OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0005293327
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: September 29, 2010
• Case Number: F-2010-00666
• Publication Date: August 14, 2008

APPROVED FOR RELEASED
DATE: 18-Aug-2010
IN THE U ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
V.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGE'
Defendant.
s
Civil Action No, 08-0708 OR
X
T
OPPOSITION TO DEFEN }A\YS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUD
Plaintiff Jarn s Madison prefect ("J&1Iv-) I commenced t 1..s litigation pursuant to the
~~,=,a , ii tier t rvtA`) to obtain copies of internal Central intelligence
Agency ("CIA") docunnen P,!-,aining to an internal review of the CIA's Inspector
General, John Flelo-erson ("Helgerson" ). and of the Office of tire. Inspector General
("OIG").
The CIA has repeatedly delayed the processing of this requestsi;.nce October 2007,
2008. That response asserted that no documents Were located. The record reflects,
however, t1
detailed affidavit oil the adequacy of the search or allow J1sIP -c conduct limited
discovery to idea
organization that was created in 1998 for the primary 1 ul
is ues relating TO' se du at ng the public on
to iCelli
u ence gathering and operations; secrecy policies, national
seerity, and goven e,_r wrongdoing. Much of the work uncle rakers by JMP involves
litigation under FOIA.
 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUN,-D
The factual and procedural background concerning IMP s FC1A request at issue in
this litigation is set out in detail in the CIA's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in
Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (filed July 14, 2008)("CIA's
Memo'), the CA's Declaration of Delores M. Nelson (dated July 14, 2005)("Nelson
Declaration"), and JMP's Rule 56(f) Declaration of Bradley P. Moss. Esq. ("Moss
Deel."), all of which are incorporated herein by reference.'
ARGUMENT
The CIA has moved fear su=nn2at~' judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Sutnmzra,judtnnent should be granted only if the moving party has
entitled to ;,,A,...,
material fact and that the moving parry is
facts showing that ti
r other competent evidence set in.g forth; specific
slue for trial. Fed, R. Civ. P. 56(e): see Celotex
The factual statements .,ade i t the CIA's Memo and the Nelson Declaration are
incorporated only i.n r0i z ton to pages 2 through 3 and p ragraphs 15
e respectivelv respectively gh 19,
and only to the extent that they do not constitute legal characterizations and
conclusions.
 purposes of summary judgment. The burden rests upon the
available to a defendant agency that has fully discharged its obligations Under FOIA. See
\uolf v CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cit. 2007); tVeisberm v U S Det?,t of Justice.
705 F.2d 1344, 1 350 (D.C. Cr, 1983).
I:. THE CIA FAILED TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE SEARCH FOR
RESPONSIVE RECORDS AND GENM, E ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT
RE IAIN PRECLUDING SU1LMARY JUDGMENT AT THIS TIME
A. The CIA Is Unable At This Time To Demonstrate It Conducted An
Adequate Search For Responsive Records
There is no dispute regarding the overarching case law pertaining to the adequacy of
reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Id, at 1351. See also Campbell
applied to determine the adequacy of a search methodology consist.ent With
congressional inter
d a material doubt that it has conducted a search
of disclosure), Put Wore succinctly. the CIA
e a good faith effort to conduct a seardr for the requested
20 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C. Cit.
I190)(citations omitted;.
it is also undisputed that court may rely upon agency affidavits in adjudicating the
adequacy of the search, Found;r-,a Church of Scientolo ti 'vat'1 Sec. Aeencv, 610 F.2d
824, 836 (D.C. Cir. 1979), so long as those affidavits are detailed, nonconclusory and
submitted in good faith. Cola nd
607 F.2d 339, 352 (D.C. Cin j q78); pens v.
Block. 684 F2d 121, 127 (D.C. Cir. 1982)(per curram)(,_ghii h.tin2 that affidavits must
 shed sufficient light on "scope and method of the search condu.Cted. by the agency").
