Filed D.C. Superior court 09/25/2019 19:05PM Clerk of the Court IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. CIVIL DIVISION WP COMPANY LLC d/b/a THE WASHINGTON POST, 1301 K Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20071 Plaintiff, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Serve Nicole Streeter, General Counsel Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 and Nyasha Smith Secretary to the Council of the District of Columbia 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Defendant. Case No, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiff WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post, by its undersigned attorneys, alleges for its Complaint 1 ‘This is an action under the D.C, Freedom of Information Act, D.C, Code § 2-531 et seq. “FOIA” or “the Act”), to order the production of public records improperly withheld bythe Council of the District of Columbia in response to a FOIA request made by The Washington Post (“the Post”. 2 The Post seeks to compel the Council to permit inspection and copying of the public records requested in the Post's October 10, 2018 FOIA request, as later narrowed by the Post at the Council’s suggestion — namely, records of appointments with Councilmember and former Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Chairman Jack Evans in 2015 and 2016 involving five individuals and three businesses, 3. The requested records concer issues of the highest public importance: unethical and potentially criminal misconduct by a democratically elected lawmaker. During the past two years, Councilmember Evans has been engulfed in a series of scandals regarding his relationships with people and companies with interests before the Council and WMATA, including the third parties named in the narrowed FOIA request at issue here. In the past year, Evans has been reprimanded and stripped of his committee chairmanship by his colleagues on the Council; fined by the D.C. Board of Ethics and Government Accountability (BEGA); found to have violated WMATA ethics rules regarding conflicts of interest, and resigned as chairman and a member of the transit agency’s board. Further, the FBI has searched Evans’s home, a federal grand jury has subpoenaed records involving his business dealings, and the Council hired an outside law firm to investigate his conduct. 4, The records that the Post seeks will, therefore, shed light on the actions of an elected official whose conduct of ethical issues has been, and continues to be, a matter of intense and urgent public concern 5. Despite the compelling public interest in the records, the Council denied the Post’s request pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 2-534(a)(3) (“Exemption 3”) and (a)(6)(“Exemption 6”), asserting the release of these records was prohibited because they were among records sought by a grand jury subpoena and therefore qualified as “[iJnvestigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes,” and were also exempt from disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). See Exhil B,D. 6. The Council’s position is contrary to the legal requirements of FOIA, and to the purpose of the statute. ‘The District is committed to a transparent, open, and democratic form of government: by default, the public has a right of access to all public records. Access to information relevant to the alleged wrongdoing of an elected lawmaker, as well as information relevant to assessing the Council’s and WMATA’ official activities, are at the very heart of the democratic accountability that FOIA is designed to serve JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to D.C. §2-537(a-1) (“Any person denied the right to inspect a public record in the possession of the Council may institute proceedings in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia for injunctive or declaratory relief, or for an order to enjoin the public body from withholding the record and to compel the production of the requested record.”). Because the Post’s FOIA request was made to the Council, no administrative appeal within the executive branch of the D.C. government is allowed, and any challenge to the Council’s denial is properly directed to the Superior Court. Ia. 8. Venue properly lies with this Court as the defendant is the Council of the District, of Columbia, the actions forming the basis of the claim occurred principally within the District of Columbia and the public records at issue are located in the District of Columbia.PARTIES 9, The Post is a news organization based in Washington, D.C. It publishes the leading daily newspaper, by print circulation, in the nation’s capital, as well as the website washingtonpost.com, which reaches more than 70 million unique visitors per month, according to independent auditor comScore. The Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes 10. The Council is the central and chief policy-making body for the District of Columbia, The Council is subject to FOIA. D.C. Code §§ 2-532(a), 2-537%(a-1), The Council’s denial of the Post’s FOIA request is the subject of this action Facts Councilmember Jack Evans’s Ethical Scandals 11. Jack Evans has represented Ward 2 on the Council for 28 years and is the longest- serving elected official in the District. 