Input:
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16−cv−08936−RMB

CLOSED,ECF

American Civil Liberties Union et al v. National Security Agency et al Assigned to: Judge Richard M. Berman Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 11/17/2016 Date Terminated: 12/11/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

American Civil Liberties Union

represented by Anna Natalia Diakun American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004−2400 (212)−549−2607 Fax: (212)−549−2654 Email: adiakun@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley Marie Gorski American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (NYC) 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 284−7305 Email: agorski@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick Christopher Toomey American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (NYC) 125 Broad Street 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 519−7816 Fax: (212) 549−2654 Email: ptoomey@aclu.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

represented by Anna Natalia Diakun (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ashley Marie Gorski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Patrick Christopher Toomey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant National Security Agency

represented by

Defendant Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Defendant Department Of Justice
Defendant Central Intelligence Agency

David Stuart Jones U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (86 Chambers St.) 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 212−637−2200 Fax: 212−637−2686 Email: david.jones6@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tomoko Onozawa U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (Chambers Street) 86 Chambers Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 637−2721 Fax: (212) 637− 2686 Email: tomoko.onozawa@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Stuart Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tomoko Onozawa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Stuart Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tomoko Onozawa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Stuart Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tomoko Onozawa (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 11/17/2016
11/17/2016 11/17/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 0208−12998133)Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.(Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
3 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − PARTY ERROR REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union,

11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016 11/17/2016
11/17/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/18/2016
11/18/2016
11/18/2016 11/18/2016 11/23/2016
11/28/2016

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) Modified on 11/18/2016 (rch). (Entered: 11/17/2016)
4 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Office of the Director of National Intelligence, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
5 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to National Security Agency, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
6 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Department of Justice, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
7 REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Central Intelligence Agency, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
8 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT PLEADING − PARTY ERROR REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, re: 1 Complaint,. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) Modified on 11/18/2016 (rch). (Entered: 11/17/2016)
9 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.(Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
10 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
11 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to National Security Agency. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
12 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Department Of Justice. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
13 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Central Intelligence Agency. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS. Notice to Attorney to RE−FILE Document No. 3 Request for Issuance of Summons, 8 Request for Issuance of Summons. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): defendant listed on summons is not a party on the complaint. Re−file the document using the event type Request for Issuance of Summons found under the event list Service of Process − select the correct filer/filers − and attach the correct summons form PDF. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above−entitled action is assigned to Judge Richard M. Berman. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/District. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck is so designated. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
Case Designated ECF. (rch) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
14 INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER: Initial Conference set for 12/8/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 17B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Richard M. Berman. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/23/2016) (cf) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
15 LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Patrick Toomey dated November 28, 2016 re: Initial Pretrial Conference Order. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.(Toomey, Patrick)

11/29/2016 12/09/2016
12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/15/2016 12/19/2016 12/20/2016
12/21/2016 12/21/2016

(Entered: 11/28/2016)
16 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 15 Letter filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. ENDORSEMENT: Motion granted; initial pretrial conference adjourned to Wed., 12/14/16 at 11 am. ( Initial Conference set for 12/14/2016 at 11:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/29/2016) (mro) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
17 ORDER: The conference currently scheduled for Wednesday, December 14, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. is hereby rescheduled to Wednesday, December 21, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Initial Conference set for 12/21/2016 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Richard M. Berman. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/9/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
18 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Central Intelligence Agency served on 11/21/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
19 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Department Of Justice served on 11/21/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
20 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Office of the Director of National Intelligence served on 11/21/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
21 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. National Security Agency served on 11/21/2016, answer due 1/20/2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
22 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons served on Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States on 11/21/2016. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
23 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons served on United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York on 11/22/2016. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Toomey, Patrick) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
24 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by David Stuart Jones on behalf of Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (Jones, David) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
25 JOINT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer and providing background for conference set for December 21, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from David S. Jones and Patrick Toomey dated 12/20/2016. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Jones, David) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
26 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Tomoko Onozawa on behalf of Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
27 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN: Amend the pleadings by February 3, 2017. Consent to Proceed before Magistrate Judge: No. Status of settlement discussions: 1/11/17 @ 9:00 AM. Other: Jan. 11, 2017 for serious case management plan to amend this incomplete plan. (as further set forth in this Order.) Amended Pleadings due by 2/3/2017. Settlement Conference set for 1/11/2017 at 09:00 AM before Judge Richard M. Berman. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/21/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/21/2016)

12/21/2016 12/23/2016 12/28/2016 01/09/2017 01/11/2017 01/11/2017
01/13/2017 01/24/2017 02/03/2017 02/08/2017
02/14/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 12/21/2016. Court directs counsel to submit a more definitive case management plan. Preliminary case management plan entered. Next conference is 1/11/17 at 9:00 am. See transcript of proceedings held for a complete record. (Court Reporter Andrew Walker) (CM) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
28 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from AUSA Tomoko Onozawa dated 12/23/2016. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
29 ORDER granting 28 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Application granted. Central Intelligence Agency answer due 1/13/2017; Department Of Justice answer due 1/13/2017; National Security Agency answer due 1/13/2017; Office of the Director of National Intelligence answer due 1/13/2017 (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/28/2016) (cf) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
30 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Ashley Marie Gorski on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Gorski, Ashley) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 1/11/2017. Court signs proposed stipulation and order with slight modifications. See transcript of proceedings held for a complete record. (Court Reporter Vincent Bologna) (CM) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
31 STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING FORTH CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND RELATED AGREEMENTS: The parties believe there will be no joinder of additional parties. Amendments to the pleadings are due on or before February 3, 2017. Subject to adherence to Court's rules re: pre−motion letters + conference, if Plaintiffs intend to file a partial motion for summary judgment concerning the Priority Records, the parties shall confer and propose a briefing schedule to the Court on or before May 1, 2017. Oral Argument: Court's preference is for single SJ motion. (As further set forth in this Order.) As Amended, SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 2/3/2017., Motions due by 5/1/2017.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 1/11/2017) (cf) (Entered: 01/11/2017)
32 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
33 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Anna Natalia Diakun on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. (Diakun, Anna) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
34 LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Anna Diakun dated February 3, 2017 re: Case Management Schedule. Document filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.(Diakun, Anna) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
35 STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING FORTH ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SCOPE OF REQUIRED SEARCHES AND DEADLINES FOR COMPLETION OF CERTAIN SEARCHES FOR AND PROCESSING OF RESPONSIVE RECORDS: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, AGREED, AND ORDERED THAT: The January 11 Order shall remain in force except to the extent modified herein. Defendants shall search for, process, and release non−exempt portions, if any, of documents referenced in the "Summary of Notable Section 702 Requirements" that is referenced in paragraph 8 and Exhibit A of the January 11 Order. (As further set forth in this Order.) Paragraph 11 of the January 11 Order is modified by extending to October 13, 2017, from September 22, 2017, the date by which the parties are to propose a briefing schedule to the Court in connection with any contemplated consolidated motion for summary judgment subject to adherence to Court's rules re: pre−motion letters and conference. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 2/8/2017) (cf) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
36 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 1/11/2017 before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Vincent Bologna, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court

