
Vie. teft messages ,...,,th both of you todav regardln
have
notheard
1 from you. L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.
Pleas..,., contact me as soon as possib!~~ to let us kno\,v the status of this matter.
mv work number
isl
I
My cell lsl
bb7C
b7E
land
...______....,
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
Agent!.__ _ ___.
l
Page 47 bb7C
b7E
bb7C
the information in this message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and confidential
info.rmati.on. : If you. are ".· ot the mtended::cicieot olease !ro. ~.e. d. fat.ely s.top readjng th.• is message·,·d:.'ete it fro~ your
system and notify the sender aj
jthat it has been deleted. Any unauthonzed reading,
distribution, dissemination, copymg, or o~~er use of the information in this message ls strictly prohibited.

bb7c
Page 48 EXHIBIT 7
Page 49 BACKGROUND OF THE INVESTIGATION
November 15, In 2017, MiMedx Group was highlighted as the fifth fastest growing public company
in America by Fortune magazine. This growth had taken place over the previous
eight years as the Company grew from near bankruptcy to approximately 1,employees under the leadership of a very experienced serial healthcare
entrepreneur, Parker H. “Pete” Petit and a group of executives that had worked with
“Pete” at his previously successful companies. The business and philanthropic
history of Mr. Petit is available at www.petepetit.com.
MiMedx developed a very clinically effective and cost-­‐effective product line for the
healing of wounds, such as diabetic foot ulcers and venous leg ulcers, and for use
with certain surgical procedures. The Company’s product lines were protected by
over 106 issued patents and 120 pending patents. The Company was conducting
approximately 30 different clinical studies at notable research facilities across the
country and in certain foreign countries.
The Company’s financial performance had been stellar, as it had managed to meet or
exceed all of its quarterly revenue estimates that had been provided to shareholders
for 29 out of 30 quarters. In addition, its cash flows had been very strong because it
was able to repurchase over $130 million of its common stock. MiMedx provided
shareholders revenue guidance of $325 million for calendar year 2017 and over
$400 million for calendar year 2018. By August of 2017, the Company’s market
capitalization had climbed to approximately $2 billion, which was certainly
reasonable considering the MiMedx revenues, their profitability and their growth
rates.
In the fall of 2017, MiMedx was about to experience numerous events, most of which
were beyond their control, that would cause significant problems, including
reducing the market capitalization from approximately $2 billion to around $million. Briefly, these events began during 2016 with a few of their over 400 sales
personnel selling competitive products “on the side” while they were full-­‐time
MiMedx employees. A few of those individuals were terminated for cause and
lawsuits were filed against them. They responded by countersuing with charges
that channel stuffing and other financial irregularities were occurring at the
Company. Their attorney demanded a $14 million extortion payment from the
Company, which was denied. Unfortunately, illegal short sellers connected with
these terminated individuals in the ensuing months, and a bizarre and destructive
series of events followed.
In September of 2017, Marc Cohodes, a notorious short seller, began a concerted
and focused attack on MiMedx. He began his attack verbally at a meeting, and then
continued with the publication of fraudulent documents, lies and innuendo, most of
which followed the allegations of the terminated sales employees. The Company
Page 50 easily refuted the Cohodes’ allegations with facts that were placed on their website.
Cohodes’ initial attacks pushed the Company’s stock from approximately $18 a
share down to $12 during the fall of 2017. The Company’s stock moved back to $in late January 2018, as the Company’s documents that refuted the Cohodes
allegations were published on their website.
MiMedx had utilized Cherry Bekaert, a well-­‐respected large regional accounting
firm, as their auditors since 2010. In the spring of 2017, the Audit Committee
decided that the Company should retain one of the big four auditors. The Audit
Committee Chairman, Terry Dewberry, instructed Pete Petit to interview the big
four auditors and come back with a recommendation to the Audit Committee. Mr.
Petit came back with a recommendation to utilize Ernst & Young (E&Y) for
numerous reasons. However, he recommended not starting E&Y until after the
close out of the 2017 fiscal year. The Audit Committee disagreed, and they wanted
the new auditors to begin with a review of the third quarter of 2017. Thus, E&Y
began their due diligence during the spring of 2017, and they subsequently told the
Board they were excited about becoming MiMedx auditors. E&Y completed the
third quarter review of 2017 with accolades to the Board of Directors about the
Company’s performance and records.
During the fall of 2017, Marc Cohodes continued to publish allegations and lies
about the Company in social media and through some of his paid journalistic shills.
His group also started writing letters to senators and congressmen making
allegations. He published a fraudulent email from a so-­‐called “MiMedx employee”
and sent it to numerous law firms, news outlets and competitors. This group
created a false email address for Petit and sent messages to a very respected Wall
Street analyst who was covering the Company.
After witnessing this bizarre behavior, in November Mr. Petit told Andy Brock, the
Ernst & Young managing partner, that Marc Cohodes was like no other short seller
that he had ever encountered. Petit stated that he expected Cohodes to write E&Y a
threatening letter in the near future. Mr. Brock retorted, “Ernst & Young is used to
this kind of stuff.” Petit emphasized again that he thought Brock should work with
the Company’s Audit Committee Chairman, Terry Dewberry, and confer with his
New York partners to decide what would happen if Cohodes wrote such a letter.
Apparently, that conference never took place.
Cohodes is an individual who his friends say is mentally ill. He threatened Mr.
Petit’s life on his Twitter account. That resulted in the FBI visiting his house. He has
been recently charged with assault and battery in a restaurant in San Francisco.
Cohodes has even filed an action against Senator Johnny Isaakson, who is Chairman
of the Senate’s Ethics Committee, for violations relative to MiMedx because he
assisted the Company with resolving a matter with the Veteran’s Administration.
The result was that the VA sent the Company an apology letter. Senator Isaakson’s
honesty and integrity are impeccable, but that did not keep Cohodes from making
ridiculous accusations.
2
Page 51 In February 2018, just weeks before the 2017 audit was to be completed, Marc
Cohodes did write a very long letter threatening Ernst & Young. E&Y advised the
MiMedx Board that they would not complete the 2017 audit that was due at the end
of February until the Company thoroughly investigated all the Cohodes allegations.
From that point forward, MiMedx’s future was negatively altered very significantly.
At that February meeting, Andy Brock also told the Board that he did not believe the
Audit Committee did a satisfactory investigation of the allegations in early because there was not an expensive forensic audit. However, he and other Ernst &
Young staff reviewed that investigation report written by the Troutman Sanders law
firm during their due diligence of the Company in the summer of 2017, and they had
no concerns until they were threatened by Marc Cohodes. That E&Y comment put
the Audit Committee Chairman in a state
of-paranoia.
--- - - - - Instead of simply disagreeing
with Andy Brock, the Audit Committee Chair, Terry Dewberry, started down a path
of protecting himself and doing Brock’s bidding. He finally convinced the majority
of the Board to stay with E&Y and do the investigation requested by E&Y.
Mr. Petit advised the Board that he was very frustrated by the Ernst & Young refusal
to complete the 2017 audit due to the Cohodes’ allegations because he had warned
Andy Brock in November that Cohodes would write E&Y a letter of that nature.
Nothing was done to prepare for the eventuality. Petit also told the Board that he
firmly believed that E&Y would never finish the audit because, once the current
allegations were investigated, Cohodes would have even more allegations that E&Y
would want to investigate. As Petit predicted, E&Y stayed involved only until
November 7, 2018, and then resigned. At that point, they had probably billed the
Company five times the original estimate for the audit without completing it.
As the allegations from Marc Cohodes increased during the fall of 2017, Mr. Petit
received phone calls from some other public company executives and others who
had experienced Cohodes’ attacks in the past. One of these individual orchestrated a
meeting at the DOJ offices in New York City with Petit, Bill Taylor, the Company’s
Chief Operating Officer, and Lexi Haden, the Company’s General Counsel, with two
agents, and a DOJ criminal investigator. This meeting took place in January 2018.
The DOJ staff disclosed that they knew a great deal about Marc Cohodes. They
indicated they were collaborating with Canadian and European authorities, and they
were pursuing a number of his illegal and fraudulent activities. MiMedx was asked
to forward to the agents all fraudulent activities that Marc Cohodes was conducting
against the Company. The staff stated that they did not know when the Cohodes
investigation would be completed and action taken.
Mr. Petit retained Washington counsel to assist the Company with other contacts
with federal agencies relative to these illegal short selling activities. Mr. Petit had
this counsel draft a very lengthy letter with supporting documents to Mr. Jay
Clayton, the SEC Commissioner, on January 3, 2018, which clearly described Mr.
3
Page 52 Cohodes’ “short and distort” campaign and his related illegal short selling that was
occurring against MiMedx. These documents clearly showed the standard pattern of
creating false allegations in some media format and front running the publication
date by hedge funds and involved individuals setting up their trades. On the
publication date, these funds all participate in trading with market manipulation,
such as “spoofing” and “layering.” This is a standard process for illegal short selling.
In addition, many of these traders create “naked” or “counterfeit” shares by taking
extended periods of time to close out their short contract or position. Those
contract/positions are supposed to be closed within three days; however, MiMedx
had averaged short contracts on their shares out as far as 40 days without closure.
The Company notified FINRA with supporting documents of these and other trading
abnormalities, such as “naked” or “counterfeit” shorting. The Company never
received responses from either the SEC or FINRA relative to their letters and
inquiries prior to Mr. Petit’s departure. In addition, numerous MiMedx shareholders
formally contacted the SEC and disclosed these illegal short selling activities with no
responses as far as Petit knows.
At the February meeting, Mr. Petit’s recommendation to the Board was to terminate
Ernst & Young and bring Cherry Bekaert back to complete the 2017 audit, since they
had already reviewed the first two of those quarters. The Company could then
retain another big four auditor for 2018. Any additional investigations that the
Board felt required to accomplish could be completed during 2018. Mr. Dewberry
disagreed because he claimed this approach would “look bad.” Mr. Petit replied that
his approach would look bad for 60 days while the audit was completed, but then it
would be over. He stated that Mr. Dewberry’s solution with E&Y had no closure
date because Cohodes would continue to make allegations.
As things progressed, Mr. Petit was absolutely correct. As of today, the Company
has stated that they should have audited financial statements in December, which is
almost two years from the original due date for the 2017 audit.
With the continuing DOJ investigation, Petit, Taylor and Senken now face the fact
that the Audit Committee paid King & Spalding, a large national law firm, $40 million
to conduct the investigation. The investigation lasted 15 months. In addition, the
Company probably spent another $30 million on Sidley Austin and other attorneys
and auditors.
Those expenditures were absolutely ridiculous for a company of the size of MiMedx,
but were allowed in order to exploit the Audit Committee’s CYA syndrome and the
“takeover” of MiMedx by the inexperienced Board. Of course, this approach
followed the Sally Yates Doctrine, which was published by DOJ in 2015. Yates was
fired by President Trump in 2017, and she returned to King & Spalding, her previous
law firm.
4
Page 53 In addition to the KPMG opinion on the AvKare contract and the proposed revenue
restatement to a cash versus accrual basis, the investigation turned up several
distributor transactions in 2015 that King & Spalding has brought into question.
The King & Spalding investigation was headed by a career prosecutor, who had no
practical business experience. These transactions that have been highlighted as
problematic were nothing more than normal distributor negotiations. There was
one situation, with a distributor by the name of CPM in Dallas, Texas, where the
Company had actually fired the distributor once, and the distributor asked to be
reinstated. In those negotiations, the Company reinstituted a consulting contract
that had been lost when the distributor was fired. As it turned out, Petit had some
concerns about the business practices of this distributor, and he ended up firing him
for the second time within about three months. All of these issues should not have
affected the Company’s accounting treatment of these accounts in 2015.
Over the Petit/Taylor years, the Company basically collected in cash all of their
approximately $1 billion in reported revenue. The Company’s accounts receivables
never got out of a reasonable range without executives taking action to bring it
quickly back into range. When Petit and Taylor left the Company on June 30, 2018,
the accounts receivable were in the 65 day range, which is excellent for most
healthcare organizations.
The Audit Committee consisting of Dewberry, Evans and Bleser, actually
orchestrated a takeover of the Company by using the chaos created by the illegal
short selling activities. There were two motivations for this takeover action. First,
Mr. Dewberry was attempting to find a way to cover the Audit Committee for the
“opinion” of Ernst & Young that they had not conducted a sufficient investigation of
the terminated sales employees’ accusations in early 2017. Dewberry was paranoid
on this issue. Subsequently, Mr. Evans, who was unemployed at the time, saw an
opportunity to become the Chairman of the Board of this Company, which was going
to be a very prestigious position for him. Mr. Evans had never served on a public
board until one of the large MiMedx shareholders asked Mr. Petit to consider placing
Evans on the Board. Thus, this takeover process started with the goal of finding
ways to have the top executives forced out of the Company.
Very simply, this relatively inexperienced Board took control of the Company and
terminated the CFO and Controller because the majority of the Board had decided to
restate five years of revenues, and three weeks later asked the CEO and COO to step
down because they wanted “to take the Company in a different direction.” From
that point forward, a series of very destructive and irrational business decisions
were made that were extremely destructive to the Company and extremely
disturbing to the shareholders.
The Board first hired a temporary CEO who had no healthcare experience! They
expected him to run a very complicated and sophisticated biotechnology company,
which he was incapable of doing. They did not allow any transition communications
with Petit and Taylor. They promoted a short-­‐term employee into the temporary
5
Page 54 CFO role, and he became solely focused on attempting to have the Board elect him as
the new CEO. They also promoted someone who had been a staff person to Mr.
Petit, the CEO, into a line role with significant responsibilities for over employees. That promotion began to cause significant problems. He was later
terminated!
With those decisions, the Company’s new revenue growth dropped from 30%
annual rates to actually little to no growth. With the unmanaged legal and
accounting expenses, the Board thought they had to terminate 24% of the
workforce, which took place on December 5th in spite of Mr. Petit’s communications
asking them to examine the facts much more carefully. Those layoffs devastated
employee morale. Sales plunged even further because they terminated 24% of the
400+ sales force.
Also, the temporary CFO went to NASDAQ in mid-­‐September to convince them they
would have the 2017 audit finished by the end of February of 2019. The temporary
CFO and several lawyers from Sidley Austin were allowed to do that presentation
without any Board oversight, even though Charlie Evans, Chairman of the Board,
was given specific advice from Petit, while he was on the Board, not to do so. Evans
claimed it was a “management prerogative,” and Petit explained that, if this was not
managed with Board oversight, it could result in the Company’s stock being delisted.
Well, that is exactly what happened on November 7th when the Company had to go
back and tell NASDAQ that the information the temporary CFO provided on
September 13th was incorrect when he made the presentation.
At that point, the Company’s stock had been driven down to below $1 per share with
a $100 million market cap. That price decline represented a 95% drop in the stock
price. Shareholders were irate because there were absolutely no communications
from the Company due to the Sidley communications lockdown memo.
In order to justify the out of control spending associated with the investigation and
audits, the Board decided that they needed to create the impression of a massive
fraudulent operation at MiMedx. Therefore, they eventually terminated 14 of the
top 16 people that built the Company over the eight-­‐year period into the fifth fastest
growing public company in America. These were all extremely competent
individuals, some of who had served with Petit and Taylor in their former
organizations for many years. That decision further crippled the Company because,
while subordinates were promoted, they did not have the experience, capabilities or
business relationships of the former management team.