"Even if these conditions are met the requestor may nonetheless produce counteavailir
evidence, and if the sufficiency of the agency's identification or retrieval procedure is
610 F.2d at 836. See also id. at 837 ("To accept its claim of inability to retrieve the
m
-
d i
rese
t
-
--
--- p
~
e
s to Haase the specter of easy
n of the Freedom of Information Act ... and if, in the face of well-defined
advcrsai ' scrutiny of its search techniques, the Act
Icy can so easily avoid
But see Wilbu= v CIA, 355 F.3d 675. 678 (D.C. Cit. 2004)("Lii wise, the agency's
failure to turn up a patticuiar document, or mere speculation that as yet uncovered
documents might exist, does not undermine the determination that the agency conducted
an adequate search for the requested rec(n ds."}(citrsLions on
Therefore, the central issue here is whether the specif
----~?~w ?....~~. Maio, ouuuwlnu C.ntiren of
xctez v, 610 F .2d at 837, i =i ch would have bee.] found if the CIA had conducted a
search for those documents in places in which they
ur.' ;ti2zller v. 1..g Dgt j5 L,,. 779 F.2d 1378, 1385 (Sth Or, 4
?5)(en2phasis
added), cited with a~laroyal in hu side Gr Comotmller of t e Ct encv. 315 Fad 311.
315 (D.C. (-',ir. 2003).
Ton the Nelson Declaration, the CIA asserts that
since it: a) searched for
responsive records in at least one (1) records system in which the identified scope of
regulations would arguably be , taintained; and b) utilized at least seven (7) different
 search terms in conducting the search, there does not remain any substantial doubt as to
the reasonableness
Of ?he CIA's search and therefore no genuine issue of material fact
exists. CIA's Memo at 9.
conclusively that Inc CIA conducted a diligent search. As will be demonstrated infra. the
bare-bones, boilerplate description. detailed. in the Nelson Declaration faits to provide this
Court with any semblance of a comprehensive assessment of the adequacy of the CIA's
c y required by the law of this Circuit JMP can also
(Ictnonstrate that at issue here is not a "purely speculative" claim about the existence of
responsive documens, see Ground Saucer Watch v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770, 771 {7).C. Cir.
1981). as JMP ca a :if. cou:rtervailmg evidence by way of at lea
federal statute and CIA ofdiciai public statement, to sav nothing of pure common sense.
At some appropriate time tile CI.A. may in fact be entitle as 11 matter of law. to
summary judgment regardzhg the adequacy of its search, but based upon the current
record-consisting of the Nelson Declaration-.-its not yet that time.
B. The CIA s Nelson Declaration Is Insufficient For Purposes Of Summary
Judgment, As It Fails To Provide This Court With Sufficient Factual
Context Within Which To Evaluate The Adequacy Of The CIA's Search
1. Th yclsortD l,rations'DescriprtorrOf lneSearchTerms ,firedLocation,
Par amend rs Used Ina The CIA's Search Is lhsn r ieiently Detailed find
Leaves Open :Severn,? hridetztiary Gaps
Agency affidavits must "explain ir.-. reasonable detail the scope and method of the
search conducted by the agency [sufficient] to demonstrate comp iance with the
2007), c g ating Pern-, F,b-'. F.2d at 127, An affidavit that
 afford a FOIA requester an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search and to
allow the district court to determine if the search was adequate in order to grant summary
judgment" will be deemed insufficient. See Morley. 508 F.3d at 11
insufficient a CIA affidavit that failed to identify search terms, explain how the search
was conducted in each component, or give an indication of what each component's
search specifically yielded). Where. the agency's responses raise serious doubts as to the
judgment in the govemment`s favor would usually be inappropriate. Perry, 684 F.2d at
127.