02/14/2017
02/14/2017
02/14/2017
04/06/2017 04/06/2017 06/01/2017 06/05/2017 10/13/2017 10/18/2017 11/21/2017 11/28/2017

Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/7/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/17/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/15/2017.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
37 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 1/11/17 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
38 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 12/21/2016 before Judge Richard M. Berman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Andrew Walker, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/7/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/17/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/15/2017.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
39 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERNECE proceeding held on 12/21/16 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
40 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time for release of two of thirteen categories of documents now required to be released by April 11, 2017, addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from David S. Jones dated April 6, 2017. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Jones, David) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
41 ORDER granting 40 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application Granted On Consent. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 4/6/2017) (cf) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
42 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of one week for one of a series of court−ordered document releases addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from David S. Jones dated June 1, 2017. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Jones, David) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
43 ORDER granting 42 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Final extension to 6/13/17 granted. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 6/5/2017) (cf) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
44 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
45 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 44 Status Report filed by Department Of Justice, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 10/18/2017) (clt) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
46 STATUS REPORT. Joint Status Report re Fee Settlement Negotiations Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
47 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 46 Status Report filed by Department Of Justice, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/28/2017) (clt) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

11/28/2017 12/04/2017 12/05/2017 12/08/2017 12/11/2017

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 48 Memo Endorsed. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (js) Modified on 12/4/2017 (js). (Entered: 12/04/2017)
48 STATUS REPORT. Joint Status Report re Fee Settlement Negotiations Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
49 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 48 Status Report filed by Department Of Justice, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/5/2017) (cf) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
50 STATUS REPORT. Joint Status Report re Fee Settlement Negotiations Document filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Department Of Justice, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.(Onozawa, Tomoko) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
51 STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties, as follows: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (4)(E), as soon as reasonably practicable after the Court has endorsed and docketed this Stipulation and Order, NSA shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $11,000, CIA shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6500, NSD shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6500, FBI shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6500, and ODNI shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $4500 (collectively, the "Settlement Amounts"). This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, provided that the Court may retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this Stipulation and Order. Clerk to close the case. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 12/11/2017) (clt) (Entered: 12/12/2017)

 Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case No._1_:_1_6_-c_v_-_8_9_3_6__ Hon.________________

November 17, 2016

Patrick Toomey Ashley Gorski Hina Shamsi American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 549-2500 Fax: (212) 549-2654 ptoomey@aclu.org

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 2 of 15
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief. Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (together, the “ACLU”) seek the immediate processing and timely release of agency records from Defendants National Security Agency (“NSA”), Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”), U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”).
2. On September 14, 2016, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request (the “Request”) to NSA, ODNI, DOJ, and CIA seeking records related to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. § 1881a. The Request seeks information concerning the scope of the government’s warrantless surveillance programs operated under Section 702, as well as related records showing how this surveillance affects Americans.
3. To date, none of the Defendants has released any responsive record. 4. The failure of Defendants to identify and release responsive records is of particular concern because the Request relates to a sweeping surveillance authority that implicates core privacy and free speech rights of Americans. 5. The government relies on Section 702 to engage in the warrantless surveillance of Americans’ international communications. This authority is set to expire in 2017, and Congress has already begun holding hearings about whether it should be reauthorized. However, the public still lacks essential information about the breadth of surveillance under Section 702, the ways in which this surveillance is used, and its impact on American citizens and residents. Timely disclosure of these records is critical to the ongoing public debate about the lawfulness of
1

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 3 of 15
Section 702. Without additional information, the public will be unable to engage in an informed debate concerning Section 702’s potential reauthorization.
6. Plaintiffs now ask the Court for an injunction requiring NSA, ODNI, DOJ, and CIA to process the Request immediately. Plaintiffs also seek an order enjoining Defendants from assessing fees for the processing of the Request.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), (a)(6)(E)(iii). The Court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706. 8. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).
PARTIES 9. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union is a nationwide non-profit and nonpartisan 501(c)(4) organization with more than 500,000 members dedicated to the constitutional principles of liberty and equality. The American Civil Liberties Union is committed to ensuring that the United States government complies with the Constitution and laws of this country, including its international legal obligations, in matters that affect civil liberties and human rights. The American Civil Liberties Union is also committed to principles of transparency and accountability in government, and seeks to ensure that the American public is informed about the conduct of its government in matters that affect civil liberties and human rights. Obtaining information about governmental activity, analyzing that information, and widely publishing and disseminating it to the press and the public is a critical and substantial component of the American Civil Liberties Union’s work and one of its primary activities. The American Civil
2

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 4 of 15
Liberties Union is incorporated in New York State and has its principal place of business in New York City.
10. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation is a separate 501(c)(3) organization that educates the public about civil liberties and employs lawyers who provide legal representation free of charge in cases involving civil liberties. It is incorporated in New York State and has its principal place of business in New York City.
11. Defendant NSA is an intelligence agency established within the executive branch of the U.S. government and administered through the Department of Defense. The NSA is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
12. Defendant ODNI is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
13. Defendant DOJ is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1). The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), the National Security Division (“NSD”), the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”), the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), from which the ACLU has requested records, are components of DOJ.
14. Defendant CIA is an intelligence agency established within the executive branch of the U.S. government and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1).
3

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 5 of 15
FACTUAL BACKGROUND Section 702 of FISA
15. Congress enacted Section 702 as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (“FAA”), giving the government broad authority to monitor Americans’ international communications without a warrant. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a.
16. While Section 702 surveillance is ostensibly “targeted” at foreigners located overseas, the government uses this authority to acquire the phone calls, emails, and other internet communications of Americans who are in contact with its foreign targets.
17. For example, the government may collect Americans’ communications when a U.S. person communicates with family members, friends, business associates, or other contacts abroad whom the government has targeted under Section 702. The government may also collect Americans’ communications when it mistakenly targets a U.S. person for surveillance.
18. The government implements Section 702 through at least two programs: the “PRISM” and “Upstream” programs.
19. Using PRISM surveillance, the government compels electronic communications providers—like Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft—to furnish communications sent to or from a target’s account, such as an email account used by a non-U.S. person located overseas.
20. Through Upstream surveillance, the government intercepts international telephone calls and internet communications as they are routed across major communications networks inside the United States. With respect to internet communications, the government compels providers—like AT&T and Verizon—to search the contents of international traffic in bulk for communications that are to, from, or about the NSA’s targets.
4

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 6 of 15
21. Judicial review of Section 702 surveillance is narrowly circumscribed. Once a year, the government presents a set of certifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”), describing at a high level of generality the surveillance the government intends to conduct. Those certifications do not identify the government’s individual targets, nor do they specify the various places and facilities at which its surveillance will be directed. See 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881a(a), 1881a(g).
22. Section 702 surveillance is not predicated on an individualized determination of probable cause or on any suspicion of wrongdoing. More broadly, the FISC does not approve, supervise, or review the government’s interception of individual Americans’ communications.
23. The statute’s safeguards are limited to the requirement that each agency adopt “targeting” and “minimization” procedures, which must be “reasonably designed . . . to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination” of U.S. person information. 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(e); id. § 1801(h)(1). These procedures, however, grant the government wide latitude to seize, search, analyze, and use the communications of Americans.
24. Surveillance under Section 702 is conducted on an immense scale: in 2015 alone, the government relied on Section 702 to obtain the communications of 94,368 targets under a single court order.
25. The public, however, still lacks basic information about the breadth of Section 702 surveillance and the policies and procedures that apply to this surveillance. The government has not disclosed, for example, the number of communications involving Americans that are subject to Section 702 surveillance. Nor has the government disclosed many of the rules that set the bounds of this surveillance today, including its current targeting procedures, its current
5