The previous MiMedx Board of Directors spent numerous hours and legal funds
fighting the shareholders’ request for a 2018 annual shareholders meeting.
Litigation was filed in the state of Florida by Hialeah Municipal Fund and was
supported by Petit and the largest shareholders of MiMedx Group. The Company
fought having the 2018 meeting in every way possible, but it finally took place on
June 17th as the result of a court order. This resulted in three unassociated Board
6
Page 55 members being elected and appointed to the Board. In order to preclude Mr. Petit’s
slate of directors from being elected, the Company signed an agreement with an
alternate slate of Board members. Petit’s main goal was to get changes made to the
Board to offset their lack of experience, incompetence and their “takeover”
objective. At this point, only four of the original eight outside Board members
remain.
Petit and Hialeah continue to campaign for the 2019 shareholders meeting to be
held. However, the Board had always been “entrenched,” and they fought
continually in the Florida court to not hold the shareholders meetings and change
Board members. The date for the 2019 meeting has still not been decided.
The Atlanta SEC case of insider trading against Mr. Petit that started in 2010 is a
good example of the Commission filing charges against a successful business
executive with -no
real
evidence.
--- - - - - - They accused Mr. Petit of passing inside
information to a friend, Earl Arrowood, who was a former Delta Airlines pilot and
Vietnam fighter pilot. Petit and Arrowood flew together from time to time over the
years. Mr. Petit was accused of passing inside information prior to the sale of Matria
Healthcare because Mr. Arrowood purchased shares in Matria Healthcare on a day
that Mr. Petit had two telephone conversations with him. However, Mr. Petit had
one or two conversations a day with Mr. Arrowood for a week prior to that day, and
he had the same conversation pattern with him for a week after that. This was
because Mr. Arrowood was helping Mr. Petit purchase an airplane. Each one of
them would talk to the seller, the lawyers, Cessna aircraft, etc. after each of those
calls. After the purchase, the calls dropped to about one per month again.
Mr. Petit took a lie detector test to prove his innocence, and he passed it with “flying
colors.” However, that did not slow down the SEC investigation, and the SEC filed a
lawsuit against Mr. Petit. The Commission carried this investigation and lawsuit on
for a total of four and a half years.
One interesting aspect is that Mr. Arrowood purchased two trauches of stock, one
four months before the acquisition of Matria Healthcare was announced which he
told Mr. Petit about after he made the purchase, and the second one which occurred
approximately a month before the acquisition was announced, which he did not tell
Mr. Petit about. Mr. Arrowood held those shares for nine months and six months
respectively. When he sold them, he made a profit of $9,990. It is certainly
acknowledged that, had Mr. Petit passed on inside information, it would not have
mattered what the profit on the sale was. However, this a stark reminder of the
SEC’s motivation was more to denigrate and convict a successful Atlanta business
person who had strong ties to Republican politicians than recovering fraudulent
profits for the federal government. The SEC dropped
the
case
----- -- - - two weeks before the
trial.
Petit inherited members of the MiMedx Board when he stepped in to run the
Company as CEO and Chairman in 2009. He left a few members in place because of
7
Page 56 their shareholdings. He added some people that he had some previous experience
with, such as Terry Dewberry and Joe Bleser, who were on the Audit Committee. He
added two individuals at the request of two large shareholders. These were Charlie
Evans and Dr. Neil Yeston. However, Mr. Petit never had the time to build the
strength in this Board that he had in his previous Boards at Matria Healthcare and
Healthdyne. In those cases, he had CEOs and entrepreneurial CEOs who would have
understood what was happening with this Company and had the courage to do the
right things for the Company and its shareholders rather than worrying about CYA
issues.
Regardless of the ineptitude of this Board and their corporate takeover, the
Company would not have been forced to go through these unnecessary trials and
tribulations had it not been for the illegal short selling orchestrated by Marc
Cohodes.
8
Page 57 EXHIBIT 8
Page 58 ILLEGAL SHORT SELLING AGAINST MIMEDX
October 22, From about 2013 into 2017, a hedge fund by the name of Deerfield Management had
been continually selling MiMedx stock short assuming the Company would be a
“flash in the pan,” and their revenue growth would drop significantly. When that did
not take place, it is estimated that Deerfield lost a very substantial amount of money
(over $50 million) with their short positions. Consequently, in the summer of 2017,
some reliable sources indicated that Deerfield was going around the country
encouraging other hedge funds to join them in a concerted short sell attack against
MiMedx. They managed to assemble such a group, and it is believed they aligned
with Marc Cohodes in mid-­‐2017 to orchestrate the attacks.
Also in 2017, the SEC fined Deerfied $4.5 million for not supervising two of their
healthcare analysts who had bribed a CMS official in mid 2013 into giving them
confidential information on forthcoming pricing/reimbursement changes for some
dialysis companies. These two analysts were the same individuals who covered
MiMedx for Deerfield. Theses two individuals were subsequently indicted for this
bribery activity. They could have conducted the same malfeasance against MiMedx
because there were CMS pricing changes for MiMedx products being considered in
the summer of 2013. MiMedx shares that were sold short escalated from
approximately two million to over 20 million during the summer of 2013.
The major illegal short selling began in the fall of 2017 with coordinated trading
attacks on the Company that matched up with social media and journalistic articles
being published. These groups engaged in “front running” or positioning
themselves prior to the information releases coming public, which they actually
developed, which is illegal. On the day of the attack, they would engage in “layering”
and “spoofing” to push the share price down, which is illegal. In addition, they
would extol the virtues of the accuracy of their fraudulent publications by pointing
to the fact that the share price declined substantially! Also, often they participated
in naked short selling of their contracts, which is illegal.
The SEC calls this type of action out in a Bulletin entitled “Social Media and Investing
– Stock Rumors,” which was modified on February 6th, 2017. There are a number of
illegal issues about this type of activity. These illegal short sellers were very adept
at taking sales personnel who MiMedx fired for cause (selling competitive products
on the side) and turning them into whistle blowers and individuals who would
create and make up allegations for them. The propensity for lying by these sales
personnel was very evident in their depositions taken for the civil lawsuits the
Company filed.
Two of the terminated group of sales employees made allegations in late 2016 of
channel stuffing and other accounting irregularities through their Minneapolis
attorney, Clayton Halunen. They were trying to break their non-­‐compete contracts
Page 59 with the Company. Halunen went public with that information when MiMedx would
not agree to his extortion request for his clients.
This group and other sales persons who became involved with accusations did not
understand the Company’s accounting processes and procedures relative to the
AvKare federal contract. Actually, neither did their attorney! Their attorney did no
due diligence on his clients’ allegations before he went public with them.
Incidentally, only in the U.S. judicial system is this type of disclosure by an attorney
allowed without proper due diligence and proof. In the other judicial systems of
developed countries, this type of unverified disclosure is unlawful! Also, executives
were told that Mr. Halunen called Mr. Ty Cotrell of the Denver SEC office to make his
client’s allegations as had Marc Cohodes done with the other terminated employees.
This was a very aggressive short selling campaign because Cohodes sent accusatory
letters to senators, congressmen, the new auditors, Ernst & Young (E&Y), and
hospitals where MiMedx was doing their research programs. Cohodes has made
false allegation after false allegation in trying to disrupt MiMedx business in every
way possible.
In early 2018, Petit along with Bill Taylor, President, and Lexi Haden, General
Counsel, were called to the DOJ offices in New York to meet with investigators. At
that meeting, they were told that the DOJ knew more about Marc Cohodes than they
were being given credit for knowing. They said that they were investigating him for
international money laundering and other fraudulent activities, and they had been
in contact with Canadian and European authorities. Petit, Taylor and Haden told the
agents about Cohodes’ short-­‐and-­‐distort campaign against MiMedx, and the agents
asked to be provided with the evidence that Cohodes was engaged in fraud-­‐based
illegal activity relative to MiMedx. The evidence was collected and reviewed by the
Sidley Austin law firm. However, it was never sent because David Rody, a Sidley
attorney, told the Board that AUSA Quigley at the DOJ, who he had previously
known, did not want the fraudulent information sent. That was a lie told by Rody,
which was later verified by Quigley in writing. The reason that Rody did this
probably relates to the Company being advised to not discuss illegal short sellers by
the regulators.
After the first two terminated employees made allegations of channel stuffing at VA
hospitals and other accounting irregularities in late 2016, the Audit Committee of
the MiMedx Board of Directors engaged their outside counsel, Troutman Sanders, to
investigate. The Investigation included extensive document review and witness
interviews. Both Troutman Sanders and the Audit Committee concluded that there
had been no channel stuffing or other accounting irregularities. The Company
published a press release announcing the Audit Committee’s findings and
conclusions in early March 2017.
Those conclusions did not serve the purposes of Cohodes and his fellow short
sellers, who needed someone to make findings of misconduct at MiMedx in order to
2
Page 60 continue to drive the stock price down. So, in February 2018, Cohodes sent a letter
to the Company’s new big four auditor, Ernst &Young, threatening that if E&Y did
not conclude that there had been channel stuffing and accounting fraud at MiMedx,
E&Y itself could be sanctioned or held liable.
Months earlier, in November 2017, Petit had warned the E&Y engagement partner,
Andy Brock, that such a corrupt letter could be coming, and urged him to notify his
partners in New York. Brock brushed off the warning, saying E&Y was used to such
“stuff.” However, when the letter arrived, E&Y could not manage the threats
because it feared blowback from its own oversight organizations, the SEC and the
PCAOB. So it told the Company in February of 2018 that it would not finish the audit until the Company thoroughly investigated all of the Cohodes allegations,
including the ones that the Audit Committee and Troutman Sanders had already
investigated.
After E&Y delivered this ultimatum to the Board, Petit told the Board that he did not
expect E&Y to ever finish the audit. Petit stated that as soon as they had
investigated one set of Cohodes’ allegations, Cohodes would make more, and that
E&Y was so fearful of SEC and PCAOB oversight that it would insist that each new
allegation be investigated before it could complete the audit. Petit predicted that
E&Y would resign from the account rather than finish the audit under these
circumstances (which is exactly what happened on November 7, 2018, and many
millions of dollars in E&Y costs later). Petit suggested that the Company bring back
Cherry Bekaert to complete the 2017 audit, which Petit felt could take place within
60 to 90 days, and then consider switching to a new big four auditing firm. But, the
majority of the Board decided to stick with E&Y and meet all of their demands -­‐-­‐ and
the lengthy, costly and destructive saga that has been MiMedx’s recent history
began.
This “opinion” by certain members of the Ernst &Young staff resulted in the
Company basically terminating their 24-­‐year relationship with the Troutman
Sanders law firm in Atlanta. When making those particular allegations, E&Y faulted
the Chairman of the Audit Committee, Terry Dewberry, and the Audit Committee
itself with conducting an inadequate investigation of these charges made by the two
individuals who were first caught selling competitive products on the side while
being full-­‐time MiMedx employees. They insinuated that the investigation should
have included a very expensive “forensic audit.” Petit advised that the Board should
push back on these E&Y “opinions!”
From that point forward, the Audit Committee was in total charge and had full
responsibility for the investigation and ensuing audits. However, they never
prepared a schedule, a budget or scope for this expensive project. The Audit
Committee selected King and Spalding (the Sally Yates law firm; see information on
the Sally Yates Doctrine) to conduct the investigation and KPMG to conduct a
forensic audit. The Audit Committee and Board then effectively turned over most of
the Company’s key audit decisions and many of its business decisions to E&Y, King
3
Page 61 and Spalding, and KPMG. In addition, the Company was being “encouraged” to
select a new law firm by E&Y.
King and Spalding and KPMG began their investigation in March of 2018, and in less
than three months they formed an opinion that the Company had improperly
accounted for revenue from their federal distributor, AvKare, for the preceding five
years, necessitating a five-­‐year restatement of the company’s financials. They
formed this opinion even though it was the exact opposite of what Troutman
Sanders and Cherry Bekaert had concluded just a year earlier. They also formed it
without giving executive management a meaningful opportunity to provide input
about the non-­‐accounting data they used to make this GAAP related decision. As a
result, they got it wrong.
So why did the Audit Committee recommend to MiMedx’s Board that it adopt this
new opinion of how revenues with its federal distributor should have been
accounted for? Because it matched the Audit Committee’s CYA goals and finding
fault with management that would result in dismissals. Like E&Y, the Audit
Committee and Board were intimated by all of the short seller allegations and
decided that it was safer for them to “scapegoat” top management for those
imaginary wrongdoings than defend against them. Also, King & Spalding was
pushing the Sally Yates Doctrine since she just returned from the DOJ in DC after the
President had fired her.
MiMedx executive management used a very sophisticated, orderly, bottom-­‐up
method of predicting quarterly demand for its products that yielded extremely
accurate sales forecasts so the quarterly revenue forecasts were from sales
management and not numbers desired by Petit or Taylor. That did not mean, of
course, that there was no need to incentivize sales people or inquire about the
reasons particular sales people or regions were falling short of their own sales
predictions. However, top management never encouraged sales people to do
anything unethical, let alone illegal.
The termination of Petit and other top executives at MiMedx is an indirect result of
illegal short selling that went unchecked by U.S. regulatory agencies such as the SEC
and the Department of Justice. MiMedx provided information and evidence about
the illegal short selling to those agencies, but to Petit’s knowledge, they did nothing
about it. That made it possible for Marc Cohodes to intimidate Ernst & Young, the
MiMedx Board of Directors, and the MiMedx Audit Committee, with disastrous
results for the Company, its shareholders, its employees and its executives.
4
Page 62 5
Page 63 EXHIBIT 9
Page 64
5678ÿ Document
77ÿ7ÿ16ÿFiled
ÿ7ÿÿÿ6Page
ÿÿÿ 5of Case 3:20-cv-04/13/
/012ÿ4567ÿ12ÿ859ÿ75:9ÿ6;925<=>?ÿ<5<@45AA;941=>ÿ:2;ÿ5<>7Bÿ/5ÿ59C;9ÿ69;2;
0DD62HIIJJJBCK9;691 0DD62HIIJJJBJ2KB45AI=9D14>;2I2;<@K50<<7@12=L25<@4=>>;C@ME1@5<@E;0=>8@58@A1A;CN@F95:6@OOPQPRSQTUO
Šž
‹Œ‹
ÿ™Ÿ‘ÿŒŒ¡’ÿ¢“”£•–”Œÿ—•˜˜‹™ÿš›“ÿŒÿ›‹‘•˜œÿœ
‡ˆ‰ˆ
¤¥¦§¨©ª«¬­ÿ©¬¯°¬±¥²ÿ³´©©´¯¥µÿ§¦ÿ́­ÿ«´°¦©¬ª­¶ÿ¬¨´§¶ÿª­·¥¸¶´²ÿ
«²ª¶ª«¬©ÿ́³ÿ̈¥©¥¬
ºªº¥µ»ÿ³´§­µ¥²ÿ¼¬²±¥²ÿ½¼¥¶¥¾ÿ¼¥¶ª¶ÿ¿¬¸ÿ̈¥¥­ÿ¬ÿ¦´©ª¶ª«¬©ÿ̧§¦¦
´²¶¥²ÿ́³ÿÀ¥­Áÿ´¿
¬¨´·¥Á
ÉÊË/ËHÿÌÍÎÏÿФÌÑÒÓÑÔÌÀÀÓÕÄÌÖÎÒÿ¼¤ÎÀÀ
ÝÞÿßàáâãäáåÿçèàéáåêèåÿëåìÿíäëàîáÞÿßàëåâ
Ò¥«Áÿ×ØÆÿ×ÙÚÛÿÚÜ×Úÿ¦°ÿÎÖ
VWXYÿ[\]XX^ÿ_`ab`\XcÿaÿdW\efgaÿhWijklgmaXcÿmallWnÿo]WÿpWnWealÿqjeWajÿ\rÿ_XsW`ogfaog\XÿgX
tmo\kWeÿuvwxÿo\ÿr\ll\yÿjiÿ\Xÿaÿm\zilagXoÿl\nfWnÿk^ÿ{aebWeÿ|{WoW}ÿ{Wogocÿo]Wÿr\jXnWeÿ\r
kg\zWngmalÿm\ziaX^ÿ~g~Wnÿde\jiÿafagX`oÿaXÿgXsW`o\eÿy]\ÿmegogmg€Wnÿo]Wÿm\ziaX^ÿaXnÿ~eY
{WogoY
~eYÿ{Wogoÿ]anÿm\zilagXWnÿo\ÿo]Wÿpq_ÿaXnÿ~eYÿ_`ab`\XÿmallWnÿo]Wÿpq_ÿo\ÿa`bÿo]aoÿo]W^ÿeW`i\Xnÿo\
o]Wÿm\zilagXocÿ]g`ÿ̀i\bW`y\zaXÿm\XezWncÿanngXfÿo]aoÿ~eYÿ_`ab`\XÿngnX‚oÿeWƒjW`oÿaÿ̀iWmgm
\jom\zWY
VWsWXÿyWWb`ÿlaoWecÿo]WÿgXsW`o\ecÿ~aemÿ„\]\nW`cÿeWmWgsWnÿaÿsg`goÿre\zÿoy\ÿpq_ÿafWXo`ÿy]\ÿo\ln
]gzÿo]aoÿgrÿ]WÿngnX‚oÿ̀o\iÿi\`ogXfÿXWfaogsWÿoyWWo`ÿak\joÿ~eYÿ{WogoÿaXnÿ~g~Wncÿ|o]WeWÿy\jlnÿkW
m\X`WƒjWXmW`c}ÿ]Wÿo\lnÿ]Wÿ†allÿVoeWWoÿ[\jeXalYÿ]Wÿpq_cÿgXÿeW`i\X`Wÿo\ÿaÿƒjW`og\Xÿre\zÿo]W
!!"11###8#$8%&1!%6167$ 777%6'7'6 &&6())*0*+,0-.)
)10
Page 65
5678ÿ Document
77ÿ7ÿ16ÿFiled
ÿ7ÿÿÿ6Page
ÿÿÿ 5of Case 3:20-cv-04/13/
/0123456ÿ849:ÿ;2<ÿ=0>0:?8ÿ>4:ÿ@??3ÿA>2?4A?393Bÿ;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ03ÿDE9AA?26ÿE>9F>ÿ;2<ÿ=0>0:?:98G1A?8<
HÿI?42ÿ4B06ÿ;9;?:J6ÿ4ÿK4L?2ÿ0Mÿ4K390A9FNA9881?ÿB24MA8ÿ@48?:ÿ93ÿO?02B946ÿE48ÿ4ÿ>9B>PI93B
>?45A>NF42?ÿF0KG43I<ÿQ0E6ÿ9AÿM4F?8ÿK15A9G5?ÿM?:?245ÿ93R?8A9B4A9038ÿ0R?2ÿ9A8ÿ4FF013A93Bÿ43:ÿ845?G24FA9F?8ÿ43
:ÿ;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ>48ÿ@??3ÿS2?:ÿM02ÿF03:1FAÿA>?ÿF0KG43IÿF455?:ÿT:?A29K?3A45UÿA0ÿ9A@1893?88ÿ02ÿ2?G1A4A903<ÿD>?
8A0FL6ÿE>9F>ÿG?4L?:ÿ4Aÿ42013:ÿVWXÿ
A9K?6ÿ54EI?28ÿM02ÿ;2<ÿC?A9AÿF455?:ÿA>?ÿ4FA903ÿT:??G5Iÿ:984GG093A93B ;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ>48ÿ@??3ÿ4ÿG059A9F45ÿ81GG02A?2ÿ0Mÿ;2<ÿ[84L8036ÿF03A29@1A903ÿ2?F02:8ÿ8>0E6ÿ43:ÿ;2<
[84L803ÿ>48ÿF455?:ÿ;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ4ÿ503BA9K?ÿM29?3:<
\0F1K?3A8ÿG20:1F?:ÿ13:?2ÿA>?ÿ]2??:0Kÿ0Mÿ[3M02K4A903ÿHFAÿ8>0EÿF022?8G03:?3F?ÿ@?AE??3ÿ;2<
[84L803ÿ43:ÿA>?ÿ]^[_8ÿF03B2?8890345ÿ4`4928ÿ0aF?ÿ2?B42:93Bÿ;9;?:J6ÿ;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ43:ÿ;2<ÿ=0>0:?M20KÿbFA<ÿWc6ÿ

