United States District Court For The District of Columbia

Case 1:06-cv-00883-RCL Document 75 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 06-883 (RCL)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HOMELAND SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

CLAIMS I - III
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, defendant hereby moves for summary
judgment on Claims I through III of plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. The basis for this
motion is set forth in the attached memorandum.
Dated: December 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
United States Attorney
CARL J. NICHOLS
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Branch Director
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
1
Assistant Branch Director

OF COUNSEL:
s/ Justin M. Sandberg
LIZA MURPHY JUSTIN M. SANDBERG
MOLLY WEBER (Ill. Bar. No. 6278377)
United States Secret Service Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. #7224
P.O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-3489
Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
E-mail: justin.sandberg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 06-883 (RCL)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )
HOMELAND SECURITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S

SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON CLAIMS I - III
1. By a letter dated February 2, 2006, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request seeking “all
records relating to any visit” made by eight named individuals, including “Shawn
Vassell,” “to the White House or the residence of the Vice President from January 1,
2001, to the present.” FOIA Request, Feb. 2, 2006, at 1 (attached as Exhibit A to Second
Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Aug. 9, 2006 [“Second
Amend. Compl.”], Doc. No. 30)
2. In September 2006, following a reasonable search, defendant released to plaintiff all
known responsive records, which amounted to more than 350 pages. See Memorandum
in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FOIA Claims, Sept. 21, 2006
(“Memo.”), at 1-2 (attached to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FOIA Claims,
1
Sept. 21, 2006 (“Motion to Dismiss”), Doc. No. 45); Declaration of Kathy J. Lyerly,
September 21, 2006 (“Lyerly Decl.”) (attached to Memo.), ¶ 3
3. The records released comprised predominantly Worker and Visitor Entrance System
(“WAVES”) data/records and Access Control Records System ("ACR") data/records,
which generally speaking record the dates and times of visits by individuals to the White
House Complex (also “Complex”), and which were described in detail in the declaration
of Kathy J. Lyerly, see Lyerly Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.
4. In December 2006, defendant filed a declaration describing additional potentially relevant
categories of records that it had not previously identified. See Declaration of Paul S.
Morrissey, Dec. 12, 2006 (“Morrissey Decl.”) (attached to Notice of Filing, Dec. 12,
2006, Doc. No. 59)). Though it was not clear whether the records in all of these
categories were responsive, defendant searched them. See id. ¶ 4. One responsive record
was located and released to plaintiff as a discretionary matter. Id.
5. In the course of reviewing potentially responsive records for a different FOIA case,
defendant has identified as potentially responsive several categories of records that were
not discussed in previous filings in this case, including (i) certain Large Event Summaries
that were transferred to the White House Office of Records Management (“WHORM”),
and (ii) Sensitive Security Records. Second Declaration of Paul S. Morrissey, Dec. 11,
2007 (“Second Morrissey Decl.”), ¶¶ 4-5, 7-8 (attached as Exhibit 1); Declaration of
Craig W. Ulmer, Dec. 11, 2007 (“Ulmer Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-7, 11 (attached as Exhibit 2). .
6. These categories of records were searched. Second Morrissey Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 7-8; Ulmer
Decl. ¶¶ 5-7, 11. Two responsive Large Event Summaries were located by the WHORM,
2
and defendant located one or more Sensitive Security Records relating to one or more of
the individuals named in plaintiff’s FOIA request.1 Second Morrissey Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7;
Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 6-7; 12-13. No other responsive records were found. Second Morrissey
Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8; Ulmer Decl. ¶ 5.
7. Large Event Summaries are created using data from the WAVES and reflect the names
and appointment times of those individuals scheduled to visit the White House for events
of 20 or more people. Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 6.
8. The WAVES Center, a component of defendant, sometimes prints out these summaries.
Id. Summaries printed by the WAVES Center are transferred to the WHORM.2 Id.
9. With the consent, and at the direction, of the Office of the President (“OP”) and the
Office of the Vice President (“OVP”), the WHORM searched for potentially responsive
Large Event Summaries and located two, each containing the name “Shawn Vasell.”
Second Morrissey Decl. ¶¶ 7.
10. These records were transferred to defendant for processing under the FOIA (i.e., for an
assessment of what, if any, exemptions should be claimed.). Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 7;
Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 13.
11. To protect the security of the White House Complex, defendant redacted from Large
Event Summaries, under Exemption 2 in conjunction with Exemption 7(e), limited
1
For simplicity’s sake, the potentially responsive record or records will be referred to only
in the plural form.
2
Officers on posts, as well another operational section of defendant, print out these
summaries; prior to early 2007, the other operational section retained the summaries for several
months before discarding them, while the officers likely discarded the lists shortly after printing
them. Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 6 n.3.
3
information from background checks and instructions to Secret Service officers. Ulmer
Decl. ¶ 23. Releasing this information would create a security risk as the information
reflects the circumstances in which individuals may be admitted to the White House
Complex. Ulmer Decl. ¶ 23.
12. To protect the privacy interests of individuals, defendant also redacted, from Large Event
Summaries, dates of birth and Social Security numbers of visitors to the Complex, as well
as the name of a Secret Service Uniformed Division Officer. Ulmer ¶¶ 25, 28-31.
Defendant made these redactions pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(c). Ulmer ¶ 28.
Releasing this information would unduly invade individuals’ privacy interests. Id.
13. With the consent of the OP, defendant, through its counsel, has released to plaintiff with
this filing, and with the redactions discussed above, the Large Event Summaries relating
to “Shawn Vasell.” Ulmer Decl. ¶ 7.
14. Sensitive Security Records relate to the background investigation and security processes
sometimes undertaken in connection with visits to the White House Complex. Second
Morrissey Decl. ¶ 3; Ulmer Decl. ¶ 10. These records are created in the course of
conducting additional background checks and other security-related activities regarding
certain visitors, who are chosen based on certain details in their backgrounds and/or the
circumstances of their visits. Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 3; Ulmer Decl. ¶ 10. Included in
these records are the names and other identifying information concerning such visitors
(including, in some cases, their birth dates and/or Social Security numbers) and
background information on them or information regarding their visits to the Complex,
4
which may include criminal history and/or other security-related information. Second
Morrissey Decl. ¶ 3.
15. Defendant searched the Sensitive Security Records and located responsive records.
Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 4; Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12.
16. Defendant addresses these records together because it cannot confirm or deny the
existence of potentially responsive records with respect to any single individual without
compromising its ability to carry out its protective function. Ulmer Decl. ¶ 22.
17. Releasing the name of an individual whose visit did or did not prompt the additional
protective activities documented by the Sensitive Security Records would provide
valuable insight into the circumstances in which such records are (or are not) created. Id.
This information could allow persons so inclined to figure out the nature of the protective
activities reflected in these records. Id.
18. The responsive Sensitive Security Records are exempt from disclosure because they
contain information that (i) is useless to the general public because it relates solely to the
internal practices of the Secret Service, Ulmer Decl. ¶ 21, or if released, would impinge
(ii) on the Secret Service’s ability to fulfill its protective duties, Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 22, 24, or
(iii) on individuals’ privacy interests, Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 25, 27, 29-31.
Dated: December 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted,
JEFFREY S. BUCHOLTZ
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR
5
United States Attorney
CARL J. NICHOLS
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Branch Director
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Assistant Branch Director
OF COUNSEL:
s/ Justin M. Sandberg
LIZA MURPHY JUSTIN M. SANDBERG
MOLLY WEBER (Ill. Bar. No. 6278377)
United States Secret Service Trial Attorney
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. #7224
P.O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station
Washington, D.C. 20044
Telephone: (202) 514-3489
Facsimile: (202) 616-8202
E-mail: justin.sandberg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant

United States District Court For The District of Columbia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court For The District of Columbia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:06-cv-00883-RCL Document 75 Filed 12/11/2007 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DEFENDANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON

motion is set forth in the attached memorandum.

Dated: December 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

Assistant Branch Director

Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S

Amend. Compl.”], Doc. No. 30)

2. In September 2006, following a reasonable search, defendant released to plaintiff all

(“Memo.”), at 1-2 (attached to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s FOIA Claims,

September 21, 2006 (“Lyerly Decl.”) (attached to Memo.), ¶ 3

(“WAVES”) data/records and Access Control Records System ("ACR") data/records,

of Kathy J. Lyerly, see Lyerly Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.

4. In December 2006, defendant filed a declaration describing additional potentially relevant

was located and released to plaintiff as a discretionary matter. Id.

the individuals named in plaintiff’s FOIA request.1 Second Morrissey Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7;

Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8; Ulmer Decl. ¶ 5.

of 20 or more people. Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 6.

Second Morrissey Decl. ¶¶ 7.

assessment of what, if any, exemptions should be claimed.). Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 7;

Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 13.

Event Summaries, under Exemption 2 in conjunction with Exemption 7(e), limited

Complex. Ulmer Decl. ¶ 23.

to “Shawn Vasell.” Ulmer Decl. ¶ 7.

conducting additional background checks and other security-related activities regarding

background information on them or information regarding their visits to the Complex,

Second Morrissey Decl. ¶ 4; Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 6, 12.

protective activities documented by the Sensitive Security Records would provide

activities reflected in these records. Id.

(iii) on individuals’ privacy interests, Ulmer Decl. ¶¶ 25, 27, 29-31.

Dated: December 11, 2007 Respectfully submitted,

United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

You might also like