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 7 of 15
minimization procedures, and its complete sets of rules for using Section 702 to investigate or prosecute individual Americans.
26. Section 702 is scheduled to expire in 2017, and Congress has already begun to hold hearings about whether to reauthorize this warrantless surveillance authority.
27. Because disclosures to date leave significant gaps in the public’s understanding of Section 702 surveillance, release of the requested records will provide crucial information about how Section 702 is being used by the government and what safeguards exist to protect Americans’ privacy.
The FOIA Request 28. On September 14, 2016, the ACLU submitted identical FOIA Requests to NSA, ODNI, DOJ (and its components the FBI, NSD, OIP, Office of the Attorney General, Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and OIG), and CIA seeking:
(1) Section 702 targeting and minimization procedures, or amendments thereto, submitted to the FISC on or after January 1, 2015, including the procedures identified, described, or excerpted in the FISC Memorandum Opinion and Order dated November 6, 2015.
(2) Section 702 certifications and any related filings, memoranda, affidavits, or attachments submitted to the FISC on or after January 1, 2015.
(3) The “Summary of Notable Section 702 Requirements” submitted to the FISC, and all documents referenced in or submitted with that summary.
(4) Policies, procedures, or guidance addressing the querying, review, or use of information acquired under Section 702 in investigations, legal proceedings, or administrative actions against United States persons. This request includes, but is not limited to: (a) The policy described by ODNI General Counsel Robert Litt in remarks delivered on February 4, 2015. This request seeks the full records reflecting that policy, and any modification of it, not merely those portions of the records that have already been publicly released.
6

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 8 of 15
(b) The three sets of NSA procedures addressing the use of U.S. person identifiers for queries of communications collected under Section 702, as described in the NSA OIG report dated February 20, 2015.
(5) Amicus briefs submitted to the FISC or FISCR addressing Section 702 surveillance, including but not limited to the brief(s) filed by amicus curiae Amy Jeffress pursuant to FISC orders dated August 13 and September 16, 2015.
(6) Formal or informal FISC submissions by the government addressing Section 702 surveillance and the government’s discovery, Brady, or preservation obligations.
(7) Estimates, charts, studies, or other records reflecting the number of communications filtered, screened, searched, acquired, collected, or retained using Section 702 surveillance for any period beginning on or after January 1, 2013. This request includes estimates that pertain to particular subsets of communications—for instance, those collected via PRISM or Upstream; communications to or from U.S. persons; wholly domestic communications; “about” communications; or multi-communication transactions (“MCTs”).
(8) Inspector General reports addressing Section 702 surveillance that are dated on or after January 1, 2013, and have not previously been publicly released, including but not limited to the NSA Office of the Inspector General report dated October 29, 2013.
(9) The following policies, procedures, and guidance addressing Section 702 surveillance:
(a) The most recent version of the Attorney General guidelines mandated by 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(f).
(b) The FBI Standard Minimization Procedures Policy Implementation Guidelines dated October 31, 2008, or the most recent superseding version of those procedures.
(c) The “NSA internal procedures” referenced or described in the Report to the Intelligence Oversight Board on NSA Activities dated March 4, 2013.
(d) The most recent version of the NSA Standard Operating Procedures for oversight, adjudication, and targeting FAA § 702 functions and training.
(e) The most recent version of the NSA Guidance to Analysts on Obligation to Review Data Under Protect America Act and the FISA Amendments Act.
7

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 9 of 15
(f) The most recent version of the NSA “FAA 702 Curriculum,” including the training courses titled “FISA Amendments Act (FAA) 702” (also known as “OVSC1203”), “FAA 702 Practical Applications,” “FAA 702 Adjudicator Training,” and “FAA 702 Targeting Adjudication.”
29. Plaintiffs sought expedited processing of the Request on the grounds that there is a “compelling need” for these records because the information requested is urgently needed by an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information in order to inform the public about actual or alleged federal government activity. 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6)(E).
30. Plaintiffs sought a waiver of search, review, and reproduction fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).
31. Plaintiffs also sought a waiver of search and review fees on the grounds that the ACLU qualifies as a “representative of the news media” and that the records are not sought for commercial use. Id. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii).
Defendants’ Responses to the Request 32. Despite the urgent public interest surrounding the requested documents, none of the Defendants has released any record in response to the Request. Some of the Defendants have granted the ACLU’s requests for expedited processing and waiver of fees, while others have denied those same requests. 33. Under the statute, Defendants have twenty working days to respond to a request. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). If there are “unusual circumstances,” an agency may extend the time limit by no more than ten working days. More than 30 working days have passed since Plaintiffs filed the Request. Thus, these time periods have elapsed.
8

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 10 of 15
NSA 34. By letter dated September 23, 2016, the NSA acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it reference number 85461. The NSA denied Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing and their request for a fee waiver. The NSA further denied Plaintiffs’ request that Plaintiffs be placed in the “media” fee category, and instead placed Plaintiffs in the “all other” fee category. 35. On October 28, 2016, Plaintiffs timely filed by mail an administrative appeal from the NSA’s denial of the request for expedited processing, the denial of the request for a fee waiver, and the placement of Plaintiffs in the “all other” fee category. NSA received the appeal on October 31, 2016. Plaintiffs’ administrative appeal remains pending. 36. To date, NSA has neither released responsive records nor explained its failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because the NSA has failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA. 37. NSA continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence 38. By letter dated September 20, 2016, ODNI acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it reference number DF-2016-00314. ODNI denied Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing and granted their request for a fee waiver. 39. To date, ODNI has neither released responsive records nor explained its failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because ODNI has failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA. 40. ODNI continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs.
9

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 11 of 15
Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation 41. By email dated September 14, 2016, the FBI acknowledged receipt of the Request and stated that the requests for expedited processing and waiver of fees would be addressed after the Request had been assigned a case number. 42. By letter dated September 21, 2016, the FBI assigned the Request FOIPA Request No. 1358220-000. The FBI indicated that it was “searching the indices to [the] Central Records System for the information responsive to this request.” The FBI also informed Plaintiffs that the request for a fee waiver was under consideration, and that if that request were denied, Plaintiffs would be charged applicable duplication fees “[a]s an educational institution, noncommercial scientific institution or representative of the news media requester,” in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II). 43. By letter dated September 30, 2016, the FBI granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing. 44. To date, the FBI has neither released responsive records nor explained its failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because the FBI has failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA. 45. The FBI continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs.
National Security Division 46. By email dated October 4, 2016, NSD acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it reference number FOIA/PA #16-226. NSD granted Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing and stated that the fee waiver request was under consideration.
10