12, Throughout his tenure on the Council, Evans, an attorney, also has worked for various law firms and his own consulting firm, NSE Consulting. Councilmembers are not prohibited from ha ing outside employment so long as that work does not constitute a violation of their legal and ethical obligations as public servants. 13. At times, however, Evans’s outside employment and business interests have created conflicts of interest (whether actual or apparent) with his public duties. 14, One set of those potential conflicts involved the outdoor advertising company Digi Outdoor Media (“Digi”). According to the Post’s reporting, which is based on a months- long investigation and has not been refuted or seriously disputed, in August 2016, Digi and an affiliate entered into consulting agreements with Evans's firm, NSE Consulting, under whichNS Consulting would receive $50,000 per year. That month, the Digi affiliate issued two checks of $25,000 each to NSE Consulting. In October 2016, Digi issued 200,000 shares of stock to NSE Consulting! 15. In November 2016, Evans s ight to have emergency legislation added to the Council's agenda that would have allowed Digi to install its signs in the District. Evans later withdrew the bill when it became clear it would not pass.” 16. Evans said he retumed the checks to Digi’s founder, Don MacCord, without cashing them shortly after he received them. He said he also returned the stock certificate to Digi? 17. Other Evans clients with business before the Council have included Colonial Parking, whose top executive, Russell “Rusty” Lindner, is a personal friend, Evans attempted to insert language into the District’s budget promoting federal tax incentives for which Colonial had sought his help in lobbying Congress * 18. Another Evans client with business before the Council was the development firm EastBanc, which was awarded rights to develop three publicly owned parcels in Evans’s ward.* 1 See Steve Thompson, D.C. Council member Jack Evans received stock just before pushing legislation that would benefit company, WASH. POST (Dec. 20, 2018), https://beta.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/de-council-member-jack-evans-received- shares-of-stock-just-before-pushing-legislation-that-would-benefit-company/2018/12/20/ b2a3b320-ffc8-1 1 e8-83c0-b06139e540e5_story html. * See id. 3d. + See Steve Thompson, Clients of D.C. Council member Jack Evans had imerests before D.C. government, WASH. Post (May 23, 2019), https://beta.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/ ts-of «dc-council-member-jack-evans-had-interests-before-de-government/2019/05/23/ 9203e7aa-Sd28-I 1e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story. html Sid.19. Evans also used his Council email account to solicit employment to several law firms.® The Post obtained those emails under FOIA, which showed that Evans pitched his services to the firm Nelson Mullins by stating, in part, that his elected office would allow him to engage in “cross-marketing my relationships and influence to Nelson Mullins clients 20. Evans also served as the Council’s representative on the WMATA Board of Directors from 2015 until June 2019 and was its chairman from January 2016 until he resigned. 21 The WMATA board’s ethics committee found that Evans violated the agency’s code of ethics by failing to report a conflict of interest regarding his actions that helped Colonial Parking, From his perch on the WMATA board, Evans was “waging a campaign” against a Colonial competitor, Laz Parking, by taking actions such as initiating investigations of Laz by Metro’s inspector general, ethics committee chairman Clarence W. Crawford told the Post * 22. Although the board’s ethics committee could only agree on the violation regarding Colonial Parking, a report by an outside law firm WMATA hired to investigate alleged misconduct by Evans also alleged that Evans had knowingly violated ethical rules in other ways, including by attempting to assist Digi’s efforts to post signs on Metro property and in mentioning his WMATA post in the pitch to Nelson Mullins.” ® See Steve Thompson, /n business proposals, D.C. Council member Jack Evans pitched influence to legal and lobby firms, WASH. Post (March 2, 2019), hittps://beta washingtonpost.com/local/de-polities/in-business-proposals-de-council-member- jack-evans-pitched-influence-to-legal-and-lobby-firms/2019/03/01/11990d50-3aa6-1 1e9-a06c- 3ecBedS00d15_ story. html, "Td. * Sce Robert McCartney, Lam firm that investigated Jack Evans for Metro found ‘multiple violations’ of ethics code, WASH. Post (June 17, 2019), https://beta, washingtonpost.com/local/ trafficandcommuting/law-firm-that-investigated-jack-evans-for-metro-found-multiple-violations- of-ethies-code/2019/06/17/14666952-9 12c-1 1e9-b570-64 16efdc0803_story. html ° See Robert McCartney, Jack Evans to resign from Metro board afier probe shows he ‘knowingly’ violated rules, WASH. PosT (June 20, 2019), https:/fbeta washingtonpost.com/a The Request and the Council’s Denials 23. Under FOIA, a “public record” includes all documents “prepared, owned, used in the possession of, or retained by a public body,” including the “Council of the District of Columbia.” D.C. Code §§ 2-502(18), (I8A), id. § 2-539 (incorporating definitions) 24. On October 10, 2018, Post reporter Steve Thompson submitted the FOIA request that is the subject of this action (“the Request”). A copy of the Request is attached as Exhibi 25. The Request sought “all calendars, appointment books, schedulers and other records used by Jack Evans to manage his time and appointments in 2015 and 2016.” Id. 26. On November 2, 2018, the Council provided unredacted copies of Evans’s calendar entries from his official Microsoft Outlook email account. On December 17, 2018, the Council provided redacted copies of the calendars Evans compiled in Microsoft Word format, asserting that the redacted portions contained personal information exempt from release pursuant to D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(2). See generally Exhibit B. Afier discussions between counsel for the Post and counsel for the Council, the Post agreed (without waiver as to any future public-records requests) to limit its current request for the Word calendar entries to those relating to a handful of specified businesses and/or individuals: namely, EastBanc and executives Anthony and Philippe Lanier; Colonial Parking and Lindner; MacCord and Digi; and lobbyist Bill Jarvis. 1d. rap On April 26, 2019, Nicole Streeter, the Council's General Counsel, wrote to counsel for the Post. See Exhibit B. Ms. Streeter asserted that the records sought by the narrowed Request “are now the subject of a federal grand jury subpoena,” and contended that they were therefore exempt from release pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 3 and 6. Id, at 2. local/trafficandcommuting/jack-evans-knowingly-violated-rules-in-pattern-of-conduct-to-help- friends-and-clients-law-firm-says-in-report/2019/06/20/2F144fa0-936b-1 1e9-b570- 6416efdc0803_story.html.28. The Post objected that the Council’s position was not consistent with law, citing, cases making clear that pre-existing records created in the routine course of business do not become “investigatory” in nature, let alone secret grand jury material, merely because they are responsive to a subsequent subpoena, See Exhibit C. Ms, Streeter responded in a letter dated August 3, 2019. See Exhibit D. Ms. Streeter reiterated the Council’s position that the subpoena. rendered the records exempt from disclosure and additionally asserted that because of the Couneil’s ethics investigation of Evans, Exemption 3 applied to the calendar entries as “records of Council investigations.” Id. at 1-2. 29. The April 26 and August 3 letters from Ms. Streeter (Exhibits B and D) constituted the Council's denial of the narrowed Request COUNT1 VIOLATION OF FOIA 30. The Post repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 31. The Council is subject to FOIA, D.C. Code §§ 2-532(a), 2-537(a-1), and must release in response to a FOIA request any disclosable public records in its control or possession at the time of the request and provide a lawful reason for withholding any materials as to which it 's claiming an exemption. 32. The requested records are public records. 33. The requested records are within the Council’s constructive control or possession because they are within the control or possession of Councilmembers. 34. The Council’s refusal to disclose the requested public records violates FOIA.35, The exemption for records compiled for law enforcement purposes in D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(3) does not apply because the records are neither investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes nor records of Council investigations. 36. The exemption for records whose release is prohibited by statute, D.C. Code § 2- 534(a)(6) does not apply because Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not apply to grand jury witnesses such as the Council in this circumstance. 