Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 18 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 222

Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, No. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
louisflores@louisflores.com
1 (646) 400-1168

05 November 2015

BY ECF

Honorable Roanne L. Mann,
United States Magistrate Judge,
United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York,
225 Cadman Plaza East,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.

Dear Hon. Magistrate Judge Mann :

Re : Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice

No. 15-CV-2627 (Gleeson, J.) (Mann, M.J.)



In response to Your Honors omnibus order, dated 16 September 2015 (See Dkt. No. 14),
the parties respectfully file this joint status report. The Plaintiff in this action seeks records
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from Defendant U.S. Department of Justice
(the DOJ or Government) regarding the Governments prosecution of activists.

I.
Since the Initial Conference

During the 16 September 2015 Conference, Your Honor encouraged the Government to
voluntarily search the files of Main Justice and produce any written guidelines for
prosecution of activists, and to consider voluntarily producing at least some of the
documents listed on an index that Plaintiff had served that same day. (Id.).

Following the September 16, 2015, conference with the Court, Defendant DOJ voluntarily
searched within the Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) of the Criminal
Division in Washington, D.C. for any written guidelines for prosecution of activists.1 (Id.).
Defendant also voluntarily searched for and collected some documents that appeared to be
responsive to some of Plaintiffs discovery requests set forth in his September 16, 2015
Index. Defendant conducted these searches even though Plaintiffs FOIA request that is the
subject of this action was directed solely to the EOUSA, which processes requests for
USAOs records, and did not seek DOJ Criminal Division records.

1
The DOJ asserts that the OAAG is responsible for formulating and implementing the
Department of Justices criminal enforcement policies.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 18 Filed 11/05/15 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 223

Hon. Judge Roanne L. Mann
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
05 November 2015
Page 2

By letter to Plaintiff dated October 13, 2015, Defendant provided copies of two
declarations outlining the searches for records responsive to Plaintiffs April 2013 FOIA
request (as suggested by Your Honor during the September 16, 2015, conference), and
provided some documents sought in Plaintiffs September 16, 2015, Index that were
voluntarily gathered. In doing so, Defendant expressly stated that it was not waiving its
objections to discovery or agreeing to the broadening of the FOIA request that is the
subject of this action. By letter dated October 15, 2015, Defendant informed Plaintiff that
the OAAGs search did not locate any guidelines for the prosecution of activists.

On October 16, 2015, the parties had a conference call. During that call, Plaintiff indicated
that he would review the materials provided to him and provide a letter outlining
remaining issues he had as to the response to the FOIA request and the additional
materials voluntarily provided.

On October 26, 2015, Plaintiff served Defendant with a lengthy letter objecting to the
declarations, seeking clarification, and raising numerous questions as to the searches
(including those voluntarily undertaken), the discretionary release of publicly-available
documents, and Defendants October 13, 2015 letter, and materials provided therewith. On
November 3, 2015, Defendant provided a response to Plaintiffs October 26, 2015, letter,
which Plaintiff argues is only a partial response.

In preparation for the making of this joint status report, the parties have been unable to
reach a consensus as to the next steps.

II.
Plaintiffs Position

Due to the large number of open issues, Plaintiff requests an extension of time of 8 weeks
to resolve the numerous issues about the records being unjustly withheld by the DOJ,
including a new FOIA Request submitted by Plaintiff to the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ
for applicable records, a move necessitated by the DOJs erroneous assertion that the DOJ
can disclose records under FOIA at its own discretion. It would be unjust to disallow
Plaintiff the right to conduct due diligence on the few records produced, consequently
leaving open so many issues, particularly if the open issues place Plaintiff in a position to
be unable to oppose the DOJs anticipated summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
As Your Honor knows, its the DOJs pattern and practise to avoid compliance with FOIA.
Plaintiff requests this additional time to help the DOJ reach compliance. Moreover, it
would be unfair to bring the numerous details of these unresolved issues for Your Honor to
address during motion practise. Plaintiff seeks to try to resolve as many of these open
issues as possible, before providing an updated status report by 8 January 2016, at which
time the parties will propose a briefing schedule.

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 18 Filed 11/05/15 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 224

Hon. Judge Roanne L. Mann
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
05 November 2015
Page 3

If the Court cannot grant an extension of time, Plaintiff will ask the Court to make a
determination about the DOJs obligations to produce records missing from the DOJs first
discretionary release, notwithstanding that they may be publicly-available, as the DOJ
asserts, and will ask the Court to address the numerous open issues without the benefit of
possibly being able to reach further independent resolution with the DOJ.

III.
Defendants Position

It is Defendant DOJs position that all non-exempt records responsive to Plaintiffs FOIA
request to EOUSA that is the subject of this action have been released to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
will not agree to discontinue this action, has asserted that he opposes the declarations
provided as to the searches conducted in response to his FOIA request, and continues to
seek both discovery and to broaden the scope of this litigation. Defendant, accordingly,
believes that motion practice is necessary and does not believe that further meet and
confers would be an efficient use of the parties time and resources at this time.

IV.
Proposed Briefing Schedule

The parties propose the following briefing schedule, subject to the Courts approval:

By November 23, 2015, Defendant to file and serve its motion for summary
judgment ;
By January 8, 2016, Plaintiff to file and serve his opposition and any cross-motion ;
By February 12, 2016, Defendant to file and serve its reply and opposition to any
cross-motion ; and
By February 26, 2016, Plaintiff to file and serve his surreply.

We appreciate the Courts attention to this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

cc :

Louis Flores
Pro se Plaintiff
[By e-mail only to : rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov]

Rukhsanah L. Singh, Assistant U.S. Attorney

U.S. Attorneys Office - Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East, 7th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Attorney for Defendant

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 18 Filed 11/05/15 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 225

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LOUIS FLORES,




Plaintiff,
15-CV-2627 (JG)(RLM)


v.
AFFIRMATION

OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,




Defendant.





I, LOUIS FLORES, declare under penalty of perjury that I have served a copy of the attached
JOINT STATUS REPORT upon RUKHSANAH L. SINGH, whose address is :
c/o United States Attorneys Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East,
7th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201 by ELECTRONIC MAIL DELIVERY to :
rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov.

Dated : Jackson Heights, New York

November 5, 2015

Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
Phone : (646) 400-1168
louisflores@louisflores.com