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 12 of 15
47. To date, NSD has neither released responsive records nor explained its failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because NSD has failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA.
48. NSD continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs. Office of Information Policy, Office of the Attorney General, and Office of the Deputy Attorney General
49. By two emails dated September 22, 2016, the OIP acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it two reference numbers: DOJ-2016-005518 (Office of the Attorney General) and DOJ-2016-005536 (Office of the Deputy Attorney General).
50. By letter dated September 23, 2016, OIP, responding on behalf of the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, granted the request for expedited processing and deferred consideration of the request for a fee waiver. The letter stated that the Request had been assigned to a Government Information Specialist in the Office of Information Policy and that records searches had been initiated in the Offices of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.
51. In the same letter, OIP advised Plaintiffs that “unusual circumstances” would impact the time required to process the Request, and that the office would need more than the ten additional days provided by the statute to respond.
52. To date, OIP, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General have neither released responsive records nor explained their failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because OIP, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General have failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA
11

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 13 of 15
53. OIP, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General continue to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs.
Office of the Inspector General 54. By letter dated September 30, 2016, OIG acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it control number 16-OIG-289. The letter did not address the request for expedited processing or the request for a fee waiver. 55. By letter dated October 24, 2016, OIG responded to the Request, reporting that it had located no responsive documents. 56. On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs timely filed by mail an administrative appeal challenging the adequacy of OIG’s search. In addition, to the extent that OIG relied upon the FOIA exclusions in 5 U.S.C. § 552(c) as a basis for withholding responsive documents, Plaintiffs challenged those withholdings. In light of these deficiencies, Plaintiffs requested that OIG be required to conduct a renewed search for the records described in the Request and that OIG be required to release any responsive records wrongfully excluded and withheld on the basis of 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). DOJ received the appeal on November 15, 2016. 57. To date, OIG has not released responsive records nor has DOJ responded to Plaintiffs’ administrative appeal. 58. OIG continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs.
Central Intelligence Agency 59. By letter dated September 16, 2016, the CIA acknowledged receipt of the Request and assigned it reference number F-2016-02561. The CIA denied Plaintiffs’ request for expedited processing and granted their request for a fee waiver.
12

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 14 of 15
60. To date, CIA has neither released responsive records nor explained its failure to do so. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies because the CIA has failed to comply with the time limit for responding to the Request under FOIA.
61. CIA continues to wrongfully withhold the requested records from Plaintiffs. CAUSES OF ACTION
62. Defendants’ failure to make a reasonable effort to search for records responsive to the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), and Defendants’ corresponding regulations.
63. Defendants’ failure to promptly make available the records sought by the Request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A), (a)(6)(A), and Defendants’ corresponding regulations.
64. Defendants’ failure to process Plaintiffs’ request expeditiously and as soon as practicable violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E), and Defendants’ corresponding regulations.
65. Defendants’ failure to grant Plaintiffs’ request for a waiver of search, review, and duplication fees violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4), (a)(6), and Defendants’ corresponding regulations.
66. Defendants’ failure to grant Plaintiffs’ request for a limitation of fees violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4), (a)(6), and Defendants’ corresponding regulations.
REQUESTED RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
A. Order Defendants to conduct a thorough search for all responsive records; B. Order Defendants to immediately process and release any responsive records; C. Enjoin Defendants from charging Plaintiffs search, review, or duplication fees for
the processing of the Request;
13

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 1 Filed 11/17/16 Page 15 of 15
D. Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys ' fees incurred in this action; and
E. Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,

November 17, 2016

Patri k Toomey Ashley Gorski Hina Shamsi American Civil Liberties mon
Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 549-2500 Fax:(212)549-2654 ptoomey@aclu.org

14

 Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 51 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 4
.R
i

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,

.USDCSDNY

DOCUMEN'(

ELECTRONICALLY nLED

DOC#:

·. , I

111 DATE FlLED: l'h/l\

I

Plaintiffs,

No. 16 Civ. 8936 (RMB)

v.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL

Defendants.

WHEREAS, plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union Foundation ("Plaintiffs") brought a Freedom oflnfo1111ation Act ("FOIA") action, on or about November 17, 2016, to compel defendants National Security Agency ("NSA"), Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("ODNI"), Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), and Depa1iment of Justice ("DOJ") (specifically, its components the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), the National Security Division ("NSD"), the Office of Infonnation Policy, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and the Office of the Inspector General) (collectively "Defendants") to search for and produce documents responsive to a FOIA request (the "Request") submitted by Plaintiffs on September 14, 2016 [Dkt. No. 1];
WHEREAS, Defendants possessing documents they deemed responsive to the Request produced such documents, or portions thereof, that they detennined to be non~exempt under the FOIA during the pendency of this litigation;

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 51 Filed 12/11/17 Page 2 of 4

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the only remaining issue in this matter concerns

Plaintiffs' claim of entitlement to attorney's fees and litigation costs reasonably incurred in this

case pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and

WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for attorney's fees and litigation

costs consensually without further litigation,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between

the parties, as follows:

1. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), as soon as reasonably practicable after the

Court has endorsed and docketed this Stipulation and Order, NSA shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum

of $11,000, CIA shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6500, NSD shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of

$6500, FBI shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $6500, and ODNI shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of

$4500 (collectively, the "Settlement Amounts").

2. Defendants shall make their best effo1t to make payment to Plaintiffs within 90

days following the dismissal of this Action and will submit appropriate requests for payment

within 14 days of the entry of the Stipulation and 9rder.

3.

Plaintiffs agree to accept the Settlement Amounts in f911 satisfaction of any

possible claim, demand or entitlement for attorney's fees and costs Plaintiffs have incuned or

will incur in this action for s_ervices perfonned up to the date of this Stipulation and Order. Any

subsequent claim for attorney's fees and costs in connection with this matter will be limited to a [

claim for fees and/or costs in connection with any future application to enforce the Stipulation

and Order. 4.

Com~ This action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, provided that the

retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this Stipulation and Order.

2

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 51 Filed 12/11/17 Page 3 of 4
5. Effective upon payment of the Settlement Amounts set forth in Paragraph 1, Plaintiffs release the United States, its agencies, depaitments, officers, employees, servants, and agents, including Defendants, from any claims for attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of any kind, and however denominated, relating to services performed in connection with this instant action, except as set fmth in Paragraph 3.
6. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall constitute an admission by United States of America or its agencies, including Defendants, that Plaintiffs or their counsel are eligible for or entitled to attorney's fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) in this action.
7. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall constitute an admission by United States of America or its agencies, including Defendants, that Plaintiffs or their counsel would be entitled to attorney's fees and costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) in connection with any subsequent application by Plaintiffs to enforce this Stipulation and Order. Defendants reserve all defenses associated with any such future claim of entitlement to attorney's fees and costs.
8. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall constitute an admission by Plaintiffs o ; their counsel that Defendants' searches were adequate or their withholdings were proper under theFOIA.
9. The parties understand and agree that this Stipulation and Order contains the entire agreement between them. No statements, representations, promises, agreements, or negotiations, oral or otherwise, between the parties or their counsel that are not included herein shall be of any force or effect.
10. This stipulation may be executed in counterpaits. Facsimile or PDF signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.
3

Case 1:16-cv-08936-RMB Document 51 Filed 12/11/17 Page 4 of 4

Dated: New York, New York December 8, 2017
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