H5A>01B>ÿ>?4R95Iÿ2?:4FA?:6ÿA>?ÿ?K4958ÿ:0F1K?3Aÿ4ÿG>03?ÿF455ÿ;2<ÿ[84L8036ÿE>0ÿ98ÿA>?ÿF>492K0MÿA>?ÿg?34A?
g?5?FAÿ=0KK9AA??ÿ03ÿhA>9F86ÿ>4:ÿE9A>ÿA>?ÿ]^[ÿ48ÿ4ÿTR9FA9Kÿ2?M
[84L803ÿM0550E93Bÿ1GÿE9A>ÿA>?ÿ]^[ÿ8?R?245ÿE??L8ÿ54A?26ÿ2?i1?8A93BÿA>?ÿ4B?3FI_8ÿS3:93B8<ÿTC5?48?
@?ÿ48812?:ÿA>98ÿK4AA?2ÿ>48ÿ@??3ÿ@201B>AÿA0ÿA>?ÿ4AA?3A903ÿ0MÿA>?ÿ4GG20G294A?ÿG?28033?5ÿM02ÿ43I
4FA903ÿ:??K?:ÿ3?F?8842I6Uÿ43ÿ0aF945ÿ93ÿA>?ÿ]^[ÿ=29K9345ÿ[3R?8A9B4A903ÿ\9R98903ÿ2?8G03:?:4FF02:93BÿA0ÿA>?ÿ:

HK43:4ÿ;4::0J6ÿA>?ÿ8G0L?8E0K43ÿM02ÿ;2<ÿ[84L8036ÿ849:jÿT=038A9A1?3A8ÿF03A4FAÿ18ÿE>?3ÿA>?I
42?ÿ8??L93Bÿ>?5GÿM20Kÿ4ÿM?:?245ÿ4B?3FIÿ43:6ÿ93ÿK43IÿF48?8ÿ81F>ÿ48ÿA>98ÿ03?6ÿE>?3ÿA>?IÿE43AÿAK4L?ÿ812?
ÿA>?ÿ4B?3FIÿ98ÿ4E42?ÿ0MÿA>?92ÿF03F?238ÿ4@01Aÿ43ÿ9881??ÿ:9:3_AÿG20R9:?ÿ43ÿ438E?48ÿA0ÿ>0EÿK43IÿA9K
?8ÿ93ÿ4ÿI?42ÿ;2<ÿ[84L803ÿAIG9F455
F038A9A1?3A8<
;2<ÿC?A9Aÿ:9:3_Aÿ2?8G03:ÿA0ÿ?K4958ÿ8??L93BÿF0KK?3A<
D>?ÿg43ÿ]243F98F0ÿ]^[6ÿE>9F>ÿ:98G4AF>?:ÿA>?ÿ4B?3A8ÿA0ÿ;2<=0>0:?8_8ÿ3?42@Iÿ>0K?6ÿG20R9:?:ÿ8A4A?K?3AÿM20Kÿ^
2?3:4ÿHAL938036ÿF>9?Mÿ:9R98903ÿF0138?5jÿTH55ÿ]^[ÿ93R?8A9B4A9R?ÿ4FA9R9AIÿG2?K98?:ÿ1G03ÿA>?ÿM13:4K?3A45ÿ:1AI
0M
E9A>ÿF42?ÿA0ÿG20A?FAÿ93:9R9:145ÿ29B>A8ÿ43:ÿA0ÿ?3812?ÿA>4Aÿ93R?8A9B4A9038ÿ42?ÿF03S3?:ÿA0ÿK4AA?0Mÿ5?B9A9K4A

!!"11###8#$8%&1!%6167$ 777%6'7'6 &&6())*0*+,0-.)
310
Page 66 4/7/
Case 3:20-cv-Document
1 Filed
04/13/Sen. Johnny
Isakson Called
FBI on Behalf
of M iMedxPage
Group -WSJof
David Shapiro, a former U.S. Attorney for San Francisco who is Mr. Cohodes's lawyer, said:
"What has been disclosed looks like the misuse of power and influence by Isakson and Petit and
violations of the FBI's own policies regarding free speech." He said comments made by Mr.
Cohodes were neither intended nor likely "to incite imminent lawless action," two tests for
action against the exercise of free speech in the FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations
Guide. Mr. Shapiro, in a letter dated Dec. 10, has asked the FBI to investigate its actions.
The FBI disputed Mr. Shapiro's view. "In this instance, the Special Agents complied with FBI
policy and we consider this matter closed," it said.
On Oct.10, 2017, Mr. Cohodes, a well-known short seller, including of MiMedx stock, had made a
presentation criticizing MiMedx at an investor conference in New York. Mr. Cohodes cited
.cmnpl aints by former employees who said they were fired after telling Mr. Petit about extensive
wrongdoing at the company. After the presentation, Mr. Cohodes began posting critical tweets
about MiMedx and Mr. Petit.
Three days later, on Friday, Oct. 13, 2017, Mr. Isakson called the FBI, which in turn moved
quickly on the senator's request, the documents show. The following Monday, an official in Mr.
Isakson's office wrote to the FBI, "Really appreciate your fast help on a Friday."
On Dec. 1, 2017, Mr. Cohodes was at home when two FBI agents arrived and started asking him
about two of his tweets, he said. One, dated Oct.14, 2017, referred to Mr. Petit in which Mr.
Cohodes said he'd "bury the little fella in a shoe box." Mr. Cohodes said he mentioned a shoebox
because former MiMedx sales representatives had told him employees stored tissue products
they claimed to have sold to doctors or hospitals in shoeboxes in their cars.
One of the agents told Mr. Cohodes to stop sending "threatening tweets" about Mr. Petit, he
recalled. Mr. Cohodes asked the agents to leave, but they refused, he said. He called the county
sheriff and after he arrived, the agents left, he said.
Mr. Isakson's call to the FBI isn't the only intervention he has made on behalf of MiMedx ....Ihe.
Journal has reported that he also contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
company in 2016 when the department decided to change its policy on accepting consignment
merchandise from vendors.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-johnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group-
3/4
Page 67
5678ÿ Document
77ÿ7ÿ16ÿFiled
ÿ7ÿÿÿ6Page
ÿÿÿ 5of Case 3:20-cv-04/13/
/01123456ÿ89ÿ:;<14=>2<ÿ?><ÿ>ÿ@46ÿ1>A=ÿ;BÿC4CDEFG<ÿ@0<45D<<ÿ>5Eÿ=:DÿED1>A=HD5=G<ÿ1;24II:>56Dÿ=:AD>=D5DEÿ=:
DÿI;H1>53G<ÿ>@424=3ÿ=;ÿ<=;IJÿ=:Dÿ89ÿ
=:DHÿ><ÿ<>2D4ELÿM5ÿC>3ÿNOPQKÿ>B=DAÿ:>R456ÿADID4RDEÿ>ÿ2D==DAÿBA;Hÿ=:D
I;H1>53ÿI;H12>45456ÿ>@;0=ÿ=:Dÿ89G<ÿ>IS04<4=4;5ÿ1A;ID<J<;5ÿ>=DÿI;HH4==DDÿ<=>Tÿ=;ÿB

CEE;Fÿ<>4Eÿ=:Dÿ=;AÿUE;D<ÿ:4<ÿRDA3ÿ@D<=ÿ=;ÿH>JDÿ=:Dÿ89ÿ>?>ADÿ>5Eÿ2D>A5ÿ>@;0=
1A;1; XYZ[\ÿ[^ÿ_AD=I:D5ÿC;A6D5<;5ÿ>=ÿ6AD=I:D5LH;A6D5<;5`?5Eÿb:>A2D3ÿ_A>5=ÿ>=
I:>A2D5=`? cddefgehÿjkÿlmeÿneoepqegÿrstÿruvstÿdgjklÿehjljwkÿfxÿyzjzeh{ÿ|k}exlwgÿ~foehÿ€egÿqÿ~‚|ƒy
„ †‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒÿŽÿÿ‘ ’ÿ“”•–ÿ—ÿ„ ˜†™”‡šÿ›”œÿžŸŸÿ‰Š‹Œ–ÿ•–•ˆ¡•¢
£‹‰–ÿœ†‡ÿ‰–ÿ¤ˆÿ‡¥ˆÿ†•ˆ–”™Ÿšÿ” ”¦œ˜˜•ˆœ‰™Ÿÿ¥–•ÿ”Ÿ‡ÿ£ ÿˆ¢•ˆÿ†ˆ•–•”Œ™Œ‰”¦ˆ•™¢‡ÿœ†‰•–ÿ¤ˆÿ¢‰–Œˆ‰§¥Œ‰”ÿŒÿ‡¥ˆÿœŸŸ•™Š¥•–

‹ŒŒ†–¨©©’’’¢ªˆ•†ˆ‰”Œ–œ˜
!!"11###8#$8%&1!%6167$ 777%6'7'6 &&6())*0*+,0-.)
010
Page 68 EXHIBIT 10
Page 69 NORTON
law firm pc
March 11, BY ONLINE SUBMISSION (FOIA STAR)
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy (OIP)
441 G Street NW, Sixth Floor
Washington, D.C. DOJ.OIP.FOIA@usdoj.gov
Re:
Supplement to Freedom of Information Act Appeal of the DOJ, FBI, and
EOUSA’s Constructive Denial of Freedom of Information Act Request Nos.
EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA-2020001161 (EOUSA) submitted by Matthew Turetzky on January 15,
To Whom It May Concern,
This is to supplement the appeals of the constructive denials by the Department of
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Executive Office of United States
Attorneys of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Nos.
EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA-2020-001161 (EOUSA)
(collectively, the “Turetzky Requests”). These appeals were given Appeal Nos. A-202000208, A-2020-00209, A-2020-00210, and A-2020-00211 (collectively, the “Turetzky
Appeals”).
On Friday, March 6, 2020 – more than two weeks after the 20 work-day deadline
to respond, which fell on February 13, 2020 – I received a letter dated February 28, purporting to respond to FOIPA Request No. 1457448-000. The letter stated it was
“releasing documents from previous requests regarding your subject.” Enclosed was a
Compact Disc that contained a 12-page PDF file with numerous redactions.
This PDF file is identical to the one that your office released in response to
Quinlan/Margaret Foster’s May 10, 2018 FOIA request (referred to below as the
“Quinlan Request”). Quinlan appealed that response on January 15, 2019 on the grounds
that the redactions and the withholding of additional documents was not justified under
the FOIA. Your office never ruled on that appeal.
Your office’s February 28, 2020 response does not resolve the concerns raised in
my appeals. I am therefore appealing your office’s February 28, 2020 response and ask
Page 70 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page that you resolve this appeal together with the Turetzky Appeals. Specifically, this appeal
challenges (a) the FBI’s decision to withhold 33 pages out of 43 pages that were
admittedly reviewed by the FBI, (b) the redactions on the 10 pages that were produced,
(c) the FBI’s failure to disclose any reports of interview or investigation that its agents
prepared before and after their visit to Mr. Cohodes and whose contents were shared in
any degree with the senator, and (d) the decision to withhold correspondence between
Senator Isakson and MiMedx and/or any of its officers or employees.
Accompanying this appeal is a waiver by Marc Cohodes of any privacy interest he
may have in the withheld and redacted documents. This waiver was provided with my
FOIA requests.
I.
Background
The records at issue relate to efforts by MiMedx and its then-CEO Parker “Pete”
Petit to enlist U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson to personally encourage the FBI to take action
against Marc Cohodes, a critic of MiMedx’s business and accounting practices. In
response to the senator’s complaints about Mr. Cohodes, the FBI sent two of its agents to
Mr. Cohodes’s home, where the agents threatened “consequences” if Mr. Cohodes did
not stop speaking about MiMedx. Those threats violated the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and the FBI’s own policies.
On May 10, 2018, Quinlan submitted two FOIA requests to the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking records related to correspondence
between Isakson and the FBI regarding MiMedx, Parker “Pete” H. Petit and Marc
Cohodes. See Exhibit A and Exhibit B. In an effort to assist the DOJ and FBI in
processing the FOIA Request more efficiently, Quinlan agreed to combine these two
separate requests into one and was provided the Request No. 1405921-000. The
combined requests are referred to herein as the “Quinlan Request.”
The Quinlan Request sought the following records from the DOJ and FBI’s files:
• Correspondence by U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson with the FBI “relating to
MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes”
• Correspondence by U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson with the Department of
Justice “relating to MiMedx and Parker ‘Pete’ H. Petit”
On July 16, 2018, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs
(“OLA”) advised that a search of the electronic database of the Departmental Executive
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 71 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page Secretariat, which maintains certain OLA records, including records of Department
correspondence, yielded no records responsive to Quinlan’s request.1 See Exhibit C.
On December 11, 2018, the FBI issued a partial denial of the Quinlan Request,
releasing 10 out of 43 pages of reviewed records, citing Exemption 6, Exemption 7(C),
and Exemption 7(E). See Exhibit D. The produced documents were redacted so
thoroughly that the redactions obscure nearly every relevant detail.
The FBI thus appears to have identified 43 responsive pages of documents,
removed 33 or 34 pages in their entirety, and then produced 10 pages of largely-redacted
emails and letters. See Exhibit D at 4 (entitled “Deleted Page Information Sheet”).
The FBI did not explain why 33 pages were deleted from the production. It
asserted that 21 pages were “duplicate,” but did not explain what those pages duplicated
or why duplicates of responsive documents should not be disclosed. As to the produced pages, the FBI claimed those contained information that falls within
Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
The FBI advised the Wall Street Journal that any action concerning Mr. Cohodes
is now “closed.”2 FOIA exemptions are less applicable in closed matters because
disclosure cannot interfere with ongoing proceedings. See Citizens for Responsibility &
Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2014)
(“The cases are closed—not pending or contemplated—and therefore are not proceedings
with which disclosure may interfere.”).
Correspondence dated October 13, 2017, October 16, 2017, November 1, 2017,
November 2, 2017, November 17, 2017, and November 20, 2017 between Isakson’s
office and the FBI was redacted almost in its entirety, shielding from public view nearly
every detail specific to the now-closed case. See Exhibit D.