The Nelson Declaration's description of the search conducted for responsive records
consists largely of boilerplate language mostly devoid of any specific context. ` It first
The courts have previously add essed agency reliance upon boil tplate affidavits--
alb en in the context of Exemption One invocations on the grounds of national security-
a nd have permitted their use only to the extent that the agency's explanation was
uffciently tailored to its determination. See Coldron v Den, o 74stiee v 10 F. Sapp,
2d 44, 53 (D.D.C. 2004)(cautho i na that "'he court is not to be a wet blanket" and its
rev iew should not be vacuous. but ultimately conceding that the D,C. Circuit has
permitted agency use of boileit late affidavits in. Circumstances where the agency
explanations were sufficiently tailored to the specific redactions). See also SeIu eeker v
Deo't of instiee, 254 x 36 162, 166 (D.C. Cir. 2001)(relating to documents identifying,
confidential sources, disclosure should he expected to reveal the identity of a
confidential human source or reveal the identify of a human int ll once source when the
unauthorized disclosu of that source would clearly and demons rabiv dantaee the
national security intcres,s c. rig United States by fainting the FBI's ability to
continuously recruit sou-1-es for et rent and future use"): rlalnenn v CIA, 629 F.2d 144,
149 (D.C. Cir. 7980)(1 g ding the names of CIA attorneys disclosure would "tend to
reveal details of [inteil acncej activities and that representatives ofhostile, foreign
in elygence services vt0'king i' this country who, by" a variety of techniques, can
undertake, courses of action to asc rIai i what other contacts, what other locations, and
then arrive at determinations o'h'-her [the CIA's attorneys are] doing any other function
for the Central Intelligence Arc cs )(internal quotations counted)i Coldiron, 31.0 F.
Supp.
2d at 52-54 (nphoudmg the sufficiency of the FBI's affidavits only after concluding
that the FBI indicated that disclosure of particular passages would make available the
 generically describes the organization of the CIA record systems. Nelson Deal. at
It subsequently detai
edures by which the CIA conducts a search for records. to
at?1.0.Itisthese yrocedv,es mat are of considerable intporiance in assessing the
adequacy of the CIA's search, as the. Nelson Declaration explains that each individual
CIA component devises its own search strategy for processing a FOIA request. Each
individual strategy includes "he identification of particular records systems that will. be
The Nelson Declaration, however, does not even attempt to provide this Court wit,
an explanation of the particu
conducting the search, includutff which particular search teims_if different -were used
by each separate component. Insica,
sentences that rely heavily upon con
at ?i 19 ("The CIA search rnclucz'ed ti
a p., 1..11._,. -, .
it condenses its entire explanation into two mere
usory adjectives and ambiguous language. See id.
Director of Central Intelligence Agency ("DCIA")
ctnon L.enter (DAC"') and the
independent offic s of the Office of Inspector Genera! ("GIG"), the Office of General
Counsel ("OGC ). and the Office of Public Affairs (?OPA"), These offices used a t ar igFn;
~P7g. sternal review of operations,' :CIA's
Inspector General,' 'John L. Helgerson,' `GIG,' 'Office of Inspector General,' `GIG
internal review,' and `Deitz review-"')(emphasis added).
This explanation leaves op 'n several evidentia`s gaps, i ludingg. for example:
very criteria used by the FBI to decide what actions warranted an investigation and that
disclosure would , ev. eai the cooperation of foreign'gove..
mments)
 I) whether the CIA search included components other than the DCIA area; 2) whether
search within the DCIA area actually involved the record systems of the DAC, 0IG,
0GC and OPA; 3) whether other record systems within the DC1A area were searched:
4) which of the "example" search terms were used in which particular records systems:
5) what other search terms were used in conducting the search: and 6) whether and to
what degree the CIA revised its initial search in light of infotnnadon discovered during
Initial phases of the search. including information from relevant but non-responsive
hed as Exhibit"1". Such e.identiars' gaps
undermine this Court's ability to assess the adequacy of the CIA's search and render the
OTIC'S appears 4irraal1v .nEfiStir r,? a~.ccu~ ~ti Inc 1JA,, L-trcujt in
u;suable fro-III the Nelson Dectasation_
The [Dorms] Declaration i;x,utpo ates a general explanation of how the agency
responds to all F101
requests, and after describing how a single FOIA request must
be divvied tip between n lnpie component units within the CIA, Dorn states that
`each component must then devise its own search strategy, which includes identi5'ing
which of its records `1 stems to search as well as what search tools, indices, and temi,s
to employ." But the two b , ` paragraphs in the Declaration explaining the search
itself
_-
_u ?,? c.A},~~~ caGJ GllaSgeQ
sponding to Morhe;'s FOIA request. Dom merely idcntifles the three
vac = c omponen .,a,, conuuctea to
The remainder of the Declaration describes only basic CIA
Policy regarding 1 OIA responses and a description of the CIA's correspondence with
Morley.
leriev, 508 F .3d at 1122 (citat ohs omitted)(emphasis added). Similarly, the NcJson
Declaration fails to identify which particular search terms wen e used in relation to the
different nor ?ta, , ~_.