By:

JQOAA~
~RSKI

PATRICK TOOMEY

ANNADIAKUN

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004

Telephone: (202) 549-2500

Email: agorski@aclu.org

Attorney for Plaint{ffs

Dated: New York, New York December 8, 2017
JOON H. KIM Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York
By:
TOMOKO ONOZAWA Assistant United States Attorneys 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10007 Telephone: (212) 637-2739/2721 Email: david.jones6@usdoj.gov Attorney for Defendants

tlo +o k sooRDERED. cl~tl

C(w

~~

_-_J_L_ Dated: N=:-ork, New 'fork -"-@-=U~tll\-=------~-=------~'_.__I., 2011 ?~!$
HONORABLE RICHARD M. BERMAN
United States District Judge

4

Output: On November 11, 2016, the American Civil Liberties Union filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking the processing and release of agency records from the National Security Agency (NSA), Office off the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), US Department of Justice (DOJ), and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants wrongfully failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ FOIA Request submitted on September 14, 2016, seeking records containing information on the government’s warrantless surveillance programs operated under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. As of September 17, 2017, the defendants have completed their production of partially or fully non-exempt documents in response to the plaintiff’s FOIA request. On December 11, 2017, Judge Richard M. Berman dismissed this case with prejudice due to a settlement agreement. NSA shall pay to the plaintiff $11,000, CIA shall pay $6,500, National Security Division shall pay $6,500, FBI shall pay $6,500, and ODNI shall pay $4,500. The settlement amount totaled $35,000. The court may retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this order.


Input:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

15 3: 27 f \r.. :'.' ,T~.:1-'

FJ~1 I j

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY)

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

A & R Truss Company

)

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

---------------------------)

CASE NO 1 : 0 5 CV 054 7
HON
Richard Alan Enslen
u.s. District Judge
COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to correct

unlawful employment practices and to provide appropriate relief to Theodore Kilgore

("Kilgore") who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("Commission") alleges that A & R Truss Company ("Defendant")

discriminated against Kilgore by subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on his

race, African American.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343, and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 706(f)(1) and

(3) and 707(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(f)(1) and (3) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-6(e) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act

of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981 a.

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now being

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District

of Michigan, Southern Division.

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"),

is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation,

and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section

706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).

4. At all relevanttimes, Defendant, A & R Truss Company, has continuously been

an employer doing business in the State of Michigan and the City of New Buffalo and has

continuously had at least 15 employees each.

5. At all relevanttimes, Defendants have continuously been an employer engaged

in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g), and (h) of Title

VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g), and (h).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

6.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Theodore Kilgore

filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant. All

conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

7. Since at least July, 2004, Defendant has engaged in unlawful employment

practices at its New Buffalo, Michigan facility, in violation of Section 703(a), 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-2(a). Defendant's unlawful employment practices included repeatedly subjecting

Kilgore to racially offensive epithets.

8. Kilgore complained about the racially offensive conduct. Defendant responded

to Kilgore's complaints with threats and intimidation.

9. The effect of the conduct complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above has been

to deprive Kilgore of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his

status as an employee because of his race.

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were and are intentional.
11. As the result of the unlawful employment practices, Kilgore has suffered emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life.
12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were and are done with malice orwith reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Kilgore.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employer, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in race harassment and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race. B. Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for persons of all races, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. ORDER Defendant Employer to provide training on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and its prohibitions against racial harassment of its employees. D. Order Defendant Employer to make whole Kilgore by providing compensation for past non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7 and 8 above in amounts to be proven at trial. E. Order Defendant Employer to pay Kilgore punitive damages for its malicious or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, in amounts to be proven at trial. F. ORDER Defendant Employer to pay nominal damages.

G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

public interest, including the institution of a race discrimination and harassment policy and

complaint procedure, and mandatory race discrimination training for all Defendant's

management employees.

I.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

DATED: August 4, 2005

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
ADE~PP~~833)
Regional Attorney

ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney

OMAR WEAVER (P58861) Trial Attorney

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

DETROIT DISTRICT OFFICE Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Telephone: (313)226-3407

 Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

OS FEB 27 PH 3: 07

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 1 :05CV547 Hon. Joseph Scoville

A & R TRUSS COMPANY,

Defendant.

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833) ROBERT K. DAWKINS (P38289) OMAR WEAVER (P58861) Attorneys for Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Patrick V. McNamara Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 226-5673
CHARLES S. MISHKIND (P32346) BRUCE D. OLSON (P44573) Attorneys for Defendant Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 776-6307

CONSENT DECREE

This matter is before the Court for entry of this judgment by consent of the parties in

order to effectuate a compromise and settlement of all claims. After careful review and

consideration, the Court believes that entry of this judgment is in the interest ofjustice.

1.

Plaintiff the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC"),

commenced the above entitled action on August 15, 2005, in the United States District

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 2 of 7
Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division, alleging that the Defendant A & R Truss Company ("A & R Truss"), engaged in unlawful employment practices or otherwise ratified such practices which violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. The EEOC alleged in its Complaint that A & R Truss discriminated against Theodore Kilgore by subjecting him to a hostile work environment because of his race, African American. 2. Defendant A & R Truss denies all allegations pertaining to unlawful employment practices alleged in the EEOC's Complaint. 3. As a result of settlement discussions, the EEOC and A & R Truss have resolved their differences and have agreed that this action should be settled by entry of this Consent Decree. This Decree is contingent upon Mr. Kilgore signing an appropriate Settlement Agreement and Release of all claims. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree be a final and binding settlement in full disposition of any and all claims alleged against A & R Truss or which might have been alleged against A & R Truss in the Complaint filed on behalf of Charging Party Theodore Kilgore.
STIPULATED FACTS 4. The Parties stipulate and agree that the EEOC is the agency of the United States
government authorized to investigate allegations of unlawful employment discrimination, to bring civil actions to prohibit unlawful employment practices and to seek relief for individuals affected by the practices complained of in this lawsuit. 5. A & R Truss is an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701 (g) and (h) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 3 of 7
amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(g). A & R Truss had at least fifteen (15) employees for twenty (20) or more calendar weeks during the relevant time period. 6. Pursuant to Title VII, the Parties acknowledge the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division) over the subject matter and the Parties to this case for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Decree if such enforcement becomes necessary. 7. Venue is appropriate in the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division). For purposes of this Decree and proceedings related to this Decree only, A & R Truss agrees that all statutory conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
NON-ADMISSION 8. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the EEOC and A & R Truss, shall not
constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case and shall not be construed as an admission by A & R Truss of any violation of Title VII or any other law, rule, or regulation dealing with or in connection with the subject of equal employment opportunity and fair employment practice laws.
MONETARY RELIEF 9. A & R Truss agrees to pay monetary relief for Theodore Kilgore in the amount of
$25,000.00. This amount represents payment of $25,000.00 in alleged non-pecuniary compensatory damages. A & R Truss shall issue a 1099 form for the amount in the ordinary course of business. The funds are to be paid in lump sums directly to Kilgore via certified mail at the following addresses: 1409 State Street, LaPorte, Indiana 46350. Defendant is to pay the funds to Kilgore within fourteen (14) days after execution of the Release by Mr. Kilgore and the entry of this Decree and Stipulation of Dismissal
-3 -