The Quinlan Request was originally directed to the FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
(MRU), Justice Management Division. MRU routed the request to the Criminal Division
(CRM), who then sent the request to the Office of Legislative Affairs for processing. The
MRU, CRM and OLA tracking numbers associated with this request are
EMRUFOIA051018-1, CRM-300669585, and DOJ-2018-006108, respectively.
Gretchen Morgenson and Charley Grant, “Sen. Isakson called FBI on Behalf of
MiMedx Group,” The Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2018,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-johnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group11545934861 (accessed January 8, 2019).
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 72 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page On January 15, 2019, my colleague David Shapiro filed on Quinlan’s behalf an
appeal of the FBI’s denial of the Quinlan Request (referred to here as the “Quinlan
Appeal”). See Exhibit E. Your office never responded to that appeal.
One year later, on January 15, 2020, I submitted the three requests at issue in this
appeal (Requests Nos. EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA2020-001161 (EOUSA)). The requests were slightly broader than the Quinlan Request.
They sought “all correspondence and communications between Senator Jonny Isakson,
his staff, his employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the [DOJ, FBI, and the
U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) in the Southern District of New York (SDNY)] referring
or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes” and “all documents and
communications in the possession, custody, or control of the [DOJ, FBI, and the USAO
SDNY] referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.” The requests included a signed privacy
release by Mr. Cohodes on form DOJ-361 and my agreement to pay reasonable
duplication fees not to exceed $1,500 per request. See Exhibit F.
The FOIA requires agencies, such as the DOJ, FBI, and the EOUSA to respond
within 20 working days of receiving a request. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). The agencies
did not respond within the 20 working-day deadline. The FOIA treats such failures to
respond as constructive denials. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
On February 21, 2020, I appealed the constructive denial of Requests Nos.
EMRUFOIA011520-3 (DOJ), 1457448-000 (FBI), and EOUSA-2020-001161 (EOUSA)
(the Turetzky Appeals). Your office has not yet responded to the Turetzky Appeals, but
is required to do so by March 20, 2020.
On March 6, 2020, I received a letter dated February 28, 2020 purporting to
respond to FOIPA Request No. 1457448-000. The letter stated it was “releasing
documents from previous requests regarding your subject.” Enclosed was a Compact
Disc containing a 12-page PDF file with numerous redactions. The letter and the PDF
file is attached here. See Exhibit G.
Because the government’s March 6, 2020 response appears identical to the
government’s response to the Quinlan Request, I am supplementing my pending appeals
for the same reasons set forth in the Quinlan Appeal.
II.
Argument
The Purpose and Scope of the Freedom of Information Act
FOIA embodies “a general philosophy of full agency disclosure,” Department of
the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360 (quoting S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess.
3 (1965)). “The ‘basic purpose’ of the Freedom of Information Act … is ‘to open agency
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 73 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page action to the light of public scrutiny.’” Liberman v. Dep’t of Transportation, 227 F.
Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom
of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 772 (1989)).
FOIA mandates that an agency disclose records on request, unless they fall within
one of nine exemptions. These exemptions are “explicitly made exclusive” and must be
“narrowly construed.” Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 565 (2011) (citations
omitted).
Critically, it is the agency, not the requestor, that “bears the burden to establish the
applicability of a claimed exemption to any reports or portions of records it seeks to
withhold. Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, F.3d 667, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Agencies asked to produce documents must identify specific privacy interests
implicated by the information and then balance those interests against the public interest
that may be served or disserved by disclosure. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters
Comm. For Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 762 (1989).
An agency must justify any exemption on a document-by-document basis, and “it
is now axiomatic that in order to satisfy its burden of establishing that an exemption
claim is justified, the government may not rely on ‘conclusory and generalized
allegations.’” War Babes v. Wilson, 770 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1990) (quoting Vaughn v.
Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Where the agency has done nothing more
than “parrot the statutory standard” in justifying an exemption, that explanation fails.
Bagwell v. Dep’t of Justice, 2015 WL 9272836, at *2 and *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015).
Section 552(a)(2) also requires the agency to explain “fully in writing” its
justification for refusing to disclose records under an “unwarranted invasion of privacy”
claim. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). Even if it can fully justify the application of that exemption,
the agency may only redact “identifying details,” and not – as the FBI has done here –
redact the substance of the communications. Identifying details might include addresses,
telephone numbers, and social security numbers.
The FBI Failed to Produce Records of its Interactions
With MiMedx and Marc Cohodes
The FBI regularly conducts investigations and documents its activities. Here, the
FBI responded to a senator’s request by directing two agents from its San Rafael office to
confront Mr. Cohodes about his public statements concerning MiMedx. Those agents
undoubtedly recorded the interaction in a memorandum or report, yet the FBI produced
nothing reflecting the agents’ own conduct.
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 74 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page Your Office should direct the FBI to produce those reports to the extent their
content, or any part of the content, was shared with Senator Isakson.
In addition, the FBI identified 33 pages of documents that were responsive, but
which it decided not to produce. The only explanation for that decision was the FBI’s
reference to 21 of those pages as “duplicate.” Duplicate responsive records must be
produced. Those duplicates may reflect distributions to different people or agencies that
the public has the right to know about. The number of “duplicate” pages is minimal and
thus would not be burdensome for the FBI to produce.
Your Office should direct the FBI to produce all documents that it withheld.
The FBI Incorrectly Invoked Exceptions to FOIA
With respect to the documents that were produced and that were also redacted, the
FBI has claimed that virtually all of the details of communications among Senator
Isakson, MiMedx, and the FBI about Marc Cohodes are private – and so private that
disclosing them would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
To state the proposition is to reject it. A senator, a federal law enforcement agency, and a
publicly traded corporation (which has also publicly admitted to filing false financial
statements with the SEC) are nothing other than two public servants and a publicly-traded
corporation. There are no personal privacy interests among those three parties.
Moreover, the FBI has failed to show that its invocations of law enforcement
exemptions are justified. Exemption 7(C) cannot apply to cases that are now widely
known and adjudicated, and Exemption 7(E) does not apply to investigatory techniques
that are already widely known. The FBI provided no written explanation of why
disclosure of the contents of the responsive documents was justified.
Exemption 6 Does Not Justify Withholding the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI claims that it may withhold and redact information in responsive
documents under Exemption 6, which applies only where release of “personnel and
medical and similar files … would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (emphasis added). The FBI has not, and cannot, meet the
standard for this exemption.
First, the FBI has not explained “fully in writing” the personnel, medical or
similar file that was implicated by the FOIA request. It did not then explain what
significant privacy interest someone had in that information. And it did not explain why
disclosure of that personal privacy would be unwarranted. Nor could it.
Communications between the senator, MiMedx, and the FBI did not concern a
medical or personnel file, or any file that is similar to such files. That alone makes
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 75 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page Exemption 6 inapposite. See Schonberger v. NTSB, 508 F. Supp. 941, 942 (D.D.C. 1981)
(“To satisfy exemption six, the defendants must meet both aspects of the statutory test,
showing that the material requested 1) is part of a personnel, medical, or similar file, and
if so 2) would, if disclosed publicly, constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.”) (emphasis added). “If no significant privacy interest is implicated . . . FOIA
demands disclosure.” Nat'l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873,
874 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
“Similar files” means files that contain personal information about particular
individuals. United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. (1982). In other words, files are not similar to personnel or medical files unless they are
“detailed records containing personal information” about particular people. Cook v. Nat'l
Archives & Records Admin., 758 F.3d 168, 175 (2d Cir. 2014). For example, names,
employment information, and limited financial information that does not disclose
“intimate details” of one’s finances are not “personal.” See Wash. Post Co. v. U.S. Dep't
of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
No personal files were implicated by the Turetzky Requests here. Files
concerning the communications among the senator, MiMedx, and the FBI concerned
whether the FBI would take action to try to silence Marc Cohodes. To the extent that the
files concern Mr. Cohodes personally, he filed the appropriate form with his FOIA
requests (Form DOJ 361) and separately advised the Department of Justice he has no
concerns about the release of his name or the details of the FBI’s threats to him. To the
contrary, he has filed complaints with the Director of the FBI and its Inspector General
about the FBI’s threats. See Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. at 602 (personal information
is information that “applies to a particular individual”). The privacy interest inherent in
Exemption 6 “belongs to the individual, not the agency holding the information.”
Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 763-65. The FBI cannot invoke the exemption to withhold
information that pertains to someone who has no objection to its release. Id. at 771.
Moreover, there is nothing “personal” or private about what the FBI (and the other
players) did here: the senator used his political position and power to encourage the FBI
to exercise its investigative powers in a particular way. There is nothing personal or
private about it.
In addition, MiMedx and its attorneys affirmatively contacted Senator Isakson and
asked him to file a complaint about Mr. Cohodes with the FBI. Their names are thus not
private or personal in these circumstances. The only person who might have a privacy
interest in that scenario is Mr. Cohodes, who was accosted at his home by FBI agents and
threatened. But Mr. Cohodes has every interest in having the documents disclosed and
consents to their disclosure.
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 76 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page Second, the FBI has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that the as-yet
unidentified privacy interests of MiMedx, Senator Isakson, or the FBI are sufficiently
important to overcome the public interest in disclosure of responsive documents. In
evaluating an assertion of Exemption 6, a court must “balance the public interest in
disclosure against the interest Congress intended Exemption 6 to protect,” and any such
privacy interest must be “substantial.” Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n, 830 F.3d at 673;
see also Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 380 n.19 (1976)
(“Exemption 6 was directed at threats to privacy interests more palpable than mere
possibilities.”).
The redacted records reflect only correspondence between Isakson and the FBI
and follow-up complaints and discussions – all generated because Mr. Cohodes was
criticizing a publicly-traded company. Since MiMedx, the senator, and the agents or
others voluntarily chose to act to threaten Mr. Cohodes, it cannot be an “unwarranted”
invasion of their privacy to disclose what they said and did.
Moreover, to the extent the privacy interest at stake belonged to Senator Isakson,
he retired on December 31, 2019. See https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/johnnyisakson-retire/. With Senator Isakson no longer serving as a United States Senator, the
public interest in learning about his interactions with Parker “Pete” Petit outweigh any
privacy concerns that might exist.
Third, the FBI may have an interest in keeping ongoing investigations private,
pending a decision by the U.S. Attorney whether to prosecute a case, but the FBI has no
such interest here. The FBI never presented any case against Mr. Cohodes to federal
prosecutors or to a grand jury, and it has publicly stated to the Wall Street Journal that the
“matter” of its visit to Mr. Cohodes is closed.
Exemption 7(C) Does Not Justify Withholding
the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI also cited Exemption 7(C) to justify redacting portions of the responsive
documents. This exemption, like Exemption 6, applies only where release of records
“could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). It is the law enforcement counterpart to Exemption 6.
It protects the “‘strong interest’ of individuals, whether they be suspects, witnesses, or
investigators, ‘in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.’”
Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, 767 (D.C. Cir. 1990). It applies only to individual
privacy interests, and not to any claims of privacy by a corporation, a senator acting in his
role as an elected official, or the FBI. See Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 764 n.16 (citing
authorities supporting proposition that privacy rights belong to individuals).
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 77 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page The protective scope of Exemption 7(C) as to third parties (and the Senator,
MiMedx, and the FBI are not third parties) is limited to “the specific information to
which it applies [i.e., names, addresses and other identifying information], [but] not the
entire page or document in which the information appears[.]” Maydak v. U.S. Dep’t of
Justice, 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, 43 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324, (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
There are no private documents at issue here; all are communications among three
unaffiliated parties. All three of those parties are public entities in one fashion or another
– a politician, a federal law enforcement agency, and a public company. All three acted
in concert to stifle public criticism by a well-known investor. None asked the FBI for
confidentiality, and the FBI did not conduct any undercover or otherwise secret
investigation.
All of the communications at issue were made voluntarily – and with the hope and
intention that Mr. Cohodes would be confronted with the full force of the FBI’s
intimidating power. None of the parties to the communications was the subject of an FBI
generated investigation; those parties generated the investigation. Nothing about the
communications implicates anyone’s personal privacy, let alone an “unwarranted
invasion” of personal privacy.
In short, FOIA was meant to require disclosure in exactly this situation: one
citizen invoked the power of the Senate and the FBI to shut down criticism by another
citizen. The public question involved is clear: how did the FBI function in this particular
circumstance?
Exemption 7(E) Does Not Justify Withholding
the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI redacted portions of the responsive documents because, it claimed, their
production “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions . . . if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk
circumvention of the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).
“Exemption 7(E) only exempts investigative techniques not generally known to
the public.” Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 815 (9th Cir. 1995); see
Rugiero v. DOJ, 257 F.3d 534, 551 (6th Cir. 2001). Indeed, “[i]f an agency record
discusses ‘the application of [a publicly known technique] to ... particular facts,’ the
document is not exempt under 7(E).” Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. California v. Dep't
of Justice, 880 F.3d 473, 491 (9th Cir. 2018) (rejecting agency invocation of Exemption
7(E) to withhold records describing methods to obtain a suspect’s location information)
(emphasis added).
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 78 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page Senator Isakson’s “Victim Referral” and his request for follow-up information did
not ask the FBI to use undisclosed law enforcement techniques. The Senator asked the
FBI to take action against Marc Cohodes, at the behest of MiMedx, and the FBI complied
by sending two FBI agents out to threaten Mr. Cohodes into silence. That is standard,
well-known (albeit heavy handed and unconstitutional) law enforcement. Unless the FBI
can demonstrate that it has a legal and secret program designed to stifle the expression of
ideas and opinions, the FBI cannot demonstrate that Exemption 7(E) applies here.
The FBI will be hard pressed to demonstrate that it has a program designed to send
agents out to tell people not to post comments and opinions on the internet because the
agency’s own operating manual prohibits conducting any investigation at all that
implicates the exercise of First Amendment rights. See FBI Domestic Investigations and
Operations Guide – DIOG – 2013 Version Part 01 at ¶¶ 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4 (agents must
“[e]nsure that civil liberties and privacy are protected throughout the Assessment or
investigative process” and may “[c]onduct no investigative activity based solely on the
exercise of First Amendment activities”) (emphasis in original); see id. ¶ 5.3 (same).
On the other side of the scale, the public interest in knowing the reasons why the
FBI sent two armed agents to a man’s home to tell him to stop talking about a public
company, violating its own requirement to use the least intrusive method of inquiry, see
id. ¶4.4.1, is significant. The public certainly has an interest in knowing that government
employees have been used by a corporate political contributor to silence its critics.
The FBI also cannot demonstrate that its “technique” of interviewing people, if
known to the public, would allow criminals to circumvent the law. Indeed, the FBI did
what any ordinary investigator would do when acceding to the requests of a powerful and
influential member of Congress: it confronted Mr. Cohodes with two FBI agents who
essentially told him to stop talking about MiMedx or there would be “consequences.”
The correspondence from MiMedx to the senator and from the senator to the FBI
did not implicate a secret law enforcement technique. The conduct of the FBI similarly
did not implicate any law enforcement technique. Everyone in America knows that FBI
agents conduct interviews. Disclosure of the communications that led to the Cohodes
interview and reports reflecting that interview would not damage a secret investigative
technique.
The FBI Must Release All Reasonably Segregable Information
The FOIA directs the FBI to segregate and release all information that does not
merit protection. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II). In its partial production, the FBI
redacted every piece of information remotely relating to these individual cases, regardless
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 79 March 11, Office of Information Policy
Page of whether the information was sensitive or related to the petitioner himself (or someone
else). Reasonable efforts to segregate non-exempt information are mandated by the law.
III.
Conclusion
I therefore appeal the government’s denials of my FOIA requests and further
request that you respond to this appeal within 20 working-days as required by statute. U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii).
If you have any questions about this administrative appeal, please contact me by
email at mturetzky@nortonlaw.com or telephone at (510) 906-4905.
Sincerely,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosures
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 80 EXHIBIT
A
Page 81 Quinlan
Charleston
38 Romney Street, Suite Charleston, South Carolina
Washington
1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite Arlington, VA
May 10, FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
Department of Justice
Room LOC Building
Washington, DC 20530-Phone: (202) 616-MRUFOIA.Requests@usdoj.gov
Dear FOIA Officer:
Pursuant to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you, in
your official capacity, provide me with copies of:

All of U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson’s correspondence with the Department of Justice relating to
MiMedx and Parker “Pete” H. Petit.
I would like to receive the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific
exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material. I, of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a
waiver of fees.
I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Margaret Foster
Associate
+1 843.371.
info@quinlan.io
Page 82 EXHIBIT
B
Page 83 Quinlan
Charleston
38 Romney Street, Suite Charleston, South Carolina
Washington
1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite Arlington, VA
May 10, David M. Hardy, Chief
Record/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Department of Justice
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-Dear FOIA Officer:
Pursuant to the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you, in
your official capacity, provide me with copies of:

All of Senator Johnny Isakson’s correspondence/communications with the FBI relating to MiMedx,
Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes
I would like to receive the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request.
If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific
exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material. I, of course, reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a
waiver of fees.
I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Margaret Foster
Associate
Quinlan
+1 843.371.
info@quinlan.io
Page 84 EXHIBIT
C
Page 85 U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Information Policy
Suite 1425 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-
Telephone: (202) 514-
July 16,
Ms. Margaret Foster
Quinlan
margaret@quinlan.io
Re:
DOJ-2018-006108 (OLA)
VRB:VAV:KJK
Dear Ms. Foster:
This responds to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request dated May 10,
2018, for correspondence with Senator Johnny Isakson pertaining to MiMedx and Parker
“Pete” H. Petit. This response is made on behalf of the Office of Legislative Affairs. Please be advised that a search has been conducted of the electronic database of the
Departmental Executive Secretariat, which maintains certain Office of Legislative Affairs
records, including records of Department correspondence, and no records responsive to your
request were located.
For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement
and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)
(2012 & Supp. IV 2016). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the
requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters
and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
You may contact our FOIA Public Liaison, Douglas Hibbard, for any further
assistance and to discuss any aspect of your request at: Office of Information Policy, United
States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC
20530-0001; telephone at 202-514-3642; or facsimile at 202-514-1009.
Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services
(OGIS) at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA
mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of
Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room
2510, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001; e-mail at ogis@nara.gov;
telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.