 The Ae/sor, ~eclara?ion Fails To Fxptain In ray Conte The
.n
easonaaleness P/ Its Imposifroz Of A.n
The D.C. Circuit has previously addressed the issue of temporal hnits, such as a
"time-of-request cut-off" policy, in the context of the adequacy of an agency's POIA
search and has maintained that that the legal standard for a temporal limit is whether the
"[imitation is consistent with the agency's duty to take reasonahie steps to ferret out
I983)(emphasis
Public Citizen inc. v, Den't. of State, 276 F.3d 634,
the language of the FOIA and authoritative case late' establishes that the use of 's time-of-
request cut-offs always reasonable), The burden of demonstrating that the imposition of
a temporal limit upon a FOI4 search comports with the agency's obligation to conduct a
697 Fad at 1101. Therefore, in t_he context of a motion for suntan judgment, the
agency is required to demo st ate that there is no genuine issue of mate
The Nelson Declaration . for its part,
fails to satisfi this burden. The CIA, by vi
ements, appears
ovember 5.2007. See CIA's Memo, Exhibit "B"
("Ex. B"). See also CIA's Memo, Exhibit "D" ("Ex. D"){-Our processing included a
search of records as described in our 5 November 2007 accepta~ree lette xis
the date ofthat leue )(emphasis added). The Nelson Declaration, however, does not
address this issue in any way shape, or form, even if simply to reiterate that an "end-
date" for responsive records was imposed. See Nelson Deci, at c 19. It does not verify
 vidence of
the insufficiency of the Nelson Declaration.
Even if the Nelson Declaration had addressed the issue, it is 71111"s position that
uld be Unreasonable in light of the CIA's
processing the search. During those eight months.
ich the CIA apparently took no action on JMP's request, the "internal inquiry
as concluded and changes to the operations of the OIC and the structure of the CIA's
oversight of the OIG were implemented, See, e g, Exhibit "2"' 'CIA Tells of Changes
for its Internal Inquiries"): Exhibit "3" ("CIA Sets Changes to IC`s O;~ersight, Adds
Ombudsman"); Exhibit "4" ; der; ;ling the
review).
the CIA concluded its search in "early July 2008" and chose to rely upon the original.
"end-date" OOf -November, 5, 210071. Nelson Decl, at' 19; Ex. D- By that point, the original
"end-date" was no lot 'x reasonable and arrnmbty should have been, modified to comport
with the changed circumsrau es This type of behavior was rejected as unreasonable by
line D.C. Circuit in ic.C oboe" and is equally unreasonable here..
6 The D-C Circuit highlighted that the CIA's imposition of an "end-date for its search to
,he first 35 days after the Jones or3n Tragedy, despite the agency's two-and-a-half yea
delay in responding to h1 Gehe< request, was not reasonable and remanded that portion
Of
tale case with instt uctiotis to the CIA to "do better than it has thus far." ivlcCehee.
69-' F.2d at 1 103-04-
 3. The.t,'elsorr Declaration's Inclusion Gfhrelerant POIR Procedures
For reasons known only to the CIA, the Nelson. Declaration includes generic.
e plate desc ptio is of CIA FOIA procedures penairing to the review of
applicability of FOIA exemptions, ntakim,
redactions to withhold exempted intt'onnation, and segregating exempt information.
records, none of those three pro
request.