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 4 of 7
by the Court, whichever occurs later. A copy of the check shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, EEOC, 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865, Detroit, Michigan 48226, within fifteen days of issuance of the checks.
NON-MONETARY RELIEF 10. A & R Truss agrees to develop a policy which complies with the anti-harassment
provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The policy shall contain a procedure for reporting instances of harassment and shall clearly identify who can receive complaints about harassment. In addition, at a minimum, the policy shall contain the following elements: 1) a clear explanation of prohibited conduct; 2) assurance that employees who complain will be protected from retaliation; 3) a process that provides multiple avenues for making complaints; 4) assurance of confidentiality to the extent possible; 5) the requirement of a prompt, thorough and impartial investigation; and 7) assurance that immediate and appropriate corrective action will be taken when A & R Truss determines that harassment has occurred. This policy shall be developed no later than sixty (60) days after the signing of this Decree. A draft policy shall be sent to Adele Rapport, Regional Attorney, at the previously provided address, for the Commission's approval no more than sixty (60) days after the signing of this Decree.
NON-DISCRIMINATION 11. A & R Truss and its management shall comply with the provisions of Title VII covering
racial harassment in the workplace and with regard to its prohibitions against retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
-4-

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 5 of 7
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND COMPLIANCE 12. The Parties agree that the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, Southern Division, will have all available equitable powers, including injunctive relief, to enforce the provisions of this Decree. The parties agree to the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan for the purpose of reviewing compliance with this Decree. The Parties shall engage in a good faith effort to resolve any dispute as to compliance prior to seeking review by the Court and shall be required to give written notice to each other twenty (20) days before moving for such review.
POSTING OF NOTICE 13. A & R Truss agrees to post a mutually agreeable Notification, attached as Attachment A,
in a conspicuous place which sets forth an employee's rights regarding the federal antidiscrimination laws. This Notice shall be posted for one year from the entry of this Decree by the Court. Should any posted copies of the Notice become defaced, marred or otherwise made unreadable, A & R Truss agrees to post a readable copy of this Notice in the same manner heretofore specified as soon as practical thereafter.
ALLOCATION OF COST 14. The Parties agree to pay their respective costs and attorneys fees associated with the
investigation, institution and pursuit of this matter including the drafting and enforcement of this Agreement.
- 5-

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 6 of 7
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE 15. If any provision of this Decree is found to be unenforceable by a Court, only the specific
provision in question shall be affected and the other enforceable provisions shall remain in full force.
TRAINING 16. A & R Truss agrees to provide training to its current managers, and any new managers
hired during the effective dates of this Decree, on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and its prohibitions against harassment based on race and other protected status. The training shall include a discussion of what behavior constitutes racial harassment and what should be done when an individual believes that he/she has been subjected to harassment. The training shall also include a discussion of the new anti-harassment policy. An attendance list of each individual who completed the training shall be sent to Omar Weaver, Trial Attorney, at the previously provided address, within fifteen (14) days of the completion of the training. All such training sessions must take place within one (1) year of the signing of this Decree. In addition, consistent with its policy, A & R Truss shall provide new employees with its employee handbook which contains its anti-harassment policy within ten (10) days of his/her first day of work.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT 17. This Decree constitutes the entire agreement and commitments of the Parties. Any
modifications to the Consent Agreement must be mutually agreed upon in writing and signed by the Parties hereto.
-6 -

Case 1:05-cv-00547-JGS Document 24-1 Filed 03/02/2006 Page 7 of 7
DURATION 18. This Decree shall remain in effect for one year from its entry with the Court and shall end
of its own accord.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

ADELE RAPPORT (P44833) Associate Regional Attorney

ROBERT DAWKINS (P38289) Supervisory Trial Attorney

OMAR WEAVER (P58861) Trial Attorney

DETROIT FIELD OFFICE
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Building 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 865 Detroit, MI 48226

J; Dated:

~
r

'1./06

A & R TRUSS CORPORATION
BY: MILLER CANFIELD, PADDOCK & STONE P.L.C.
~ck-!f~
CHARLES S. MISHKIND (P32346) BRUCE D. OLSON (P44573) Attorneys for Defendant Miller Canfield Paddock and Stone, P.L.C. 99 Monroe Avenue, N.W., Suite 1200 Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Dated:L~

IT IS SO ORDERED:
March 2, 2006 Date

/s/ Joseph G. Scoville
Hon. Joseph Scoville United States Magistrate Judge

-7-

 United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Dock... https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?927137074054688-L_...
CLOSED, CONSENTMAG
United States District Court Western District of Michigan (Southern Division (1)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-00547-JGS

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. A & R Truss Company Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville Cause: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

Date Filed: 08/15/2005 Date Terminated: 03/02/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Adele Rapport U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MI) 865 Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-6701 Email: adele.rapport@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Omar Weaver U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (MI) 865 Patrick V. McNamara Bldg. 477 Michigan Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-3407 Email: omar.weaver@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. defendant A & R Truss Company

represented by Charles S. Mishkind Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone PLC (Grand Rapids) 1200 Campau Sq. Plz. 99 Monroe Ave., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503 (616) 454-8656 Email: mishkind@millercanfield.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 4

6/15/2007 3:54 PM

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Dock... https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?927137074054688-L_...

Date Filed 08/15/2005
08/15/2005 09/13/2005 09/13/2005 09/13/2005 09/13/2005
09/15/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005 09/28/2005 09/28/2005 09/28/2005
2 of 4

Richard P. Smith Blake Kirchner Symonds MacFarlane Larson & Smith PC 1432 Buhl Bldg. 535 Griswold St. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 961-7321 Email: rps@blakekirchner.com TERMINATED: 09/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against A & R Truss Company filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (acr, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to A & R Truss Company (acr, ) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
2 ANSWER to complaint by A & R Truss Company (bd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
3 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES by defendant A & R Truss Company re 2 (bd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
4 DEMAND for TRIAL BY JURY by defendant A & R Truss Company (bd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
5 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant A & R Truss Company re 2, 3, 4 and for Initial Interrogatories to Plaintiff, Notice to Produce Documents to Plaintiff, Notice of Taking Deposition of Theodore Kilgore via first-class mail on 9/12/05 (bd, ) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
6 CLERK'S LETTER to attorney Richard P. Smith regarding e-filing requirement and paper filing 2, 3, 4, 5 (bd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
7 ORDER setting Rule 16 scheduling conference for 10/5/2005 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody; status report due by 9/30/2005 ; signed by Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen (Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen, sas) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
Copy of Order Setting Rule 16 Scheduling Conference 7 sent via U.S. Mail to Richard P.Smith (bd, ) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
8 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Regarding Substitution Of Counsel by defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
9 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Charles S. Mishkind on behalf of defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 09/28/2005)
10 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 09/28/2005)

6/15/2007 3:54 PM

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Dock... https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?927137074054688-L_...

