IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, )
et al., )
) Civil Action
v. ) No. 01-2500
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ) Judge Kessler
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, plaintiffs hereby request defendant to answer the following interrogatories in writing and under oath, within 30 days after service hereof, or within such other time as the Court may require. In answering these interrogatories, please follow these instructions:
A. Furnish all requested information, however obtained, including hearsay, that is available to the defendant, including, but not limited to, information known or obtained by defendant’s employees and agents, or appearing in defendant’s documents, and not merely information within the personal knowledge of the individual(s) executing defendant’s answers to these interrogatories.
B. If defendant cannot answer these interrogatories in full after exercising due diligence to secure the information, so state, and answer to the extent possible. Specify the reason for the inability to answer the remainder, and state whatever information or knowledge defendant has concerning any unanswered portion.
C. These interrogatories are continuing in nature. If defendant obtains additional information, a supplemental response should promptly be made.
D. If an exact answer cannot be furnished, estimated or approximate information should be supplied. Where an estimate or approximation is supplied, it should be so indicated, and an explanation provided as to the basis upon which the estimate or approximation was made.
E. To the extent that defendant considers any of the following interrogatories to be objectionable in whole or part, any part of the interrogatory which is not considered objectionable should be answered, and any part that is considered objectionable should be identified and the specific ground(s) of objection should be stated in detail.
F. Should defendant claim any privilege in connection with any information requested by these interrogatories, the precise question as to which the claim is made should be identified, and the nature and basis of the claim should be stated in detail.
1. In response to the portion of plaintiffs’ FOIA request seeking “policy directives or guidance issued to officials about making public statements or disclosures” regarding the Detainees,
defendant has released a document, identified as “draft talking points prepared by OIP … for the ultimate use of the Attorney General.” Declaration of Melanie Ann Pustay, 6.
(a) State whether or not a final document ever emerged from this draft.
(b) State whether the Attorney General (or anyone to whom he had delegated his authority) ever issued a directive or guidance to government officials about making public statements or disclosures regarding the detainees.
(c) If so, describe the time, place and manner in which that directive or guidance was disseminated.
(d) If not, explain how government officials across the nation all came to understand that they were not supposed to release information regarding the detainees.
2. In response to the portion of plaintiffs’ FOIA request seeking “policy directives or guidance issued to officials about making public statements or disclosures” regarding the detainees, defendant has released a memorandum from Michael Creppy, Chief Immigration Judge, to “All Immigration Judges; Court Administrators,” dated September 21, 2001. That memorandum states that some of the recipients “already know” that the Attorney General “has implemented … procedures [that] require us … to close the hearing[s] to the public, and to avoid discussing the case or otherwise disclosing any information about the case to anyone outside the Immigration Court.”
(a) State whether or not the procedures implemented by the Attorney General were set forth in any document other than Mr. Creppy’s memorandum.
(b) If so, describe the time, place and manner in which that document (or documents) was (or were) disseminated.
(c) If not, explain the basis for Mr. Creppy’s statement that “some of you already know” about the new procedures implemented by the Attorney General, and describe the time, place and manner in which that information was disseminated.
3. The defendant has refused to release documents identifying even the judicial districts in which sealed criminal cases are pending or in which material witness warrants have been issued, claiming that it is precluded by court orders from doing so. See Declaration of James S. Reynolds, 32, 39. Please quote the language of each and every court order on which defendant relies in asserting that it is precluded from identifying the judicial districts in which sealed criminal cases are pending or in which material witness warrants have been issued.
Very truly yours,
David L. Sobel
D.C. Bar No. 360418
Electronic Privacy Information Center
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. #200
Washington, DC 20009
Arthur B. Spitzer
D.C. Bar. No. 235960
American Civil Liberties Union
of the National Capital Area
1400 20th Street, N.W. #119
Washington, D.C. 20036
D.C. Bar No. 949115
Center for National Security Studies
2130 H Street, N.W. #701
Washington, D.C. 20037
Steven R. Shapiro
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, N.Y. 10004
Elliot M. Mincberg
D.C. Bar No. 941575
People For the American Way Foundation
2000 M Street N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Counsel for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories was served by first-class mail and by fax upon:
David J. Anderson, Esq.
Anne L. Weismann, Esq.
Lisa A. Olson, Esq.
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Room 1052
901 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
this 12th day of February, 2002.
Arthur B. Spitzer