IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________________
)
CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, )
ET AL., )
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action
) No. 01-2500
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, )
) Judge Kessler
Defendant. )
______________________________________)
ANSWER
Defendant, United States Department of Justice, by and through its undersigned counsel, answers plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint for Injunctive Relief (“complaint”) as follows:
FIRST DEFENSE
The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
SECOND DEFENSE
In answer to the individually numbered paragraphs of the complaint, defendant states as follows:
1-2. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs’ characterization of this action to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
3. The first and third sentences are admitted. The second sentence is denied.
4-26. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in these paragraphs.
27. Admit.
28. Admit.
29-31. These paragraphs contain plaintiffs’ characterization and description of their October 29, 2001 letters to the Office of Information and Privacy, the FBI, and INS, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the letters for an accurate and complete statement of their contents.
32. The first sentence contains plaintiffs’ characterization and description of the November 1, 2001 letter from Melanie Ann Pustay, Office of Information and Privacy, Department of Justice, on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, to Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the letter for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. The second sentence is denied, except to admit that the FBI provided a substantive response to plaintiffs’ request on November 1, 2001.
33. Admit.
34. Denied.
35. Denied.
36. Denied, and it is averred that INS asked the requesters to consider narrowing the scope of their request because of the potential enormity of the response.
37. Admit.
38. Admit.
39. Denied.
40. The first sentence contains plaintiffs’ characterization and description of the November 1, 2001 letter from John Kelso, FBI, to Kate Martin, Center for National Security Studies, to which no answer is required, but insofar as one is deemed required, denied, and the Court is respectfully referred to the November 1, 2001 letter for an accurate and complete statement of its contents. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the second sentence except to admit that an appeal was telefaxed to the Office of Information and Privacy on November 7. The third sentence is denied, and it is avered that by letter dated December 10, 2001, DOJ’s Office of Information and Privacy denied the appeal and affirmed the FBI’s action on plaintiffs’ FOIA request on both Exemption 7(A) and 7(C) grounds, and also notified plaintiffs that the FBI had no records responsive to the request for policy directives issues to officials regarding the disclosure of information about detainees.
41. Admit.
42. Denied.
43. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
44. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
45. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
46-47. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
48. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
49. This paragraph contains conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
50. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
51-53. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
54. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
55-57. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
58. Defendant here incorporates its above responses to paragraphs 1 through 42 of the complaint.
59-61. These paragraphs contain conclusions of law and not averments of fact to which an answer is required, but insofar as one is required, denied.
The remainder of the complaint sets forth plaintiffs’ prayer for relief to which no answer is required, but insofar as an answer is deemed required, defendant denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever.
Wherefore, having fully answered, defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR.
Assistant Attorney General
ROSCOE C. HOWARD
United States Attorney
DAVID J. ANDERSON
ANNE L. WEISMANN
LISA A. OLSON
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Room 1052
901 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 514-5633
Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
E-mail: lisa.olson@usdoj.gov
Dated: Jan. 11, 2002 Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 11, 2002, copies of the Answer were served by facsimile and by first-class mail, postage pre-paid, upon plaintiffs’ counsel as follows:
David L. Sobel, Esq.
Electronic Privacy Information Center
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20009
fax: (202) 483-1248
Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union
of the National Capital Area
1400 20th Street, N.W. #119
Washington, D.C. 20036
fax: (202) 452-1868
Kate Martin, Esq.
Center for National Security Studies
2130 H Street, N.W. S. 701
Washington, D.C. 20037
fax: (202) 994-7005
Steven R. Shapiro, Esq.
Lucan Guttentag, Esq.
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, N.Y. 10004
fax: (212) 549-2651
Ellior M. Mincberg, Esq.
People for the American Way Foundation
2000 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
fax: (202) 293-2672
__________________________
LISA A. OLSON