09/29/2005 09/29/2005 09/29/2005 09/30/2005 10/04/2005
10/19/2005 10/20/2005 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005
11/08/2005 11/08/2005 11/15/2005

11 ORDER granting STIPULATION 8 Regarding Substitution Of Counsel for Defendant A & R Truss Company; signed by Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody (Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody, cbh) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
Copy of Order on Stipulation 11 sent via U.S. Mail to Richard P. Smith (bd, ) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
12 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER No. 05-116 that this case is reassigned to Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell for all further proceedings; Senior Judge Richard Alan Enslen to be assigned another case pursuant to approved procedure ; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (acr, ) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
13 NOTICE rescheduling hearing that was previously set for 10/5/05: Rule 16 scheduling conference is set for 10/19/2005 at 11:00 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville; (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb) (Entered: 09/30/2005)
14 NOTICE rescheduling hearing that was previously set for 10/19/05; Rule 16 scheduling conference is rescheduled for 10/25/2005 at 2:00 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville by telephone; plf's counsel shall initiate the conference call; (Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville, mmh) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE of Omar Weaver on behalf of plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Weaver, Omar) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
16 JOINT STATUS REPORT submitted for filing by defendant A & R Truss Company Joint Rule 16 Status Report (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
17 NOTICE: The telephone Rule 16 scheduling conference set for 10/25/2005 at 2:00 PM is now before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell; (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb) (Entered: 10/24/2005)
18 MINUTES of Rule 16 scheduling conference by telephone held before Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, sdb) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
19 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: jury trial set for 11/27/2006 at 9:00 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville; final pretrial conference set for 11/9/2006 at 10:00 AM at 699 Federal Building, Grand Rapids, MI before Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell, ymc) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
20 NOTICE Consent, and Order Of Reference - Exercise Of Jurisdiction By A United States Magistrate Judge by defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
PROPOSED STIPULATION and ORDER re 20 (taken from document 20) by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defendant A & R Truss Company (gjf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
21 AMENDED ANSWER to complaint 2 And Notice Of Additional Defenses filed by defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 11/15/2005)

3 of 4

6/15/2007 3:54 PM

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan - Dock... https://ecf.miwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?927137074054688-L_...

11/15/2005 12/07/2005 03/02/2006 03/02/2006

22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant A & R Truss Company (Mishkind, Charles) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
23 CONSENT of all parties to jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge; case reassigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville ; signed by Chief Judge Robert Holmes Bell (mrs, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
24 PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE by plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments:, # 1 Attachment A - Notice) (mrs, ) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
25 CONSENT DECREE 24; signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A - Notice) (Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville, mmh) (Entered: 03/02/2006)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/15/2007 16:56:22

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-00547-JGS 0.16

4 of 4

6/15/2007 3:54 PM

Output: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this Title VII racial-harassment and retaliation suit against A & R Truss Company for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.). Alleging that Defendant had repeatedly subjected a black employee at the New Buffalo facility to racially offensive epithets and had met the employee's complaints with threats and intimidation, the EEOC sought monetary and injunctive relief, including compensation for emotional harm and punitive damages. The parties entered into a one-year consent decree that provided monetary and injunctive relief. The employee received $20,000. A & R Truss was subject to an array of anti-harassment, anti-retaliation, training, policy, and notice provisions. The case is now closed.


Input:
City of Sulphur, Oklahoma Complaint

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SULPHUR, OKLAHOMA, Defendant.
____________________________________
CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. §1345.
3. The defendant, City of Sulphur (hereinafter referred to as "Sulphur"), is a corporate, governmental body created pursuant to the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
4. The defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. The defendant has subjected Cruz Carillo to discrimination on the basis of his national origin, Mexican-American, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
(a) Failing or refusing to hire or promote Mr. Carillo to the position of Sanitation Department Superintendent and to pay him accordingly; and;
(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Mr. Carillo.
6. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received a timely charge filed by Mr. Carillo, alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his national origin by Sulphur when he was denied a promotion to Sanitation Department Superintendent. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that the allegation of national origin discrimination was true, attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the charge and subsequently referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
7. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/sulphurcm.htm

8/13/2007

City of Sulphur, Oklahoma Complaint

Page 2 of 2

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays this Court to:
(a) Enter an order enjoining the defendant from failing or refusing to provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole the charging party, Mr. Carillo, for the individual loss he has suffered as a result of the discrimination against him as alleged in this Complaint; and
(b) Award compensatory damages to Mr. Carillo to fully compensate him for injuries caused by Sulphur's discriminatory conduct, pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
(c) Take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
The plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
JURY DEMAND
The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
JANET RENO Attorney General
By: ______________________ BILL LANN LEE Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
ROBERT B. GREEN United States Attorney Eastern District of Oklahoma 1200 W. Okmulgee Street Muskogee, Oklahoma 74401 (918) 684-5100
_______________________ WILLIAM B. FENTON ALLEN W. LEVY D.C. Bar No. 412998 Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968 (202) 514-2188

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/sulphurcm.htm

8/13/2007

 • • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

}

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

CITY OF SULPHUR, OKLAHOMA )

}

Defendant.

)

FEB 2 3 2001
WILUAM B. GUTHRIE
Clerk. U.S. DISTRICT COURT By_ _--:::---,--o
[l.,puty Clerk;;-----
-s CIVIL ACTION NO. •) I- Q?:,L/

CONSENT DECREE This action was brought by the United States against the City of Sulphur ("Sulphur") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), following receipt by the Department of Justice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") of a charge filed by Cruz Carrillo, a Sulphur employee. In its complaint, the United States alleges that Sulphur violated Title VII when it improperly considered Mr. Carrillo's national origin, Mexican-American, in making its decision to deny Mr. Carrillo a promotion to the position of Sanitation Department Superintendent. The City of Sulphur denies any violation of Title VII and the allegations of discrimination. The parties, desiring that this action be settled by appropriate consent decree and without the burden of protracted

• • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 2 of 6
litigation, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over the !Jul L~c0 ullll l.l1e sul..ljcct matter of this action. Subject to the Court's approval of this Consent Decree, the parties waive a hearing and findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues, and further agree to the entry of this Decree as final and binding between themselves as to the issues raised in the United States' complaint filed in this case and the matters resolved in this Decree.
This Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall in no way constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case, nor be construed as an admission by Sulphur or a finding of any wrongdoing or violation of any applicable federal or state law or regulation.
As used in this Decree, the term "date of entry of this Decree" is defined as the date on which the Court grants final approval to and enters this Consent Decree as a final order of the Court.
2

• • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 3 of 6

.lL LJ Llluc[urt:, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEC!U::ED:

A. GENERAL RELIEF

1. Sulphur shall follow non-discriminatory employment policies

and practices that treat all employees in the same way,

regardless of national origin.

2. Sulphur shall provide training with respect to Title VI!'s

prohibition against employment discrimination based on national

origin to all of its supervisory personnel. A description of the

training shall be submitted to counsel for the United States

within six months from the date of entry of this Decree.

3.

Sulphur, by and through its officia:s, agents, employees

and all persons in active concert or participation with Sulphur

in the performance of employment or personnel functions shall not

retaliate against or in any respect adversely affect any person

because that person formally or informally has complained of or

otherwise opposed an allegedly discriminatory employment policy

or practice, filed a charge with the EEOC or any state or local

fair employment practices agency, or participated or cooperated

in any proceeding under Title VII, including, but not limited to,

the initiation, investigation, litigation, or administration of this case or this Consent Decree.