Your request was originally directed to the FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit (MRU), Justice Management
Division, for appropriate routing. MRU routed the request to the Criminal Division (CRM), who then sent the
request to this Office for processing and direct response to you. The MRU and CRM tracking numbers
associated with this request are EMRUFOIA051018-1 and CRM-300669585, respectively.
Page 86 -2If you are not satisfied with my response to this request, you may administratively
appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy, United States Department of
Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you
may submit an appeal through OIP’s FOIAonline portal at
https://foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically submitted within ninety days of the date of my response to your request. If
you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked
“Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
Sincerely,
Vanessa R. Brinkmann
Senior Counsel
Page 87 EXHIBIT
D
Page 88 U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D. C. December 11 , MS. MARGARET FOSTER
QUINLAN
SUITE 38 ROMNEY STREET
CHARLESTON, SC FOIPA Request No.: 1405921 -Subject: MiMedx
Dear Ms. Foster:
The enclosed documents were reviewed under the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA), Title 5, United
States Code, Section 552/552a. Below you will find check boxes under the appropriate statute headings which
indicate the types of exemptions asserted to protect information which is exempt from disclosure. The appropriate
exemptions are noted on the enclosed pages next to redacted information. In addition, a deleted page information
sheet was inserted to indicate where pages were withheld entirely and identify which exemptions were applied. The
checked exemptions boxes used to withhold information are further explained in the enclosed Explanation of
Exemptions.
r
r
r
r
r
p
Section (b)(1)
r
(b)(7)(A)
(b)(2)
r
(b)(7)(B)
(b)(3)
p
(b)(7)(C)
r
(b)(7)(D)
p
(b)(7)(E)
r
(b)(7)(F)
(b)(4)
(b)(5)
r
r
Section 552a
(d)(5)
r
r
UH2)
(b)(8)
r
r
r
r
r
(b)(9)
r
(k)(6)
r
(k)(7)
(b)(6)
(k)(1 )
(k)(2)
(k)(3).
(k)(4)
(k)(5)
43 page(s) were reviewed and 10 page(s) are being release<;!.
Below you will also find additional informational paragraphs about your request. Where applicable, check
boxes are used to provide you with more information about the processing of your request. Please read each item
carefully.
r
Document(s) were located which originated with, or contained information concerning, other
Government Agency (ies) [OGA].
r
r
This information has been referred to the OGA(s) for review and direct response to you.
We are consulting with another agency. The FBI will correspond with you regarding this information
when the consultation is completed.
Page 89 r
In accordance with standard FBI practice and pursuant to FOIA exemption {b){7){E) and Privacy Act
exemption 0)(2) [5 U.S.C. § 552/552a {b){7)(E)/0)(2)], this response neither confirms nor denies the
existence of your subject's name on any watch lists.
For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security
records from the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act {FOIA). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) {2006 & Supp. IV
{2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a
standard notification given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do,
or do not, exist. Enclosed for your information is a copy of the Explanation of Exemptions.
For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under "Contact Us."
The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
correspondence concerning your request.
You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you may
submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following
website: https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within ninety {90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. If you
submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act
Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services
{OGIS) at 877-684-6448, or by emailing oqis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBl's FOIA Public
Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the
subject heading should clearly state "Dispute Resolution Services." Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number
assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
r
p
The enclosed material is from the main investigative file{s), meaning the subject{s) of your request was
the focus of the investigation. Our search located additional references, in files relating to other
individuals, or matters, which may or may not be about your subject{s). Our experience has shown
such additional references, if identified to the same subject of the main investigative file, usually contain
information similar to the information processed in the main file(s). As such, we have given priority to
processing only the main investigative file{s) given our significant backlog. If you would like to receive
any references to the subject{s) of your request, please submit a separate request for the reference
material in writing. The references will be reviewed at a later date, as time and resources permit.
See additional information which follows.
Sincerely,
~
David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division
Enclosure(s)
The enclosed documents represent the final release of information responsive to your FOIA request. This
material is being provided to you at no charge.
To minimize costs to both you and the FBI, duplicate copies of the same document were not processed.
Page 90 EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION (b)(l)
(A) specificaJly authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy and (8) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;
(b)(2)
related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(b)(3)
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the matters
be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (8) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers
to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(b)(4)
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(b)(5)
inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
the agency;
(b)(6)
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or
information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( 8 ) would deprive a person of a right to a fair
trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D) could
reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private
institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;
(b )(8)
contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(b)(9)
geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STA TES CODE, SECTION 552a
(d)(5)
information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;
G)(2)
material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime
or apprehend criminals;
(k)( I)
information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy,
for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;
(k)(2)
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or privilege
under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be
held in confidence;
(k)(3)
material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant to
the authority ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 3056;
(k)(4)
required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
(k)(S)
investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;
(k)(6)
testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or pr9motion in Federal Government service the
release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;
(k)(7)
material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who
furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
FBUDOJ
Page 91 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1405921-Total Deleted Page(s)
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 6 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 7 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 11 ..., b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 12 ..., b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 13 ..., b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 18 ~ Duplicate;
Page 19 ~ Duplicate;
Page 20 ~ Duplicate;
Page 21 ..., Duplicate;
Page 26 ..., Duplicate;
Page 27 ..., Duplicate;
Page 30 ~ Duplicate;
Page 31 ..., Duplicate;
Page 32 ~ Duplicate;
Page 33 ~ Duplicate;
Page 34 ~ Duplicate;
Page 35 ~ Duplicate;
Page 36 ..., Duplicate;
Page 37 ~ Duplicate;
Page 38 ..., Duplicate;
Page 39 ..., Duplicate;
Page 40 ..., Duplicate;
Page 41 ~ Duplicate;
Page 42 ~ Duplicate;
Page 43 ~ Duplicate;
Page 44 ~ Duplicate;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
Deleted Page(s)
X
No Duplication Fee X
For this Page
X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 92 - - - - - - - -Case
- - 3:20-cv-- - · ----·-·•- ... - Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 92 of No. :. ·No v. 20. 201.7 11 : 21 AM
-··
P.
JOHNNY ISAKSON
UNITED STATES SENATOR · GEORGIA
Fax Cover Sheet
One Overton Park
.3~25 Cumbei-land Boul_evard
Suite Atlanta, Georgia 30339 ·
770-661-770-661-0768 (Fax)
To: _._ _C_o_n....._gr_e_ss_io_n_aI_·_ _
From: _.____ _ _ _ _....JL
202-24-Fax: - - -----
Pages:Oincluding cover
bb7C
b7E
Date: - - -11/20/-----
L
Subject:
(
bb7C
I
Comments:
assistance in reachin
b7E
out to the FBII
lwe
appreciate
all approptiate action in accordance with established policies and procedures. .
I can be reached a~-----~a-;.,;..;;.;;ith;;;;..a=n;;.r,.y..;;,i_qu=e..;;;.;st;;;.;;.io=ns;.:..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
-
- - - - - - - --
bb7C
-------------------
Page 93 ;
NO V'
20. 2017 11 : 21 AM
No.
.
.
JOHNNY ISAKSON
P.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
GiORGIA
CtWIIM~N
h11p:/Jis111Ctcn,,enale.oov
·tinitrd ~rates ~enatt
1l1 IIIJ.$Sl!U.8ENAfl OJFICI f!ulUIJNQ
WA9111NQ'l'ON, DC 205\
1202) 224-
..
'
WASHINGTON, DC
o,., O"'lrl'CN PAM
3626 ~UMBEIU.AND BOUUVARD, SUITE
SEl.ECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
CHA!i!W\N
FINANCE
HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR. AND PENS!ONS
ATV.NTA. GA 30339 .
November 20,
1770, 861-o!9$
SuacoMMITTE& ON
EMPU)'tMCN'I' AND WCftl(tt.AC8.
SAfEYV. CttAtRMAN
FOREIGN RELATIONS
Sl.ltlCOMMn'TH ON
Mr. Gregory Bl'Ower_
Assistant Director of Cong1-essio11al Affairs
PederaJ Bur~au of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
93S Pennsylvania Avenue Nw, Room Washington, D.C .
STATE 0EPAI\TMEtff' AND USAJO
MANM!MENT. fHTEJINATIONAL OP!AATIO,.,S.
ANO lhLATiiAA INTUll'IA'rlOr,Ai.
CEYa.OPMEhT, CtWIIMAN

~----
bb7C
Dear Mr. Brower:
·p[case find enclosed correspondence I received from the above-referenced constituent. I would appreciate
your 1·eview ~f this information in accordance with established policies and proc~dures. Upon completion
of you,· review, please forward clarification ofyo\n· findings to the address below.
~D
In rhe event my office may be of further assistance please do not hesitate to contac~
----~hank you for your efforts in this matter, and I look foLward to hearin~ from you soon. ·
Sincel'ely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senate
Enclosure (s}
One Ove11on·Park1 Su[te 3625 Cumberland Blvd
Atlantal OA ATTN:
---------
bb7C
bb7C
Page 94 No. ..
Nov. 20.. 2017 lt: 22AM
~ -
P.
.______..k1.sa.klllljll.s.o.~..)_____________.-____....._______~:~c ~
FW: FBI
Subject: -
~mailt~~-----' ·
Fr~m~
Sent: Friday, November 17._......20~1;;.;.7...;3--::5~2;..:.P..:.;;M~--------
Tol
Subject: RE: FBI
bb7C
IUs~kson)I...__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.
bb7C
b7E
As
lwho put us in touc...b__w.....i ...h....A_e__n....._________
a result, we made ~ontact wit~
.. the phone
......,........_.._....a,;;,..~
i;;;;,_,;.;_ _ _
he next day~ we provided Agen
bb7C
b7E
information, lncludln
Agent
We will be happy to
lbut have not heard from him since this last contactJ
We spoke aiain with A2end
I
bb7C
b7E
Thanks,
I____
I.
bb7C
1
Page 95 U..S. nepartmen~ of ,Justice
Federal Burea.u of Investigation
Washington, D. C. 20535-
JAN 25
The Honorable Johnny lsakson
United States Senator
Suite One Overton Park
3625 Cumberland Boulevard
Atlanta, GA Dear Senator lsakson:
I am writin
bb7C
constituen
ln order to protect the integrity of all investigations, the FBf does not generally comment
on the status or existence of any potential .investigative matter. Please he assured this matter has
been brought to the attention of the appropriate personnel for any action deemed nt?cessary.
.I appreciate your bringing this matter to our attention. and I hope this information will be
helpful to you in responding
tol
I
Sincerely~
.,..,...... \
/..,,.
I
. . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . -•
.,.
'
.,..,,.,,,.
(./ .., ...,.,···'~.,..,..,.
__ ,,
/~-/
/ .f."c. Hacker
f.. •· _. ,. Deputy Assistant Director
Criminal [nvcsti.gative Division
bb7C
Page 96 ....i:,:~c
L___ _ _ __...ko_o_)_(_F_an
______________________
I
From:
Sent
I
To:
Subject:
kDO) (FBI)
Monday. October 16. 2017 8:58 AM
bb7C
l(AT)(FBO
RE: Victim Referral
b.;....;.;...;.;.;.;;;~~......;.~......,.............,;,,;,tii....
f_ro_m......,,;;;,a.....
n .;;;;;,attorney representin{
tn the voicemail the attorney b7C
b7E
sai
J haven t called him back yet, but I apologize for sending this your wave:::]
The Senator gave me the understandin~
IWhen you have a
chance could you give me a quick call. Thanks~
I
L---------
I
I
SSAI
Office of Con ressional Affairs, FBI
bb7C
Desk·tpi,t,,,,.-------Cell
----..Original Message-----
Froml
IDO) (FBI)
bb7C
Se\,,1,1,1..L.U.W.a.s..October 13, 2017 4:35 PM
...,_____A_T____.F~!) (FBI~
Sub ect: RE: Victim Referral " - - - - - - - bb7C
I spoke witij.,__ _ _~nd gavQour numbed.__ __,
-----Original Message----From
l(DO) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:12 PM
I
Tot
bb7C
kAT) (FBl)r1-,._ _ _ _ ____..._..,
Cc{'--_ _ ___,KDO) (FB'J
Subject: Victim Referral
....__ _ _ _ __
bb7C
b7E
As we discussed over the phone, I recentl
Although I ordinarily offer the complaint hotline number to constituents seekine to filE> ~ ~
· ·
I
I_
bb7C
b7E
1
Page 97 __
1------,..~~~~~~~~~~~--:'z~'"t:"":--:--:-:-"":':".":-::;":"-:-:-:--:-~-:-:-""";':"'.'.=~~=~-
-------ILet me Know which makes more sense. If you have any questions or issues please let me knowl._
bb7C

bb7C
b7E
Page 98 koo>
.__ _ _ _ _ ____._ _ _(FBI)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.cb7C
b6 -
I
From:
Sent:
I
To:
Subject:
bsakson)L.....,._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
Monday. October 16, 2017 11:49 AM
l{D0) (FBI)
RE: Senator Isakson of Georgia
bb7C
Thank you so muchl.__ _ _ _ __
Really appreciate your fast help on a Friday.
Can on us if we can ever help you.
Best
bb7C
f 't}/-\,, . . ._________
\l~:f,:f
[flL,~_;_,:_~_£_-r_~:_0~_6~_:_-:_s:_:_S_S_l:_N_AT_O_R_J_O_H_NNV lSAt Froml(DO) (FBI) [mailtd.L,._ _ _ __
Sent: Monday. October 16, 2017~-.:.;9::.::1=.3.;.;A;,:, :,M.:. . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,
Toi
kisaksonf
bb7C
Subject: RE: Senator Isakson of /;.._e_o_rg_l_a_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
bb7C
b7E
Thank you for settin
ease an t e enator or taking the time to tall and refer this matter to
us and ptease don't hesitate to reath out if there is anything else I can assist you with from a Congres~jooal Affairs
staodpoint. And have a great week!I
I
I
ss~
Office of Congressional Affairs, FBI
Oeskj
CeUI
bb7C
I
I
From~
IUsakson) (maift~
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 PM
L---------------
bb7C
Page 99 To:I
l(oo) (FB1J......~ - - - Subject: Senator Isakson of Georgia
bb7C
b7E
_H_e.......,_ __. just left you a voice mail on you~.______lnne, but I wanted to also send you a note.
enator Isakson lik I · ·30pm and 4pm today to pass along some information from
_____
to reach me, my cell is.__
..
~~. ~ ·~.