37. The requested records do not fall within any other lawful FOIA exemption 38. The Post is entitled to an order compelling the Council to disclose the records that are the subject of the Request. STED RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court a. Declare that the documents sought by the Request are public records under D.C. Code § 2-531 ef seg. and must be disclosed; b. Declare that the documents sought by the Request are within the control of the Council and must be disclosed; ©. Order the Council to conduct a search and to provide all responsive documents to the Post within 10 business days of the Court's order, 4. Award the Post the costs of this proceeding, including reasonable attomey’s fees, as expressly permitted by FOIA; and ©. Grant the Post such other and further relief as this Court deems just and properDated: September 25, 2019 Of counsel: James A, McLaughlin (D.C. Bar No. 469203) The Washington Post One Franklin Square, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20071 202-334-7988 james.mclaughlin@washpost.com Respectfully submitted, Voce Chad R. Bowman (D.C. Bar No. 484150) Matthew E. Kelley (D.C. Bar No. 1018126) BALLARD SPAHR, LLP 1909 K Street, N.W., 12th Floor Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 661-2200 bowmanchad@ballardspahr.com kelleym@ballardspahr.com Counsel for Plaintiff The Washington PostExhibit AThompson, Steve Frot Thompson, Steve Wednesday, October 10, 2018 4:17 PM Smith, Brackett W. (Council) Evans calendars Dear Brackett Smith: Please accept this FOIA request for copies of all calendars, appointment books, schedulers and other records used by Jack Evans to manage his time and appointments in 2015 and 2016. I make this request in the course of newsgathering and believe the information requested will further the public's, understanding of the workings of their government and therefore respectfully request any cost waivers that may be available. | also request any expedition that may be available, as this information is of immediate and legitimate interest to the general public. Thanks, Steve Steve Thompson Staff Writer ‘The Washington Post steve.thompson@washpost.com Cell: 202-381-6511Exhibit BOFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Soc the De of Cia eer ethington De 20000 ci Ta April 26, 2019 VIA EMAIL James A. MeLaughlin Deputy General Counsel James. melaughlin@washpost.com RE: Council FOIA Matter 2018-71 Dear Mr. MeLaughlin: | write regarding the Council’s response to Freedom of Information request 2018- 71, which was submitted by Washingion Post reporter Steve Thompson on October 10, 2018, and sought “all calendars, appointment books, schedulers [sic] and other records used by [Councilmember] Jack Evans to manage his time and appointments in 2015 and 2016.” As you know, Councilmember Evans used calendars created in Outlook (“Outlook calendars”) and Microsoft Word (“Word calendars”), the latter of which detailed both his Council and personal appointments in one document. We produced the Outlook calendars unredacted to Thompson on November 2, 2018, Subsequently, we supplemented that production with a production of redacted Word calendars on December 17, 2018. The redacted portions of the Word calendars are appointments Councilmember Evans identified as his personal affairs and portions that are subject to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(2)'s exemption for “[i]nformation of a personal nature where the public disclosure thereof would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” On January 15, 2019, you emailed the Council a letter urging us to “reconsider the scope of Council’s redactions to the [Word] calendars,” stating that the Post “would not object to the narrow redaction of genuinely private appointments” and gave us until January 25, 2019, to notify you as to how we wanted to proceed. Brackett ‘Smith, an assistant general counsel in my office, and I subsequently, reviewed the 2016 Word calendars with you by telephone on January 25, January 28, and February 12. Following the February 12 call, you said you would speak with Thompson and his editor to determine what records they wanted to release. Before hearing from you on March 15, Smith attempted to contact you, including at one point leaving a voicemail message. On March 15, you informed Smith the Post sought the releaseMcLaughlin Letter Re: FOIA Matter 2018-71 Page 2 of 2 of Word calendar items relating to Anthony and Philippe Lanier, Eastbanc, Inc., Rusty Lindner, Colonial Parking, Bill Jarvis, Donald MacCord, and Digi. 1 detail our communications regarding this request because I appreciate the cooperative manner in which we have attempted to resolve this dispute, However, as you are likely aware, the Council received from the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia (USAO) a grand jury subpoena seeking a variety of documents, some of which include any and all documents related to Anthony Lanier, Eastbanc, Inc., Rusty Lindner, Colonial Parking, Bill Jarvis Donald MacCord, and Digi Because the records sought by the Past are now the subject ofa federal grand jury subpoena, the Council denies the Post's request to release these additional records pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(3) exempting “[i]nvestigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes,” (a)(6) exempting “[iJnformation specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” (e) establishing that “[aJll exemptions available under [D.C. Official Code § 2-534] shall apply to the Council as well as agencies of the District