B. SPECIFIC RELIEF

Without admitting the allegations of the United States, and

3

• • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 4 of 6
in settlement of the claim of the United States for relief on lJ<cikLI L uf ML. C'c~u illo, aLl well a:cJ in settlement of the claim of Mr. Carrillo, who, by his signature to this document, has indicated his acceptance, Sulphur agrees to: 1. Pay Mr. Carrillo a monetary award in the amount of $45,000 no later than the dates specified in paragraph B.2. below and give Mr. Carillo other consideration, all of which is covered in a separate settlement agreement and release that has been entered into between Mr. Carrillo and Sulphur. The monetary award of $45,000 includes $35,862 in back pay and $9,138 in accumulated interest. Sulphur shall withhold the appropriate amount of taxes from the back pay portion of the award and issue to Mr. Carrillo a form 1099 or other appropriate form that reflects the interest portions of the award, and inform Mr. Carrillo that these amounts are subject to federal and, as appropriate, state income taxes. 2. Pay to Mr. Carrillo $40,000 of the total monetary award specified in paragraph B.l of this Decree within fifteen (15) days of the date of the entry of this Decree. Sulphur shall pay to Mr. Carrillo the additional $5,000 of the total monetary award specified in paragraph B.l of this Decree no later than July 10, 2001. C. RECORD-KEEPING AND REPORTING
1. Sulphur shall retain during the life of this Decree records necessary to document the implementation of this Decree.
4

• • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 5 of 6
Sulphur shall furnish records and documents relevant to its c:c'"'Pl Lcllu.:c "' i.Llt LltiG Decree to counsel for the Department of Justice within thirty (30) days of any written request from counsel for the Department of Justice to Sulphur's attorney.
2. Sulphur shall retain during the life of this Decree all records that come into its possession relating to complaints or charges of employment discrimination by Sulphur based on nati~nal origin, filed againsc Sulphur or its employees, agents or representatives: (a) through Sulphur's internal grievance procedure; (b) with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; or (c) through or with any other federal, state or local agency authorized to receive such complaints. Sulphur shall provide copies of such complaints or charges to counsel for the United States within ten (10) days of its receipt of such complaints or charges. In addition, the United States shall have the right to inspect and copy all documents related to such complaints or charges upon reasonable notice to Sulphur without further order of this Court. D. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The parties shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute that may occur under this Consent Decree and shall engage in good faith efforts to resolve the issue before seeking action by the Court. If the parties are unable expeditiously to resolve the issue, either party may move the Court for resolution, provided
5

• • 6:01-cv-00034-FHS Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 02/23/01 Page 6 of 6

that written notice is first provided to the other party.

E. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

1. During the life of this Decree, the Court shall retain

jurisdiction over this Decree for the purposes of enforcing its

provisions, resolving any disputes that may arise between the

parties under it and entering such orders as may be appropriate.

2. This Decree shall terminate five (5) years from the '

date of its entry. Prior to its termination any party may move,

for good cause shown, to extend the duration of the Decree.

3. Each party shall bear its own costs and expenses,

including attorney's fees. SO ORDERED this

day of Jf'41P'""t' , 2 000.
'

Agreed and Consented to:
On behalf of Plaintiff United States of America:
/ /J._ &vr~L._
~ILLIAM B. FENTON ALLEN W. LEVY Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section P.O. Box 65968 Washington, D.C. 20035-5968
(202) 514-2188

rr/TA"~
--~--:-':....::=::;___
PHIL HURST Sulphur City Attorney 1020 West Second Street P.O. Box 597 Sulphur, Oklahoma 73086

6

 CLOSED

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Oklahoma (Muskogee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:01-cv-00034-FHS

USA v. Sulphur OK City of Assigned to: Judge Frank H. Seay Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 01/18/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Allen W. Levy U.S. Department of Justice/Civil Rights Div. P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202) 514-2188 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bill Lann Lee Asst Attorney General/Civil Rights Div 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Room 5643 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-2151 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sheldon J. Sperling US Attorney (EDOK) 1200 W Okmulgee Muskogee, OK 74401 918-684-5100 Fax: 918-684-5150 Email: sheldon.sperling@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant The City of Sulphur, Oklahoma

William B. Fenton U.S. Department of Justice/Civil Rights Div. P.O. Box 65968 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202) 514-2188 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/18/2001 01/18/2001
01/18/2001
02/10/2001

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT (nsb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

MAGISTRATE'S CONSENT FORM furnished to plaintiff's counsel. (nsb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

WAIVER OF SERVICE FORMS furnished to plaintiff's counsel (nsb, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2001)

2 NOTICE mailed setting case for Status & Scheduling Conference on 3/1/01 at 12:00 Noon at the United States Courthouse, Muskogee, Oklahoma before the Honorable Frank H. Seay. ENTERING ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay directing parties pursuant to Local Rule 26(e) to meet as soon as practicable but not less than 14 days prior to the Status and Conference to discuss the nature and basis of claims and defenses, the possibility of prompt settlement and, consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties are directed to file with the Clerk of Court a joint written report of such meeting four (4) working days prior to the Status and Scheduling Conference. Attorneys shall make known to their clients the contents of the report. The enclosed "Report on Planning Meeting Form", is to be completed and filed with the Clerk. All parties and their counsel are required to sign this form. The signatures of the parties may be submitted by facsimile. (FHS) (cc: all counsel) (law, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/10/2001)

02/21/2001 02/21/2001 02/22/2001
02/23/2001 03/02/2001

3 MOTION (Unopposed) by plaintiff for a continuance of status and scheduling conference ; response deadline 3/8/01 (law, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
4 BRIEF by plaintiff in support of the United States' unopposed motion for continuance (law, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2001)
5 MINUTE ORDER: granting Unopposed motion for a continuance of status and scheduling conference. [3-1] ; Status and scheduling conference is stricken from 3/1/01 (FHS) (cc: all counsel) (trl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2001)
6 CONSENT DECREE by Judge Frank H. Seay (cc: all counsel) (tkc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/26/2001)
7 MINUTE ORDER: A consent decree resolving all matters in issue having been entered on February 23, 2001, there is no reason at this time to maintain the file as an open file for statistical purposes. Accordingly, the clerk is instructed to submit a JS-6 form to the Administrative Office. Nothing contained in this minute entry order shall be interpreted as a dismissal of this case or the complaint. Should further proceedings become necessary or desirable, any party may initiate proceedings by filing the appropriate motion in the same manner as if the form JS-6 had not been submitted (closing case) (FHS) (cc: all counsel) (tkc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/02/2001)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

10/18/2007 14:20:50

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: Baker

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 6:01-cv-00034-FHS

Billable Pages: 2

Cost:

0.16

Output: On January 18, 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice ("D.O.J.") filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the City of Sulphur in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma alleging that the City discriminated against a Mexican-American employee on the basis of his national origin, when it failed or refused to promote him and took no action to remedy the effects of discrimination. The D.O.J. sought injunctive and monetary relief. On February 23, 2001, the Court entered a consent decree, containing injunctions on discrimination and retaliation, with orders to the defendant to implement a nondiscriminatory policy and antidiscrimination training. The individual received $45,000. The decree expired after five years.