T
t,e Nelson Declaration's inclusion of this information should raise concerns as to the
CIA's good faith in its submission of an affidavit that is required to he "sufficientiv
detailed" and tailored specifically to this particular FOIA litigation it, order to pros ide
scarch, Moss Decl at 1 . In e`, the ff Nelson Declaration's description of the CIA's
search consists solely of.. a) generic explanations rcgardina CIA's FOIA procedures
(some irrelevant) and records systems; b) a recitation ofIMP's FCIA request
correspondence with CIA; c) two vague and insufficient sentences
system searched and search terms used; and d) one self scrvna s
the CIA's search was
records 7 See Nelson Decl. at Qf; 7-19. This description does not and cannot meet th
CIA's burden of providing an affidavit that is "detailed- and "nonconclusorv.,,
The CIA's tills ubst ntiated assertion that its search was diligent and adequate is of little
consequence. or importance na assessing whether, for pumoser Of
sununary judgment; he
CIA has met its burden of demonstrating that there is no gene. t e issue of material fact
egaadnxg the adequacy of its search. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has held that "[rieliance on
 The Nelson Deeiaratioc' vague description of the search terms and location
parameters utilized in conducting the search, as
reasonableness underlying its iinposition of the original "end-date" and its inclusion of
irrelevant FOIA procedures. renders it insufficiently detailed u, deprives this court of
an adequate conteY in which to assess the adequacy of the CIA's search. Therefore, the
CIA's Motion for Stmmatn. judgment ("CIA's Motion"
minimum, submission by the CI.A of a more sufficiently
additional searches and agency review.
C. JMP Can Identify Countervailing Evidence In Light Of The Applicability
Of The Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 And CIA Official Public
Statements That Raise A Genuine issue Of laterial Fact Regarding The
Ad
'
equacy Of The CIA
s Search
While it is true that the inability of an agency to find a particular document does not
generally render a search inadequate, in certain circumstances a court may place
significant weight on the fact that a records search failed to rum up a particular document.
U S ep??., 71 F.3d 885, 892, n./-7
(D.C. Cir. 1995). Sce also i{-ikot: to v I)e-t't of Sta c, 984 F.2d 461, 468 (D.C. Cir.
sea hell). At a mini3um, JM can direct this Court's attention to at least one. federal
--,&'-'v" "Y"'i u,c ue s to Create records responsive
mandates that the OIG Prepare and submit to the CIA Director a classifi
report ("the IG r(port") st nzmarizingr the OIG's activities dune
affida\ to demonstrate agency compliance with the mandate of the FOIA does not,
t o s ever, require courts to accept glib govemment assertions o_ complete disclosure or
tsieval." Perry, 684 F._d at 126,
 preceding six-month period. 50 U.S.C. ? 403q(d)(i). The CIA Director subsequently is
ad to transmit+t1tat report to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence ("HPSCI") and the Senate Select Committee on intelligence ("SSCP') with
any comments he may deem appropriate. Id. See Exhibit ,' ( Semiannual Report to the
Director, Central Intelligence Agency: July _ Dece.nber 2005"),
In its original POIA r ,uest, JMP provided the CIA ,k t_7 copies ofnews articles from
authorized an "internal inquiry" into the activities of the OIG as a whole, and He]gerson
"See also Exhibit "6" ("C;A Chief Defends
Review on Agency's Inspector General"). As indicated in a routine
briefing between
Helgerson and SSCI staff members in October 200-1,. ti;c "i iaerm zl inquiry" began w. April
2007 and was being conducted by Director Hayden's senior counselor Robert L. Dietz.
C
un,ize CI'{ Director's Review Order"), In a pair of news
articles dated Fehiu r%, 2, 2005, at which point 7t,IP's request was still being processed
administratively, Director H at de.n verified that the "internal my ,in," had been concluded
and that Heigerson had a r i ed to "tighter controls over the 01&s as?esti`_ative
procedures, as well as the appointment of an ombudsman and a "c ,uality control officer'
to oversee the actiti ti. s of the OiG. See Exhibit
Exhibit `See also Exhibit "4"
(detailing the job responsibilities of the "quality contras off er" and the ombudsman).'