government{,]” and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). If you wish to discuss this response further, please feel free to contact me at (202) 724-8026, Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the determinations set forth in this letter, you may file a civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-537(a-1). Sincerely, ‘si Nicole L. Streeter General Counsel Ce: Steve Thompson, Staff WriterExhibit CThe Washington Post WASHINGTON, D.C. 20071 July 11, 2019 Nicole L. Streeter (nstreeter@DCCOUNCIL.US) General Counsel Brackett Smith (bsmith@DCCOUNCIL.US) Assistant General Counsel Council of the District of Columbia RE: Council FOIA Matter 2018-71 Dear Ms. Streeter: Iam responding to your letter of April 26, 2019 regarding the above- mentioned FOIA request (the “Request”) by Steve Thompson of the Post. The Request secks “all calendars, appointment books, schedulers and other records used by [Councilmember] Jack Evans to manage his time and appointments in 2015 and 2016.” Ina series of phone conversations about the Request in late January and February, I thought we made considerable progress in narrowing the scope of disputed issues, and that we had at least a tentative understanding in place to resolve the Request by Council's disclosure of records relating to a handful of specified individuals and/or business entities of particular relevance to the Post's ongoing reporting.’ As Lunderstand your April 26 letter, however, you now contend that Council's ability to disclose those records was altered by receipt of a federal grand jury subpoena that called for production of those, and other, records. Accordingly, your letter asserts that the remaining records are exempt from D.C. FOIA as “investigatory records,” D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(3), and as “information specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” § 2-534(a)(6) (with the asserted “statute” being federal grand jury requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)). With Anthony and Philippe Lanier, Eastbane, Ine., Rusty Lindner, Colonial Parking, Bill Jarvis, Donald MacCord, and Digi Media,Ms. Nicole L. Streeter, Esquire July 11, 2019 Page 2 respect, that position is contradicted by longstanding FOIA case law and practice at both the D.C. and federal levels? The fact that public records created in the routine course of business -- like Councilmember Evans's calendar entries from 2015 and 2016 - are later sought by, or produced to, a federal grand jury does not retroactively exempt them from public-records laws. The D.C. Circuit has made that clear at least twice. See Labow v. DOJ, 831 F.3d 523, 529 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (“The mere fact that information has been presented to the grand jury does not itself permit withholding,”); Stolt- Nielsen Transp. Grp. LTD. v. United States, 534 F.3d 728, 732 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (“In other words, the government may not bring information into the protection of Rule 6(e) and thereby into the protection afforded by Exemption 3 [exempted by statute], simply by submitting it as a grand jury exhibit.”). ‘The holding of these cases is consistent with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) itself, which plainly does not sweep so far as to require third parties who produce records to a grand jury to maintain the secrecy of those documents even if they are public records. Indeed, Rule 6(e) addresses the secrecy of grand jury proceedings themselves, not all matter produced to a grand jury, and it specifies that “[njo obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(¢)(2)(B)" ~a list that includes grand jurors, prosecutors, and court reporters, but not witnesses. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(2)(A). Similarly, government records do not become exempt as “law enforcement” records simply because they later become the subject of a law enforcement investigation. The records must be “investigatory” records that are “compiled for law enforcement purposes,” D.C. Code § 2-534(a)(3) (emphasis, added). As the D.C. Court of Appeals has held, this means records “prepared or assembled in the course of investigations which focus directly on specifically alleged illegal acts.” Barry v. Washington Post Co., 529 A.2d 319, 321-22 (D.C. 1987). In Barry, the Court rejected the Mayor’s argument that his security expenses were “law enforcement” records because they “were not compiled in the course of any particular law enforcement investigation, but merely reflect{ed] day-to-day expenditures for security relating to the Mayor.” Id. at 322. Federal courts follow the same approach. See, e.g., Bartko v. U.S. Department of Justice, 898 F.3d 51,64 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (“To qualify as law-enforcement records, the documents must arise out of investigations which focus directly on specifically alleged illegal acts which could, if proved, result in civil or criminal