..
'-:~ ?·::~ ·.
_.·:,~·>~:; .\::.
........
~\.\
\,~~;i:'.> .~,•
. ·.. '\ t :·\· .,·: '_:.:.-··
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR JOHNNY ISAKSON
DC phOltfl: 202.224.Att•nta phone: 770.661.
emallj~------------
Visit Johnny's ~t~.ti.:t~ to learn more about his work In the Senate and to :Si~.n.!J~_JQ!..h.i.t,..t~~~:Sittter.

bb7C
Page 100 1.--_ _ _ ____.l.co_o_>_<_FB_l)_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
From:
_.u:~c
"'-!IF'"m-misf~~_.lcoo) (FBI)
Sent:
November 02, 2017 10:20 AM
_.
To:
bb7C
(AT) (FBI)
L------1ra:::D~O~F,.:::.Bl:.t..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 7E
.cc:
Subject
Attachments:
FW:
bb7C
I just spoke wit~
land basicaUy informed him tht1t it was no longer necessary to involve me in his
communications with you and your office. Please can me if youd like to discuss this matter further, or if there is
anything t can do to hetp you from a Congr~ssional Affairs standpoint.I
I
CeU
I
____......
s~
FBI Con
_._
Desk:
bb7C
ressional Affairs
From
kmailtqL.._ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 7:47 PM
kATl (FBI~
:;f
bb7C
b7E
koo) (FBt1...._ _ _ _ __
subject: FWIL_______________________
Agent4_ _ _ _ _ _ __
ind
We left messages with both of you today regard
have not heard from you. IL___________________________

l
Please contact me as soon as possible to let us know the status of this matter. MyceU isl
my work number •~
I
~
bb7C
b7E
land
bb7C
ber 01, 2017 12:11 PM
bb7C
b7E
Agenq_ _ __
l
Page 101 bb7C
b7E
bb7C
:1;:
····•·•·········••.• .. ·································· . ··•-·.••.••,•·"•························••. . ·•·····•-O.•.•···•···•·····"·······••.•········••.•······
,..................................................................................................,....................
.
The information in this message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and confidential
information. If you are not the
;aieat
~~.ediately stop reading this messagel de.lete it from your
system and notify the sender a~---------~~,--~~thal it has been deleted. Any unauthorized reading,
distribution, dissemination, copying, or o er use o t e m ormation in this message is strictly prohibited.
roded

bb7C
Page 102 EXHIBIT
E
Page 103 BOERSCH SHAPIRO
I•
I
I
LLP
I
DAVID W. SHAPIRO ◼
MARTHA BOERSCH ◼
LARA KOLLIOS ◼
MATTHEW DIRKES ◼
January 15,
EXPEDITED PROCESSING REQUESTED
Via Federal Express Overnight
Melanie Ann Pustay, Esq.
Director
Office of Information Policy
United States Department of Justice
Suite 1425 New York Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-Re: Freedom of Information Act Appeal – FOIPA Request No. 1405921-
Dear Director Pustay:
This is an administrative appeal of the partial denial by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”) of a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Margaret Foster of
Quinlan (“Quinlan”). See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii). The records in question are
correspondence between U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson and the FBI regarding MiMedx Group,
Inc. a biomedical company based in Georgia (“MiMedx”), its founder, Parker “Pete” H. Petit
(“Petit”), and one of the company’s investors, Marc Cohodes (“Cohodes”). The correspondence
includes a “Victim Referral” filed by Isakson and an official request from his office for the
agency’s findings.
This appeal challenges (a) the FBI’s decision to withhold 33 pages out of 43 pages that
were admittedly reviewed by the FBI, (b) the redactions on the 10 pages that were produced, (c)
the FBI’s failure to disclose any reports of interview or investigation that its agents prepared
before and after their visit to Mr. Cohodes and whose contents were shared in any degree with
the senator, (d) correspondence between Senator Isakson and MiMedx and/or any of its officers
or employees.
Accompanying this appeal is a waiver by Marc Cohodes of any privacy interests he may
have in the withheld and redacted documents, with the exception of his assertion of a privacy
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 104 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page interest in his home address, social security number, and any other personal information that
would allow others to locate his residence. See Graff v. FBI, 822 F. Supp. 2d 23, 33-34 (D.D.C.
2011) (agencies may not categorically deny requests when the third party identified in federal
law enforcement records waives his privacy interest).
Quinlan further requests that this appeal be processed on an expedited basis.
I.
Background
The records at issue relate to efforts by MiMedx and its then-CEO Parker “Pete” Petit to
enlist U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson to personally encourage the FBI to take action against Marc
Cohodes, a critic of MiMedx’s business and accounting practices. In response to the senator’s
complaints about Mr. Cohodes, the FBI sent two of its agents to Mr. Cohodes’s home, where the
agents threatened “consequences” if Mr. Cohodes did not stop speaking about MiMedx. Those
threats violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the FBI’s own policies.
On May 10, 2018, Quinlan submitted two FOIA requests to the Department of Justice
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seeking records related to correspondence between
Isakson and the FBI regarding MiMedx, Parker “Pete” H. Petit and Marc Cohodes. See Exhibit
A and Exhibit B. In an effort to assist the DOJ and FBI in processing the FOIA Request more
efficiently, Quinlan agreed to combine these two separate requests into one and was provided the
Request No. 1405921-000. The combined requests are referred to herein as the “Isakson
Request.”
The Isakson Request sought the following records from the DOJ and FBI’s files:


Correspondence by U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson with the FBI “relating to
MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes”
Correspondence by U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson with the Department of Justice
“relating to MiMedx and Parker ‘Pete’ H. Petit”
On July 16, 2018, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legislative Affairs (“OLA”)
advised that a search of the electronic database of the Departmental Executive Secretariat, which
maintains certain OLA records, including records of Department correspondence, yielded no
records responsive to Quinlan’s request.1 See Exhibit C.
The Quinlan Request was originally directed to the FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
(MRU), Justice Management Division. MRU routed the request to the Criminal Division
(CRM), who then sent the request to the Office of Legislative Affairs for processing. The MRU,
CRM and OLA tracking numbers associated with this request are EMRUFOIA051018-1, CRM300669585, and DOJ-2018-006108, respectively.
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 105 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page On December 11, 2018, the FBI issued a partial denial of the Isakson request, releasing
10 out of 43 pages of reviewed records, citing Exemption 6, Exemption 7(C), and Exemption
7(E). See Exhibit D. The produced documents were redacted so thoroughly that the redactions
obscure nearly every relevant detail.
The FBI thus appears to have identified 43 responsive pages of documents, removed or 34 pages in their entirety, and then produced 10 pages of largely-redacted emails and letters.
See page 4 of the FOIA response entitled “Deleted Page Information Sheet.”
The FBI did not explain why 33 pages were deleted from the production. It asserted that
21 pages were “duplicate,” but did not explain what those pages duplicated or why duplicates of
responsive documents should not be disclosed. As to the 10 produced pages, the FBI claimed
those contained information that falls within Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
The FBI advised the Wall Street Journal that any action concerning Mr. Cohodes is now
“closed.”2 FOIA exemptions are less applicable in closed matters because disclosure cannot
interfere with ongoing proceedings. See Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v.
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1097 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“The cases are closed—not pending
or contemplated—and therefore are not proceedings with which disclosure may interfere.”).
Correspondence dated October 13, 2017, October 16, 2017, November 1, 2017,
November 2, 2017, November 17, 2017, and November 20, 2017 between Isakson’s office and
the FBI was redacted almost in its entirety, shielding from public view nearly every detail
specific to the now-closed case. See Exhibit D.
II.
Argument
The Purpose and Scope of the Freedom of Information Act
FOIA embodies “a general philosophy of full agency disclosure,” Department of the Air
Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360 (quoting S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1965)).
“The ‘basic purpose’ of the Freedom of Information Act … is ‘to open agency action to the light
of public scrutiny.’” Liberman v. Dep’t of Transportation, 227 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2016)
(quoting Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, (1989)).
Gretchen Morgenson and Charley Grant, “Sen. Isakson called FBI on Behalf of
MiMedx Group,” The Wall Street Journal, December 27, 2018,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/sen-johnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group11545934861 (accessed January 8, 2019).
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 106 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page FOIA mandates that an agency disclose records on request, unless they fall within one of
nine exemptions. These exemptions are “explicitly made exclusive” and must be “narrowly
construed.” Milner v. Dep’t of Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 565 (2011) (citations omitted).
Critically, it is the agency, not the requestor, that “bears the burden to establish the
applicability of a claimed exemption to any reports or portions of records it seeks to withhold.
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review, 830 F.3d 667, (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Agencies asked to produce documents must identify specific privacy interests implicated
by the information and then balance those interests against the public interest that may be served
or disserved by disclosure. See U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Reporters Comm. For Freedom of Press,
489 U.S. 749, 762 (1989).
An agency must justify any exemption on a document-by-document basis, and “it is now
axiomatic that in order to satisfy its burden of establishing that an exemption claim is justified,
the government may not rely on ‘conclusory and generalized allegations.’” War Babes v.
Wilson, 770 F. Supp. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 1990) (quoting Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 826 (D.C. Cir.
1973)). Where the agency has done nothing more than “parrot the statutory standard” in
justifying an exemption, that explanation fails. Bagwell v. Dep’t of Justice, 2015 WL 9272836,
at *2 and *4 (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2015).
Section 552(a)(2) also requires the agency to explain “fully in writing” its justification for
refusing to disclose records under an “unwarranted invasion of privacy” claim. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(2). Even if it can fully justify the application of that exemption, the agency may only
redact “identifying details,” and not – as the FBI has done here – redact the substance of the
communications. Identifying details might include addresses, telephone numbers, and social
security numbers.
The FBI Failed to Produce Records of its Interactions With MiMedx and Marc Cohodes
The FBI regularly conducts investigations and documents its activities. Here, the FBI
responded to a senator’s request by directing two agents from its San Rafael office to confront
Mr. Cohodes about his public statements concerning MiMedx. Those agents undoubtedly
recorded the interaction in a memorandum or report, yet the FBI produced nothing reflecting the
agents’ own conduct.
Your Office should direct the FBI to produce those reports to the extent their content, or
any part of the content, was shared with Senator Isakson.
In addition, the FBI identified 33 pages of documents that were responsive, but which it
decided not to produce. The only explanation for that decision was the FBI’s reference to 21 of
those pages as “duplicate.” Duplicate responsive records must be produced. Those duplicates
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 107 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page may reflect distributions to different people or agencies that the public has the right to know
about. The number of “duplicate” pages is minimal and thus would not be burdensome for the
FBI to produce.
Your Office should direct the FBI to produce all documents that it withheld.
The FBI Incorrectly Invoked Exceptions to FOIA
With respect to the documents that were produced and that were also redacted, the FBI
has claimed that virtually all of the details of communications among Senator Isakson, MiMedx,
and the FBI about Marc Cohodes are private – and so private that disclosing them would
constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” To state the proposition is to
reject it. A senator, a federal law enforcement agency, and a publicly traded corporation (which
has also publicly admitted to filing false financial statements with the SEC) are nothing other
than two public servants and a public corporation. There are no personal privacy interests among
those three parties.
Moreover, the FBI has failed to show that its invocations of law enforcement exemptions
are justified. Exemption 7(C) cannot apply to cases that are now widely known and adjudicated,
and Exemption 7(E) does not apply to investigatory techniques that are already widely known.
The FBI provided no written explanation of why disclosure of the contents of the responsive
documents was justified.
Exemption 6 Does Not Justify Withholding the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI claims that it may withhold and redact information in responsive documents
under Exemption 6, which applies only where release of “personnel and medical and similar
files … would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(6) (emphasis added). The FBI has not, and cannot, meet the standard for this exemption.
First, the FBI has not explained “fully in writing” the personnel, medical or similar file
that was implicated by the FOIA request. It did not then explain what significant privacy interest
someone had in that information. And it did not explain why disclosure of that personal privacy
would be unwarranted. Nor could it.
Communications between the senator, MiMedx, and the FBI did not concern a medical or
personnel file, or any file that is similar to such files. That alone makes Exemption 6 inapposite.
See Schonberger v. NTSB, 508 F. Supp. 941, 942 (D.D.C. 1981) (“To satisfy exemption six, the
defendants must meet both aspects of the statutory test, showing that the material requested 1) is
part of a personnel, medical, or similar file, and if so 2) would, if disclosed publicly, constitute a
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”) (emphasis added). “If no significant privacy
interest is implicated . . . FOIA demands disclosure.” Nat'l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v.
Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 108 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page
“Similar files” means files that contain personal information about particular individuals,
United States Department of State v. Washington Post Co., 456 U.S. 595 (1982). In other words,
files are not similar to personnel or medical files unless are “detailed records containing personal
information” about particular people, Cook v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 758 F.3d 168,
175 (2d Cir. 2014). For example, names, employment information, and limited financial
information that doesn’t disclose “intimate details” of one’s finances are not “personal.” See
Washington Post Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 261 (D.C. Cir.
1982).
No personal files were implicated by the request here. Files concerning the
communications among the senator, MiMedx, and the FBI concerned whether the FBI would
take action to try to silence Marc Cohodes. To the extent that the files concern Mr. Cohodes
personally, he advised the Department of Justice he has no concerns about the release of his
name or the details of the FBI’s threats to him. To the contrary, he has filed complaints with the
Director of the FBI and its Inspector General about the FBI’s threats to him. See Washington
Post Co., 456 U.S. at 602 (personal information is information that “applies to a particular
individual”). The privacy interest inherent in Exemption 6 “belongs to the individual, not the
agency holding the information.” Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 763-65. The FBI cannot invoke
the exemption to withhold information that pertains to someone who has no objection to its
release. Id. at 771.
Moreover, there is nothing “personal” about what the FBI (and the other players) did
here: the senator used his political position and power to encourage the FBI to exercise its
investigative powers in a particular way. That is purely a business transaction; there is nothing
personal about it.
In addition, MiMedx and its attorneys affirmatively contacted Senator Isakson and asked
him to file a complaint about Mr. Cohodes with the FBI. Their names are thus not private or
personal in these circumstances. The only person who might have a privacy interest in that
scenario is Mr. Cohodes, who was accosted at his home by FBI agents and threatened. But Mr.
Cohodes has every interest in having the documents disclosed, as his accompanying letter states.
Second, the FBI has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, that the as-yet
unidentified privacy interests of MiMedx, Senator Isakson, or the FBI are sufficiently important
to overcome the public interest in disclosure of responsive documents. In evaluating an assertion
of Exemption 6, a court must “balance the public interest in disclosure against the interest
Congress intended Exemption 6 to protect,” and any such privacy interest must be “substantial.”
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass’n, 830 F.3d at 673; see also Department of the Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352, 380 n.19 (1976) (“Exemption 6 was directed at threats to privacy interests more
palpable than mere possibilities.”).
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 109 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page The redacted records reflect only correspondence between Isakson and the FBI and
follow-up complaints and discussions – all generated because Mr. Cohodes was criticizing a
publicly-traded company. Since MiMedx, the senator, and the agents or others voluntarily chose
to act to threaten Mr. Cohodes, it cannot be an “unwarranted” invasion of their privacy to
disclose what they said and did.
Third, the FBI may have an interest in keeping ongoing investigations private, pending a
decision by the U.S. Attorney whether to prosecute a case, but the FBI has no such interest here.
The FBI never presented any case against Mr. Cohodes to federal prosecutors or to a grand jury,
and it has publicly stated to the Wall Street Journal that the “matter” of its visit to Mr. Cohodes is
closed.
Exemption 7(C) Does Not Justify Withholding the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI also cited Exemption 7(C) to justify redacting portions of the responsive
documents. This exemption, like Exemption 6, applies only where release of records “could
reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. §
552(b)(7)(C). It is the law enforcement counterpart to Exemption 6. It protects the “‘strong
interest’ of individuals, whether they be suspects, witnesses, or investigators, ‘in not being
associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.’” Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755, (D.C. Cir. 1990). It applies only to individual privacy interests, and not to any claims of privacy
by a corporation, a senator acting in his role as an elected official, or the FBI. See Reporters
Comm., 489 U.S. at 764 n.16 (citing authorities supporting proposition that privacy rights belong
to individuals).
The protective scope of Exemption 7(C) as to third parties (and the Senator, MiMedx,
and the FBI are not third parties) is limited to “the specific information to which it applies [i.e.,
names, addresses and other identifying information], [but] not the entire page or document in
which the information appears[.]” Maydak v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 254 F. Supp. 2d 23, (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Mays v. DEA, 234 F.3d 1324, 1327 (D.C. Cir. 2000)).
There are no private documents at issue here; all are communications among three
unaffiliated parties. All three of those parties are public entities in one fashion or another – a
politician, a federal law enforcement agency, and a public company. All three acted in concert to
stifle public criticism by a well-known investor. None asked the FBI for confidentiality, and the
FBI did not conduct any undercover or otherwise secret investigation.
All of the communications at issue were made voluntarily – and with the hope and
intention that Mr. Cohodes would be confronted with the full force of the FBI’s intimidating
power. None of the parties to the communications was the subject of an FBI generated
investigation; those parties generated the investigation. Nothing about the communications
implicates anyone’s personal privacy, let alone an “unwarranted invasion” of personal privacy.
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 110 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page In short, FOIA was meant to require disclosure in exactly this situation: one citizen
invoked the power of the Senate and the FBI to shut down criticism by another citizen. The
public question involved is clear: how did the FBI function in this particular circumstance?
Exemption 7(E) Does Not Justify Withholding the Public Documents or the Redactions
The FBI redacted portions of the responsive documents because, it claimed, their
production “would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or
prosecutions . . . if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the
law.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).
“Exemption 7(E) only exempts investigative techniques not generally known to the
public.” Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 815 (9th Cir. 1995); see Rugiero v.
DOJ, 257 F.3d 534, 551 (6th Cir. 2001). Indeed, “[i]f an agency record discusses ‘the
application of [a publicly known technique] to ... particular facts,’ the document is not exempt
under 7(E).” Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. California v. Dep't of Justice, 880 F.3d 473, (9th Cir. 2018) (rejecting agency invocation of Exemption 7(E) to withhold records describing
methods to obtain a suspect’s location information) (emphasis added).
Senator Isakson’s “Victim Referral” and his request for follow-up information did not ask
the FBI to use undisclosed law enforcement techniques. The Senator asked the FBI to take
action against Marc Cohodes, at the behest of MiMedx, and the FBI complied by sending two
FBI agents out to threaten Mr. Cohodes into silence. That is standard, well-known (albeit heavy
handed and unconstitutional) law enforcement. Unless the FBI can demonstrate that it has a
legal and secret program designed to stifle the expression of ideas and opinions, the FBI cannot
demonstrate that Exemption 7(E) applies here.
The FBI will be hard pressed to demonstrate that it has a program designed to send agents
out to tell people not to post comments and opinions on the internet because the agency’s own
operating manual prohibits conducting any investigation at all that implicates the exercise of
First Amendment rights. See FBI Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide – DIOG – Version Part 01 at ¶¶ 3.3.1.3 and 3.3.1.4 (agents must “[e]nsure that civil liberties and privacy
are protected throughout the Assessment or investigative process” and may “[c]onduct no
investigative activity based solely on the exercise of First Amendment activities”) (emphasis in
original); see id. ¶ 5.3 (same).
On the other side of the scale, the public interest in knowing the reasons why the FBI sent
two armed agents to a man’s home to tell him to stop talking about a public company, violating
its own requirement to use the least intrusive method of inquiry, see id. ¶4.4.1, is significant.
The public certainly has an interest in knowing that government employees have been used by a
corporate political contributor to silence its critics.
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 111 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page The FBI also cannot demonstrate that its “technique” of interviewing people, if known to
the public, would allow criminals to circumvent the law. Indeed, the FBI did what any ordinary
investigator would do when acceding to the requests of a powerful and influential member of
Congress: it confronted Mr. Cohodes with two FBI agents who essentially told him to stop
talking about MiMedx or there would be “consequences.”
The correspondence from MiMedx to the senator and from the senator to the FBI did not
implicate a secret law enforcement technique. The conduct of the FBI similarly did not implicate
any law enforcement technique. Everyone in America knows that FBI agents conduct
interviews. Disclosure of the communications that led to the Cohodes interview and reports
reflecting that interview would not damage a secret investigative technique.
The FBI Must Release All Reasonably Segregable Information
FOIA directs the FBI to segregate and release all information that does not merit
protection. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(ii)(II). In its partial production, the FBI redacted every
piece of information remotely relating to these individual cases, regardless of whether the
information was sensitive or related to the petitioner himself (or someone else). Reasonable
efforts to segregate non-exempt information are mandated by the law.
The Public Interest In Disclosure Supports Expedited Processing of This Appeal
Quinlan requests that your Office respond to this appeal on an expedited basis pursuant to
28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e). The undersigned certifies that the FOIA Request, and this appeal, relate to
matters on which there is an “urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal
Government activity . . . [and is] . . . made by a person who is primarily engaged in
disseminating information.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(ii). Quinlan functioned here as an agent of a
person whose primary professional activity is information dissemination. Specifically, Quinlan’s
principal has published multiple reports about MiMedx’s business and accounting practices, and
it has followed and commented on MiMedx’s practice of stifling critics through lawsuits, among
other tactics. There is, therefore, an urgency to inform the public about MiMedx’s and others’
conduct regarding Mr. Cohodes.
In addition, the press has followed and reported on MiMedx’s problems – and its efforts
to silence critics – numerous times since August 2017. Most recently, on December 27, 2018,
the Wall Street Journal published a front-page account of Senator Isakson’s conduct. That article
has generated 143 comments from WSJ subscribers to date. https://www.wsj.com/articles/senjohnny-isakson-called-fbi-on-behalf-of-mimedx-group-11545934861?mod=searchresults&page
=1&pos=1. Among those comments are the following:
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 112 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page •
“Good Ole Boy Johnny Isaakson works for a wealthy fraudster, not the people of
Georgia. The FBI should be ashamed of itself for willingly being used as his and
Parker “Pete” Petit’s tool. It engaged in intimidation, not investigation.”

“A U.S. senator using a federal agency to harass a critic of a donor and friend is
misconduct, and, certainly newsworthy.”

“The guilty party is not the geezer but the FBI for offering preferential treatment
to a friend of the Senator while Mr. Cohodes was informing the authorities of a
possible fraud against taxpayers. Did FBI show same zeal in protecting the Govts
best interest. Seems the FBI acted like keystone cops on leaving the premises
only when local Sheriff arrived on the scene.”

“I think the issue is much more than Blue or Red, Republicans or Democrats.
When a Congressperson can direct the FBI to investigate individual's
Tweets/commentary/writing/speech this should raise the red flag to any freedom
loving, Constitution believer American. If the FBI knocks on my door for my
Tweets, I'll call 911.”

“To me, this is just another prism of light shining on the abuse of power,
corruption and fraud that has taken place at Mimedx, a company which had a
market cap approaching $2 billion a year ago. There has been lots of money to go
around for government officials, corporate executives, commission based sales
people with kickbacks to doctors and hospital workers, all at the expense of tax
payers. This angle of the Mimedx story does not even take into account matters of
protecting human health which could be considered worse with lack of FDA
approvals. If you examine the work of Mr Cohodes and others, you will find
volumes of examples which tax payers and the public should be concerned about.
As a reader of this paper, and likely an investor, one should consider that this
company has withdrawn 7 YEARS of financial statements ( no repercussions )
and its auditor Ernst & Young recently resigned stating that sufficient internal
controls within the company do not exist to produce statements!”

“As a current constituent of Sen. Isakson, I would be hard pressed to justify
calling my Senator and asking him/her to contact the FBI to bully someone who is
saying bad things about me on Twitter. Senator Isakson is up for re-election in
2020 and it may be time to show him the door.”
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 113 Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
January 15, Page In addition, Mr. Cohodes has filed an ethics complaint against Senator Isakson, a copy of
which is available on your request.
In sum, the public and the press have a strong interest in full disclosure of the materials,
and in having the materials disclosed in an expedited fashion.
Accordingly, Quinlan respectfully requests that the FBI respond on an expedited basis.
If you have any questions about this administrative appeal, please contact me by email at
dshapiro@boerschshapiro.com or telephone at 415-500-6644.
Sincerely,
David W. Shapiro
Enclosures.
◼ 1611 TELEGRAPH AVE SUITE 806, OAKLAND CA 94612-2147 | 415-500-6640 | BOERSCHSHAPIRO.COM ◼
Page 114 EXHIBIT
F
Page 115 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA E-MAIL
FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
United States Department of Justice
Room LOC Building
Washington, DC 20530-Phone: (202) 616-E-mail: MRUFOIA.Requests@usdoj.gov
Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Department of Justice
Dear Sir or Madam:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the United States Department of
Justice referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the United
States Department of Justice referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 116 Department of Justice
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 117 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Bit
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 118 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION
David M. Hardy, Chief
Record/Information Dissemination Section
Records Management Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Department of Justice
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Dear Mr. Hardy:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation referring or relating to Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 119 Federal Bureau of Investigation
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 120 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Bit
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 121 NORTON
law firm pc
January 15,
VIA ONLINE SUBMISSION
Kevin Krebs
Assistant Director
FOIA/Privacy Unit
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Department of Justice
175 N Street, N.E.
Suite 5.Washington, DC 20530-Re:
Freedom of Information Act Request to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Dear Mr. Krebs:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I formally request that you provide
me with copies of:
1. All correspondence and communications between Senator Johnny Isakson, his staff, his
employees, or any person acting on his behalf and the United States Attorney’s Office for
the Southern District of New York referring or relating to MiMedx, Parker Petit, or Marc
Cohodes.
2. All documents and communications in the possession, custody, or control of the United
States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York referring or relating to
Marc Cohodes.
Please provide the information in an electronic format, if possible. I agree to pay reasonable
duplication fees from the processing of this request. Should such fees exceed $1,500.00, please
contact me to confirm that I will pay fees in excess of that amount.
If my request is denied in whole or part, please justify all denials with reference to specific
exemptions in the Act. I expect that you will release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt
material.
Marc Cohodes has authorized the release to me of all information that relates or refers to him.
Enclosed with this letter please find form DOJ-361, signed by Mr. Cohodes, authorizing the
disclosure of information about him to me.
(continued on next page)
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 122 Department of Justice
January 15, Page My contact information is as follows:
Matthew W. Turetzky
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
299 Third Street, Suite Oakland, California mturetzky@nortonlaw.com
Tel: (510) 906-Please let me know if you have any questions about this request.
Very truly yours,
Matthew W. Turetzky
Enclosure
299 Third Street, Suite 106, Oakland, California 94607
Page 123 Certification of Identity
U.S Department of Justice
FORM APPROVED o~m NO.
I 103-0016 EXPIRES 05/31n
Privacy Act Statement. 1n accordance with 28 CFR Section 16.4J(d) personal data sufficient to identjfy the individuals submitting requests by
mail under the Ptivacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, is required. The purpose of this solicitation is to ensure that the records of individuals
who are the subject of U.S. Depattment of Justice systems of records are not wrongfulJy di sclosed by the Depattment. Requests will not be
processed if this info1mation is not furnished. False information on this form may subject the requester to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.
Section 1001 and/or 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(i)(3).
Public repo1ting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.50 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
inshuctions, searching existing data sources, gatheting and maintaining the data needed, and completi ng and reviewing the collection of
information. Suggestions for reducing this burden may be submitted to the Office of lnfo1mation and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget, Public Use Repo1ts Project (1103-0016), Washington, DC 20503.
Full Name of Requester
, Marc Cohodes
U.S. Citizen
Date of Bit
OPTIONAL: Authorization to Release Information to Another Person
This fo1m is also to be completed by a requester who is autho1i zing info1mation relating to himself or herself to be released to another person.
Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b), I authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to release any and all information relating to me to:
Matthew W Turetzky of The Norton Law Firm P.C.
Print or Type Name
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am the person
named above, and I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishable under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by a fine of
not more than $10,000 or by imptisomne1 t-ef- ~ t more than five years or both, and that requesting or obtaining any record(s) under false
pretenses is punishable under the-~ :s,v.i
s of 5 U. C. 552a(i)(3) by a fi ne of not more than $5,000.
)
I
r_:_":c-=.~=::_________
Signature 4 _ _ _ _"---_ _ _
Date
f _IS, ?