sanctions.”) > As you know, federal courts’ interpretations of the federal FOIA are “instructive” in interpreting the District's FOIA law, which was modeled after the federal statute and has very similar exemptions. Padou v. District of Columbia, 29 A.3d 973, 982 (D.C. 2011).Ms. Nicole L. Streeter, Esquire July 11, 2019 Page 3 (emphasis added, citation omitted). In this case, it is indisputable that Councilmember Evans's calendars in 2015 and 2016 were not “compiled for” law enforcement purposes, and the fact that they later have some relevance to a law enforcement investigation plainly does not trigger Section 2-534 a(3). Accordingly, the Post renews its request that the records in question be produced in unredacted form. Let me add that I do not doubt your good faith in the negotiations, and I am not disputing the chronology recited in your April 26 letter. But we do not believe the timing or existence of a federal grand jury subpoena affects whether these are public records. The Post has retained counsel and is prepared to litigate that question if necessary. Please let me know whether Council is willing to reconsider its position. 1 am available to discuss the matter with you and/or Brackett, of course. Thank you again for your time and attention on the Request. Sincerely, /s/ James A. McLaughlin Deputy General CounselExhibit DOFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL Counc uf he District of Clube 150 Penney fami Avenue NW. Ste 4 shan De Soot August 3, 2019 VIA EMAIL James A. McLaughlin Deputy General Counsel James melaughlin@washpost.com RE: Council FOIA Matter 2018-71 Dear Mr. McLaughlin: write in response to your letter of July 11, 2019, regarding the withholding of portions of Councilmember Jack Evans's 2015 and 2016 calendars relating to Anthony and Philippe Lanier, Eastbanc, Inc., Rusty Lindner, Colonial Parking, Bill Jarvis, Donald MacCord, and Digi Media. As we indicated in our prior correspondence, the Council has been served with a subpoena in connection with a pending federal grand-jury investigation to which the calendar excerpts at issue are responsive. The request for Councilmember Evans’s calendars is just one of several submitted to the Council by the Mashington Post and Mr, Thompson over the past several months that seek documents responsive to the subpoena or, in some cases, the subpoena itself. Given the foregoing context, and because the Council has compiled the records at issue in response to the subpoena and understands that their release has the potential to compromise the ongoing grand- jury proceedings, we disagree with your conclusion that the portions of the records at issue are not exempt from production as “[iJnvestigatory records compiled for law-enforcement purposes,” pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2- 534(a)(3), and as “[iJnformation specifically exempted from disclosure by statute,” pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(6), and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). Furthermore, you may also be aware that the Council recently initiated its own investigation into Councilmember Evans, specifically seeking to determine “whether, from January 1, 2014 to the present, the official and outside activities of Councilmember Jack Evans relating to NSE Consulting LLC (including the establishment of that entity), any client of NSE Consulting LLC, or any other entity by which Councilmember Evans was employed or for which he consulted, violated the Code of Conduct as that term is defined in [D.C. Official Code § 1- 1161.01(7)}, or the Rules of Organization and Procedure for the Council of the District of Columbia (‘Council Rules’), including those provisions of the Code of Conduct or the Council Rules that relate to conflicts of interest, outside activities,McLaughlin Letter Re: FOIA Matter 2018-71 Page 2 of 2 use of government resources, or use of confidential information.”! Because the calendar excerpts at issue also relate directly to this Council investigation, the Council has further reason to withhold them pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2- 534(a)(3), which makes clear that “[i]nvestigatory records compiled for law- enforcement purposes,” include not only records compiled in connection with enforcement proceedings but also “records of Council investigations.” As I noted in my April 26, 2019 letter to you, I appreciate the cooperative manner in which we have attempted to resolve this dispute. However, I maintain my position that the withheld portions of Councilmember Evans's calendars are subject to exemption from disclosure by D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(3) and (a)(6). The Council’s initiation of its own investigation of Councilmember Evans only bolsters that view. Therefore, the Council’s denial of Mr. Thompson’s request for the withheld portions of Councilmember Evans's 2015 and 2016 calendars is unchanged If you wish to discuss this response further, please feel free to contact me at (202) 724-8026, Sincerely, Js! Nicole L. Streeter General Counsel " See section 3(a)(2) of the Council Period 23 Rules and Investigation Authority Amendment Resolution of 2019, effective July 9, 2019 (Res. 23-175; 66 DCR 8288), Available at hitp//lims. decouncil us/Download/43023/PR23.0434- Eu ollment pdf.Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch ‘500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000 Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133 Website: www.decourts gov WP Company LLC dib/a The Washington Post an Case Number Council of the District of Columbia ~ Defendant SUMMONS ‘To the above named Defendant: You ate hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attomey, within twenty one (21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you are being sued as an officer or agency of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government, you have sixty (60) days after service of this summons to serve your Answer. A copy of the Answer must be mailed to the attomey for the plaintif? who is suing you. The attomey's name and address appear below. If plaintiff has no attomey, a copy of the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. ‘You ate also required to file the original Answer with the Court in Suite $000 at $00 Indiana Avenue, N.W., between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or within seven (7) days after you have served the plaintiff. If you fail to file an Answer, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Chad R. Bowman Clerk of the Court Ballard Spahr, LLP, 1909 K Street, NW By Kaas Deputy Clerk. Washington, D¢ 20008 (202) 661-2200 Date ‘Telephone SB, RT BE (202) 870-4828 \Veuitez eppeler au (202) 878-4828 pour une traduction Deb met bi ich, hy oi (202) 879-4628 Wet Be Ape (202)879-4078 AAS tHeTCT cH Aeerv (202) 879-4628 BAO IMPORTANT: IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSWER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE, OR If, AFTER YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AT ANY TIME THE COURT NOTIFIES YOU TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAY RE ENTERED AGAINST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE COMPLAINT. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHELD OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN AND SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTEND TO OPPOSE THLS ACTION, RONOF FAIL 10.ANSWER WITHIN. DHE REQUIRED. TIME, I you wish wo talc toa lawyer and feel that you canna afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, promptly contact one of the offices of he Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5106) for help or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., for more information concerning places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation ‘Vea al dorso la taduccién al espaol ‘CV-3110 (Rev, June 2017) Super, Ct Gi. R4‘TRIBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL DISTRITO DE COLUMBIA, DIVISION CIVIL, Seccién de Acciones Civiles 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000, Washington, D.C. 20001 “Teléfono: (202) 879-1133 Sitio web: www.decourts-gov WP Company LLC dib/a/ The Washington Post Bemandante contra Némero de Caso: Council ofthe District of Columbia Demandads CITATORIO Al susodicho Demandado: Por la presente se le cita a comparecer y se le require entregar una Contestacién a la Demanda adjunta, sea en persona 0 por medio de un abogado, en el plazo de veintidn (21) dias contados después que usted haya recibido este Citatorio, excluyendo ef dia mismo de la entrega del citatorio, Si usted est siendo demandado en calidad de oficial 0 agente del Gobicmo de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica o det Gobierno del Distrito de Columbia, tiene usted sesenta (60) dias, contados después que usted haya recibido este citatorio, para entregar su Contestacién, Tiene que enviarle por correo una copia de su Contestacién al abogado de ta parte demandante. El nombre y direccién del abogado aparecen al final de este documento, Si el demandado no tiene abogado, tiene que enviarle al demandante una copia de la Contestacién por correo a la direceién que aparece en este Citatorio, A usted tambign se le require presentar la Contestacién original al Tribunal en ta Oficina 5000, sito en $00 Indiana Avenue, N.W., entre las 8:30 a.m. y 5:00 p.m, de tunes a viernes 0 entre las 9:00 a.m. y las 12:00 del mediodia los sdbados, Usted puede presentar la Contestacién original ante el Juez ya sea antes que usted le entregue al demandante una copia de la Contestacién 0 en el plazo de sicte (7) dias de haberle hocko la entrega al demandante. Si usted incumple con presentar una Contestacién, podria dictarse un fallo en rebeldia contra usted para que se haga cefectivo el desagravio que se busca en la demanda. Chad R. Bowman 'SECRETARIO DEL TRIBUNAL Nombre del abogudo del Demandante Ballard Spahr LLP, 1909 K Street, NW Por: Direccibn Subsecretaro ‘Washington, DC 20008 (202) 661-2200 Fecha ‘Teléfono S0RRAE RET (202) 878-4828 Vou appoler au (202) 879-4828 pour ne reduction Dem ech, hy i (202) 870-4828 ‘WeRcEoRPHI(202)879-4828 RARIMESLAIG: — HANG cH aeTAe (202) 670-4828 AO IMPORTANTE: SI_ USTED INCUMPLE CON PRESENTAR UNA CONTESTACION EN EL PLAZO ANTES MENCIONADO 0, SI LUEGO DE CONTESTAR, USTED NO COMPARECE CUANDO LE AVISE EL sUZGADO, PODREA DICTARSE UN FALLO EN REBELDIA CONTRA USTED PARA QUE SE LE COBRE LOS DANOS Y PERIUICIOS U OTRO DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA. Si ESTO OCURRE, PODRIA RETENERSELE SUS INGRESOS, O- PODRIA TOMARSELE SUS BIENES PERSONALES O BIENES RAICES Y SER VENDIDOS PARA PAGAR EL FALLO. SI USTED PRETENDE OPONERSE A ESTA ACCION, NO DEJE DE CONTESTAR LA DEMANDA DENTRO DEL PLAZO- EXIGIDO. Si dosoe conversar con un abogado y le paroce que no puode pagarle a uno, lame pronto a una de nucstras oficinas det Legal Aid Society (202-628-1161) 0 el Neighborhood Legal Services (202-279-5100) para pedir ayuda o venga a la Oficina 5000 del 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., para informnarse sobre otros lugares donde puede pedirayuda al respecto, ‘Vea at dorso el original en inglés Sce reverse side for English original €V-3110 [Rey June 2017), Super. Ct Civ. R.4Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Past _ Case Number: vs Date:__Sentember 25, 2019 Council of the District af Columbia 1 One of the defendants is being sued in their official capacity Name: (Please Print) Relationship to Lawsuit Matthew E. Kelley Firm Name: [A Attomey for Plainift Ballard Spahr LLP 1D sare se) Telephone No. ‘Six digit Unified Bar No. (202) 661-2200 1018126 Elon TYPE OF CASE: [3 Non-Jury © 6 Person Jury © 12 Person Jury Demand: $ Other: PENDING CASE(S) RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case No, Judge: Calendar # Case No Judge: Calendar NATURE OF SUIT: __(Check One Box Only) A. CONTRACTS, COLLECTION CASES Cor Breach of Con (114 Under $25,000 Pi Graats Conseat [16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied loz Breach of Warranty 17 OVER $25,000 Pitt, Grants Consent] 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied B06 Negotiable Instrument 27 Insurance’Subrogation (26 InsurancerSuibrogation [07 Personat Propeny Over $25,000 Pht. Grants Consent ‘Over $25,040 Consent Denied [213 Employment Discrimination] 07 Insurance/Subrogation 134 Insurance/Subrogation [EIS Special Education Fees ‘Under $25,000 Plif Grants Consent Under $25,040 Consent Denied F128 Motion to Confirm Arbitration ‘Award Collection Cases Only) B. PROPERTY TORTS Dot Automodite 103 Destruction of Private Propeny 1 05 Trespass 02 Comersion (04 Property Damage [07 Shopng, D.C. Code § 27-102 (a) C.PERSONAL TORTS 01 Abuse of Process 2 10 tmvasion of Privacy (17 Personal Injury (Not Automobile, [B02 Alienation of Affection 111 Libel and Slander Not Malpractice) (505 Assauit and Battery 1 2? Malicious Interference TB tsWrongful Death (Not Malpractice) [os Automoble- Personal tnjury [1 13 Malicious Prosecution 9 Wrongful Eviction 05 Deceit eMisrepresemation) E14 Malpractice Legal 20 Friendly Suit [06 Fatse Accusation CEUI5 suactiss Nodes ta Wesestpon) E21 Asbestos (07 Fatse Amest [ls Nestigence- (Not Automobile, ©) 22 Tosie/Mass Tons os Frava Not Malpractice) 123 Tobacco 24 Lead Pai SEE REVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE FUSED Ccy-s9.igune 2015Information Sheet, Continued C. OTHERS Tor Accounting or ant. Before Indgment Bos Ejectment Foe special Wriv Warrants (DC Code § 11-941) [110 trate Adjudication Tn wat orReplevin 12 Enforce Mechanics Lien B16 Declaratory Judgment 17 Merit Personnel Act (OBA) OC. Code Title 1, Chapter 6) 1 Bs Product Liabilsy 1 29 Merit Personnel Act (OFIR} 2 51 Housing Code Regulations O 32Qui Ta 33 Whistleblower (71 24 Application o Confirm, Modif. ‘Vacate Atbitration Award (DC Code § 16401) Dos change of Name 115 Libel of tnormation Dio Foreign JadgmenvDomestic [] 19 Enter Administrative Onder as los Foreign Judgmen/imernation:l Judgment (D.C, Code § 113 Conection of Binh Ceniticate 1802.03 (hor 32-151 9(@] (114 Comection of Marriage 1 20 Master Meter (D.C. Code § Ceniticae 42.3301, et seq) 26 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Vehicle) B21 Position for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Currency) TF 2s Pesition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Other) F721 Petition for Subpoena [Rule 26 (b)} 2 Release Mechanies Lien 25 Role 27001) (Perpetuate Testimony) 24 Patton for Sractured Settlement 1 25 Petition for Liquidation D. REAL PROPERTY 109 Reat Property-Real Estate I? Specie Performance [104 Condemnation (mincat Domain) [F710 Mongnge Foreclosure/Iudicial Sale (11 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (RP) or Quiet Tite (52s Liens: Tas / Water Consent Granted Tio Liens: Tax / Water Consent Denied 31 Tax Lien Bid OFF Cerificate Consent Granted Is! Matthew E, Kelley Attomey’s § nature (e¥s960 June 2015 September 25, 2019 Date