~2-,D
Name of individual who is the subject of the record(s) sought.
Individual submitting a request under the Privacy Act of 1974 must be either ·•a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence," pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(a)(2). Requests will be processed as Freedom oflnfonnation Act
requests pw-suant to 5 U.S.C. Section 552, rather than Privacy Act requests, for individuals who are not United States citizens or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
Providing your social security number is voluntary. You are asked to provide your social security nwnber only to facilitate the
identification of records relating to you. Without your social security number, the Department may be unable to locate any or all records
pertaining to you.
Signature of individual who is the subject of the record sought.
FORM DOJ-361
Page 124 EXHIBIT
G
Page 125 U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. February 28, MR. MATTHEW W TURETZKY
THE NORTON LAW FIRM PC
SUITE 299 THIRD STREET
OAKLAND, CA FOIPA Request No.: 1457448-Subject: MiMedx (Correspondence between
FBI and Senator Johnny Isakson)
Dear Mr. Turetzky:
The enclosed 10 pages of records were determined to be responsive to your subject and were
previously processed and released pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Please see the
selected paragraphs below for relevant information specific to your request as well as the enclosed FBI
FOIPA Addendum for standard responses applicable to all requests.
In an effort to provide you with responsive records as expeditiously as possible, we are
releasing documents from previous requests regarding your subject. We consider your
request fulfilled. Since we relied on previous results, additional records potentially
responsive to your subject may exist. If this release of previously processed material does
not satisfy your request, you may request an additional search for records. Submit your
request by mail or fax to – Work Process Unit, 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602,
fax number (540) 868-4997. Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in your
correspondence.
r
r
Please be advised that additional records responsive to your subject exist. If this release
of previously processed material does not satisfy your request, you must advise us that
you want the additional records processed. Please submit your response within thirty (30)
days by mail or fax to—Work Processing Unit, 170 Marcel Drive, Winchester, VA 22602,
fax number (540) 868-4997. Please cite the FOIPA Request Number in your
correspondence. If we do not receive your decision within thirty (30) days of the date
of this notification, your request will be closed.
One or more of the enclosed records were transferred to the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). Although we retained a version of the records previously
processed pursuant to the FOIA, the original records are no longer in our possession.
If this release of the previously processed material does not satisfy your request, you may
file a FOIPA request with NARA at the following address:
National Archives and Records Administration
Special Access and FOIA
8601 Adelphi Road, Room College Park, MD 20740-
r
Records potentially responsive to your request were transferred to the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA), and they were not previously processed pursuant to
the FOIA. You may file a request with NARA using the address above.
Page 126 r
r
r
One or more of the enclosed records were destroyed. Although we retained a version of
the records previously processed pursuant to the FOIA, the original records are no longer
in our possession. Record retention and disposal is carried out under supervision of the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) , Title 44, United States Code,
Section 3301 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1228; Title
44, United States Code, Section 3310 as implemented by Title 36, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1229.10.
Records potentially responsive to your request were destroyed. Since this material could
not be reviewed, it is not known if it was responsive to your request. Record retention and
disposal is carried out under supervision of the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) according to Title 44 United States Code Section 3301, Title Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 12 Sub-chapter B Part 1228, and 36 CFR
1229.10.
Documents or information referred to other Government agencies were not included in this
release.
Please refer to the enclosed FBI FOIPA Addendum for additional standard responses applicable to
your request. “Part 1” of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply to all requests. “Part 2”
includes additional standard responses that apply to all requests for records about yourself or any third party
individuals. “Part 3” includes general information about FBI records that you may find useful. Also
enclosed is our Explanation of Exemptions.
For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
The FOIPA Request Number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
correspondence concerning your request.
If you are not satisfied with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s determination in response to this
request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United
States Department of Justice, 441 G Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20530, or you may submit an
appeal through OIP's FOIA STAR portal by creating an account following the instructions on OIP’s website:
https://www.justice.gov/oip/submit-and-track-request-or-appeal. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit
your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act
Appeal." Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS). The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park, Maryland
20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile
at 202-741-5769. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public Liaison by emailing
foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the subject heading
should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned
to your request so it may be easily identified.
Sincerely,
David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division
Enclosure(s)
Page 127 FBI FOIPA Addendum
As referenced in our letter responding to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request, the FBI FOIPA
Addendum provides information applicable to your request. Part 1 of the Addendum includes standard responses that apply
to all requests. Part 2 includes standard responses that apply to requests for records about individuals to the extent your
request seeks the listed information. Part 3 includes general information about FBI records, searches, and programs.
Part 1: The standard responses below apply to all requests:
(i)
5 U.S.C. § 552(c). Congress excluded three categories of law enforcement and national security records from the
requirements of the FOIPA [5 U.S.C. § 552(c)]. FBI responses are limited to those records subject to the requirements
of the FOIPA. Additional information about the FBI and the FOIPA can be found on the www.fbi.gov/foia website.
(ii)
Intelligence Records. To the extent your request seeks records of intelligence sources, methods, or activities, the
FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1), (b)(3), and as applicable to
requests for records about individuals, PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(1), (b)(3), and (j)(2)]. The mere
acknowledgment of the existence or nonexistence of such records is itself a classified fact protected by FOIA exemption
(b)(1) and/or would reveal intelligence sources, methods, or activities protected by exemption (b)(3) [50 USC §
3024(i)(1)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that any such records do or do not exist.
Part 2: The standard responses below apply to all requests for records on individuals:
(i)
Requests for Records about any Individual—Watch Lists. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of
any individual’s name on a watch list pursuant to FOIA exemption (b)(7)(E) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§
552/552a (b)(7)(E), (j)(2)]. This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that watch list records do or
do not exist.
(ii)
Requests for Records about any Individual—Witness Security Program Records. The FBI can neither confirm
nor deny the existence of records which could identify any participant in the Witness Security Program pursuant to
FOIA exemption (b)(3) and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. 3521, and (j)(2)]. This is a
standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
(iii)
Requests for Records for Incarcerated Individuals. The FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of records
which could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any incarcerated individual pursuant to
FOIA exemptions (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and PA exemption (j)(2) [5 U.S.C. §§ 552/552a (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), and (j)(2)].
This is a standard response and should not be read to indicate that such records do or do not exist.
Part 3: General Information:
(i)
Record Searches. The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for reasonably described records by
searching systems or locations where responsive records would reasonably be found. A standard search normally
consists of a search for main files in the Central Records System (CRS), an extensive system of records consisting of
applicant, investigative, intelligence, personnel, administrative, and general files compiled by the FBI per its law
enforcement, intelligence, and administrative functions. The CRS spans the entire FBI organization, comprising records
of FBI Headquarters, FBI Field Offices, and FBI Legal Attaché Offices (Legats) worldwide; Electronic Surveillance
(ELSUR) records are included in the CRS. Unless specifically requested, a standard search does not include references,
administrative records of previous FOIPA requests, or civil litigation files. For additional information about our record
searches, visit www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/requesting-fbi-records.
(ii)
FBI Records. Founded in 1908, the FBI carries out a dual law enforcement and national security mission. As part of this
dual mission, the FBI creates and maintains records on various subjects; however, the FBI does not maintain records on
every person, subject, or entity.
(iii)
Requests for Criminal History Records or Rap Sheets. The Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division
provides Identity History Summary Checks – often referred to as a criminal history record or rap sheet. These criminal
history records are not the same as material in an investigative “FBI file.” An Identity History Summary Check is a
listing of information taken from fingerprint cards and documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests,
federal employment, naturalization, or military service. For a fee, individuals can request a copy of their Identity History
Summary Check. Forms and directions can be accessed at www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summarychecks. Additionally, requests can be submitted electronically at www.edo.cjis.gov. For additional information, please
contact CJIS directly at (304) 625-5590.
(iv)
National Name Check Program (NNCP). The mission of NNCP is to analyze and report information in response to name
check requests received from federal agencies, for the purpose of protecting the United States from foreign and domestic
threats to national security. Please be advised that this is a service provided to other federal agencies. Private Citizens
cannot request a name check.
Page 128 EXPLANATION OF EXEMPTIONS
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION (b)(1)
(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign
policy and (B) are in fact properly classified to such Executive order;
(b)(2)
related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency;
(b)(3)
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), provided that such statute (A) requires that the
matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on issue, or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding
or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;
(b)(4)
trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;
(b)(5)
inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with
the agency;
(b)(6)
personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(b)(7)
records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records
or information ( A ) could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings, ( B ) would deprive a person of a right to a
fair trial or an impartial adjudication, ( C ) could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, ( D )
could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of confidential source, including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any
private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis, and, in the case of record or information compiled by a criminal law
enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence
investigation, information furnished by a confidential source, ( E ) would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement
investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could
reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law, or ( F ) could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any
individual;
(b)(8)
contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for
the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; or
(b)(9)
geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.
SUBSECTIONS OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 552a
(d)(5)
information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action proceeding;
(j)(2)
material reporting investigative efforts pertaining to the enforcement of criminal law including efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime
or apprehend criminals;
(k)(1)
information which is currently and properly classified pursuant to an Executive order in the interest of the national defense or foreign
policy, for example, information involving intelligence sources or methods;
(k)(2)
investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than criminal, which did not result in loss of a right, benefit or
privilege under Federal programs, or which would identify a source who furnished information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity
would be held in confidence;
(k)(3)
material maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or any other individual pursuant
to the authority of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3056;
(k)(4)
required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records;
(k)(5)
investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian
employment or for access to classified information, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person who furnished
information pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence;
(k)(6)
testing or examination material used to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in Federal Government service
the release of which would compromise the testing or examination process;
(k)(7)
material used to determine potential for promotion in the armed services, the disclosure of which would reveal the identity of the person
who furnished the material pursuant to a promise that his/her identity would be held in confidence.
FBI/DOJ
Page 129 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1457448-Total Deleted Page(s)
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 6 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 7 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 18 ~ Duplicate;
Page 19 ~ Duplicate;
Page 20 ~ Duplicate;
Page 21 ~ Duplicate;
Page 26 ~ Duplicate;
Page 27 ~ Duplicate;
Page 30 ~ Duplicate;
Page 31 ~ Duplicate;
Page 32 ~ Duplicate;
Page 33 ~ Duplicate;
Page 34 ~ Duplicate;
Page 35 ~ Duplicate;
Page 36 ~ Duplicate;
Page 37 ~ Duplicate;
Page 38 ~ Duplicate;
Page 39 ~ Duplicate;
Page 40 ~ Duplicate;
Page 41 ~ Duplicate;
Page 42 ~ Duplicate;
Page 43 ~ Duplicate;
Page 44 ~ Duplicate;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
Deleted Page(s)
X
No Duplication Fee X
For this Page
X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 130 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1405921-Total Deleted Page(s)
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 6 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 7 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C; b7E;
Page 18 ~ Duplicate;
Page 19 ~ Duplicate;
Page 20 ~ Duplicate;
Page 21 ~ Duplicate;
Page 26 ~ Duplicate;
Page 27 ~ Duplicate;
Page 30 ~ Duplicate;
Page 31 ~ Duplicate;
Page 32 ~ Duplicate;
Page 33 ~ Duplicate;
Page 34 ~ Duplicate;
Page 35 ~ Duplicate;
Page 36 ~ Duplicate;
Page 37 ~ Duplicate;
Page 38 ~ Duplicate;
Page 39 ~ Duplicate;
Page 40 ~ Duplicate;
Page 41 ~ Duplicate;
Page 42 ~ Duplicate;
Page 43 ~ Duplicate;
Page 44 ~ Duplicate;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
Deleted Page(s)
X
No Duplication Fee X
For this Page
X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 131 ~-----------
------------------
• Nov. 20. 2017Case
11: 21AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 131 No.
of '
P.
'
\
·JOHNNY ISAKSON
UNITED STATES SENATOR · GEORGlA
Fax Cover Sheet
One Overton Park
.3625 Cumberland Boulevard
Suite Atlanta, Georgia 30339 ·
770-661-770-661-0768 (Fax)
---L-------....IL
To: _·__C_on_.g.,,_r_es_s_io_n_al_·_ _
From:
Fax:
Pages:Dincluding cover
202-3 24---------
bb7C
b7E
11/20/Date: - - - ----bb7C
Subject: -----'-------------..J-Comments:
assistance in reachin
b7E
out to the FBII
We
appreciate
all appropriate action in accordance with established policies and procedures. ·
I can be reached a~1..._ _ _----1i-;lw_;it_h..;.;...an......,y_g=u..:..;es=ti..;;.;.on;;.;;.s;_._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
bb7C
Page 132 P. 2.
Nov. 20. 2017Case
11:21AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 132 No.
of JOHNNY ISAKSON
VETERANS' AFFAIRS
GEORGIA
CHAl~MAN
h1Jp;/Jisakgon.,ena1a.oov
l l T AU$5!LL SEN,._TE OFACE &UJLOJNO
WAeM1Na:ro", oc
2os
1202) 224-
·tJanitrd oStates ~enetr
WASHINGTON, DC
177DI 6tl1-0S
CHI\IRM/IN
FINANCE
HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOfl. AND PENSIONS
Or,f OvfAYON PAA~
3626 CUMBE~LAND BOULEVAAD, SUITE
AlUlf>ITA, GA 30339 .
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
November 20,
SuaCOMMITTEE ON
EMf\O'>'MtNY AN~ WOMFU\CE.
SAff/V, C11AIAMAN
FOREIGN RELATIONS
SU0COMMJ1TEE ON
Mr. Gregory Brower
Assistant Director of Congressional Affairs
Federal Bureau of Investigation
U.S. Department of Justice
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, Nw, Room Washington, D.C.
STATE 0EPA~TMENT ANO
USAJO
MANA~!MENT, l11•ERNATIONAL OPeMTJONs.
ANO 911.11,fAA• INYERNA110NA•
DEVELOPMENT, C~Al~MAN
bb7C
REI_ _ _ _ _ __
Dear Mr. Brower:
·Please find enclosed correspondence I received from the above-referenced constituent. I would appreciate
your review of this information in accordance with established policies and procedures. Upon completion
of your review, please forward clarification ofyou1· findings to the address below.
ln the event my office may be of fu1ther assistance, please do not hesitate to contac~
~tD
.___ _ _....~hank you for your efforts in this matter, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.·
Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senate
Enclosure (s)
One Ove1ton Park, Suite 3625 Cumberland Blvd
Atlanta, GA ATTN: I..__ _ _____.
bb7C
bb7C
Page 133 Nov.20 . 2017Case
1L:22AM
3:20-cv-02469 Document 1 Filed 04/13/20 Page 133No.
of
P.
L__ _ _ _ _Jr_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b7C
~Isakson)
FW: FBI
Subject:
From~
..,;,,__
bG
~ma ilt~..___ _ _ ____.I
·
Sent: Friday, November 17,..•.:.20:::.:1:::.:;7~3~:5=..;2:...P:..:.M.;.:....___________
1(1s~ksonJI.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.....
Subject: RE: FBI
To!
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
As a result, we made contact wit~
lwho put us in touc;-h....w__it.._h__A""""'e'""'n,....__ _...i.;..;..;a..;;;.i;;;.;a.;.=..;..;;..;..;=:.;;&.......&,;o;...v.;;..er
.. the phone
The next day; we provided Agent
information, includin
rovide It to you. Although Agent
We will be happy to
We sooke again with Agen~
lbut have not heard from him since this last co~tact~
bb7C
b7E
I
bb7C
b7E
Thanks,
....._I_ _____.I
bb7C
Page 134 V.S. nepartment of ,Justice
Federal Bureau ofinvestigation
Washington, D. C 20535-000!
The Honorable Johnny Isakson
United States Senator
Suite
JAN 2 5
One Overton Park
3625 Cumberland Boulevard
Atlanta, GA
Dear Senator Isakson:
I am \Vritin} in res ,onse to 1our Novernber 20. 2017 fotter to the FBI on behalf of vour
bb7C
constituent
ln order to protect the integrity of all investigations, the FBJ does not gtmt~rally comment
on the status or existence of any potential investigative matter. Please he assured this matter has
been brought to the attention of the appropriate personnel for any action deemed necessary.
I appredate your bri.ngfo this matter to our attention, and I hope this information
helpful to you in responding to
------------Sincerely,
wm he
bb7C
Page 135 o_0111111)11111(F_B_I_}_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~c
L__ _ _ _ _Jilc..
I
From:
Sent:
I
To:
Subject:
kDO) (FBIJ
Monday. October 16, 2017 8:58 AM
kAT) (FBI)
RE;Vk.tim Referral
bb7C
b
! gota messa e Sunda evenin from an attorney represent!n~
.
.
hn the vokernaH the attorney b7C
sai
I haven't called.him back yet, but! apologize for sending thlsyourwayLJ b7E
L----...,....,-------' The Senatorgave me the understand in~
lwhen you have a
chance could you give me a quick call. Thanks~
I
SSA!L._ _ _ __.
Office of Con ressiona! Affairs) FBI
bb7C
Deskr-L-------Cell
~:r
.. --··-Original• Message--.. ·Froml
too) (FBI)
Friday
bb7C
kA~~1~lJ.B-.·. 2_.0. ...17--4:_3_s_P_M_·...1----,
cc:
.
{Ob) (FBlSubject: RE: Victim Referral .___ _ _ _ ___.
bb7C
! spoke wltij.__ ____,~nd gavQour numberl..._ __.
-----Original Message----Fromt
l{DO) (FBI)
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:12 PM
To~
cc{ .
bb7C
!(AT) {FB. !).1,.,.I....,,.,,.._ _ _ __ _ _ . . . _
.
Koo) (rnq
Subject: Victim Referral

L---------'
As we discussed over the Phone, .I recently received a call from Senator Johnny Isakson, Who informed me that
Although! ordinarily offer the complaint hotline number to constituents seeldmito file a cnmi,,, ...+.I
r ~~~
b
I
bb7C
b7E
1.
Page 136 L--------.----.------........--.---~~----:-:;:,-----;-------:-;------:----;--~:--:---:------r-,
L - - - - - - - . . .ILet me Know wtuch makes more sense. If you have any questions or issues please let me knowj.__ ____.
SSAL...I---.---------'
bb7C
Office of Comuessional Affairs, FBI
Desk.
, . L - - - - - -....
CeU:IL - - - - - - - - '

bb7C
b7E
Page 137 L__ _ _ _ _....Jk.o_o_)_(_F_B_l)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I
kisakson)L..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____,
Monda:y, October 16, 2017 ll:49 AM
I
l{DO) {FBI)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
~~c
-
bb7C
RE: Senator Isakson of Georgfo
Thank you so muchJ1..__________,
ReaHy apprndate your fast help on a Friday.
Cat! on us if we can ever help VOLL
Best
bb7C
OfflCi; OF UN.ITfO STA'fes SENATOR JOHNNY lSAKSON
tJCptwm:,,
io2. :t24.:.lM:l
Atli.'lnta pht,f1$: rt0,66:! .o"l,::l ~m-iJi/:1..I_____________,
l(OO) (FBI) [mai!td.L,._ _ _ _ ___,
From~
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017.,_9,;;.:;.;;;1.;;.3.;..A..;.;M.;..•- - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
To~
l{lsaksonf
Subject: RE :.Senator Isakson of G.1,,,~e_o_r_g..,.la_______________
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
Thank vou for setting thls rnH u . i "'vas f.lble to s · eak \•vith the
ease t ,an t ·. e•, enato r · or ta king the time to ta Ii arid refer th !s tnatterto
us and ptease don't hesitate to reach out ff there is ,mvthlng else I can assist yow with from a Congrnssiona! Affalrs
standpoint And have a great \Veek!I
I
$5~.__ _ _ _ __
Offke of Congre.ssionaf Affairs, FBI
l:Jesk~
bb7C
I
I
ceuj
From~
..
.
!(Isakson} lm~
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:31 PM
L------------------'
bb7C
Page 138 To:I
l(oo} (FBl~.L...--.---------'
Subject: Senator Isakson ofGeorgia
bb7C
b7E
.,.H_e_-- - 1 - 1 Just left you a voice mail on you~.______lnne, but I wanted to also send you a note.
enator Isakson like!
'I
·30pm and 4pm today to pass along some !nforrnationfrom
______
to reach me, my cell is.__
OFFICE OF UNITED STATES SENATOR JOHNNV ISAKSON
DC-phone: 202.224.Atlanta phone., 770-1,61.
email1L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.

bb7C
Page 139 -----------------------~~c
L__ _ _ _ _Jlilc_o_o_)_(F_B_l)_·
From:
L.......-...,...----koo) (FBI)
Sent:
,...i-!-i=~• November02, 201710:20 AM
bG
b7c
L---,----~D:.:::0~
• .1:F..::.B:!.il_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,.,7E
To:
(AT) (FBI)
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
FW:
bb7C
!and baskaHv informed him that it v,ras no. longer necessary to involve rne ln his
cornmunications with you ,rnd yovr office, Please call me !f voud like to discuss this rnatter further_. orH them fa
anvthing l c,m do to help you from a Congresslom.i! Affalrs standpoint,!
!just Spoke \Vit~
I
SSAL.I---~....I
bb7C
Fal Congressional Affairs
Desk:!
I
cent
I
ltmailtqL...,.,.......,..,,,....,.~......,.......,...-------'
From~
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 7:47 PM
~~/
Subject:
bb7C
b7E
kooi (Fail...._ _ _ _ ____.
!{AT) (FBI~
FwtL- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Agent~.__ _ _ _ _ _ ____,
Vie. teft messages ,...,,th both of you todav regardln
have
notheard
1 from you. L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.
Pleas..,., contact me as soon as possib!~~ to let us kno\,v the status of this matter.
mv work number
isl
I
My cell lsl
bb7C
b7E
land
...______....,
bb7C
bb7C
b7E
Agent!.__ _ ___.
l
Page 140 bb7C
b7E
bb7C
the information in this message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and confidential
info.rmati.on. : If you. are ".· ot the mtended::cicieot olease !ro. ~.e. d. fat.ely s.top readjng th.• is message·,·d:.'ete it fro~ your
system and notify the sender aj
jthat it has been deleted. Any unauthonzed reading,
distribution, dissemination, copymg, or o~~er use of the information in this message ls strictly prohibited.

bb7c
Page 141 EXHIBIT 11
Page 142 From: Administrator Email
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 10:54 AM
To: Matt Turetzky
Subject: Response to FOIA Appeal A-2020-The Office of Information Policy has made its final determination on your FOIA Appeal Number A-2020-00210. A copy of
this determination is enclosed for your review, along with any enclosures, if applicable. Thank you.
1
Page 143 U.S. Department of Justice
Office oflnformation Policy
Sixth Floor
441 G Street, N W
Washington, DC 20530-
Telephone: (202) 514-
Matthew Turetzky
Suite 299 Third Street
Oakland, CA
Re:
Appeal No. A-2020-Request No. EOUSA-MWH:EAH
MTuretzky@nortonlaw.com
VIA: Email
Dear Matthew Turetzky:
You attempted to appeal from the failure of Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to
respond to your Freedom of Information Act request for access to records concerning
communications related to third parties.
Department of Justice regulations provide for an administrative appeal to the Office of
Information Policy only after there has been an adverse determination by a component. See C.F.R. 16.S(a) (2019). As no adverse determination has yet been made by EOUSA, there is no
action for this Office to consider on appeal.
As you may know, the FOIA authorizes requesters to file a lawsuit when an agency
takes longer than the statutory time period to respond. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(C)(i). However,
I can assure you that this Office has contacted EOUSA and has been advised that your request
is being processed. If you are dissatisfied with EOUSA's final response, you may appeal again
to this Office.
This Office has forwarded a copy of your letter to EOUSA. You should contact
EOUSA's Requester Service Center at (202) 252-6020 for further updates regarding the status
of your request.
If you have any questions regarding the action this Office has taken on your appeal, you
may contact this Office's FOIA Public Liaison for your appeal. Specifically, you may speak
with the undersigned agency official by calling (202) 514-3642.
Sincerely,
Page 144 X
Matthew Hurd, Acting Chief, Administrative
Appeals Staff
Space
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
Issues Laws Cases Pro Articles Firms Entities
 
PlainSite
Sign Up
Need Password Help?