a1111 c.aa spoxesman Paul Girragliano. h) Office of
Legislative Counsel for the IG reports that Director Hayden was required to provide to
the HPSCI and SSCI , ~t ah
 Given that the "inteInai iiigquiIZ'" lasted approximately ten months and spanned tluee
different reporting usterva?s, the O1G was obligated by the CIA Act to create at least three
setniannual reports summarizing its activities that would have included references to the
"internal inquiry," including: 1) efforts to cooperate with the inquiry, 2) discussions
within OIG and with other CIA officials regarding possible changes to the. OIG's
investigative procedures and the appointment of an ombudsman and a "quality control
for this Court to con
o locate these records is assuredly a relevant factor
the reasonableness of the CIA's search.9
fight of the in ufficiency of the Nelson Declaration and JNlIP's identification of
countervailing c
demonstrating d
form of at least one statutory provision that required the
;ids, the CIA has failed to meet its burden of
al fact pertaining to the adequacy
,ore. the CL-Vs Motion should be denied pending. at a minintutn.
"internal inquiry" with Director Hayden's senior counselor, Robert U. Dietz. On its own,
this tailor' would not necessarily b
ffi
i
e st=
e
ent to
raii i
se a genunessue of material fact,
but when combined with the i- a tr lent ex
lanati
i
h
p
ons
n t
e Nelso Dlifh
necaraton o te
C IA's search and the CI i.'s f artre to identify the three IG reports whose creation was
star Itoriiv-mandated the f ac-, that -,he CIA could not identify a Iigle responsive
record
p td; n,r to this fins SuG a ion is 1,i,,-hty suspect.
Tile fact that JMP s original FOIA r cones' does not s iecifically seems
l _ - _ 1 records i)efYain2na
to the urn to
conc
, unresponsive the
'ports created in compliance with the CIA Act. The D.C. Circuit has previously held that
agencies have a duty to consume FOIA requests liberaify to ensure responsive records are
of overlooked. See Z aie,tcia_I ce a. 180 F .3d at 326. A reasonable. liberal construction
of ?MP's request for documents p r nine to discussions cone m ne
mnfate an intana= r , , the decision to
 submission by the CIA o
additional searches and agency review.
II. ALTERNATIVELY, J Tp IS ENTITLED TO CONDUCT ?,Ii?IITED
DISCOVERY TO ASCERTAIN THE ADEQUACY OF "I IE CIA'S
SEARCH
F 01A with reg.
facts essential tojus
o Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
id usethi tool in the proper judicial administration of tht
ches that are inadequate. "If a pinny opposing [a motion
affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present
ition, the court may:.. , order a continuance to enable
ositions to be taken, or other discovery to he undertaken ...
n most FOIA cases the government possesses all of the
le to use diseoven- to u .cover- facts to determine the
adequacy of the g,i `cna'-3ac'n.'s search or the exempt status of requested documents. See
x%cisberg Webster , 749 F -2d 864. 868 (D C. Cir, 1944). ` C,, en the insufficiency of
the Nelson Declaration and the subsequent inability by, the CIA to den,onstr
1999)
d the factual data and logical inferences presented by
While the court was addressing the particular right of the gOver nment to
discovery. it affirmed that right by stating; that utilize
Should be able to utilize the government. "like any other litigant,"
tie ru..s ofdiseove y. Weisberg 749 F.2d at 868.
eons have interpreted this to ;Wean that "a FOIA
U4LC 4
Morley v CIA, 2006 WI. 280645, i (D.D.C. Feb. 6.
e Com , 663 F.2d 120, 127 (D.C_ CIr- 1980). cited bv
in` r27 237 inn r.
--
 Weisbere, 705 F,2d at i 348 (pennitting discover' to resolve material tactual dispute
regarding adequacy of
Discovery does not need to be overly burdensome or excessive in scope. At a
tni timunh, a limited number of inten-ogatories and depositions will be necessary to
search methodology was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive documents in
ii? at of that information. Discovery would. address several, previously-identified gaps in
the CIA's description of its search for records, including, for example: 1 which
particular search terms were utilized with respect to different particular components or
offices; 2) to what extent, if any, the CIA revised its sears
osed as a limitation on the search- Moss Decl, at fl is.
 CONCLIJ:SIO\
For the foregoing reasons, the CIA's Motion for Summaiv Judgment should be
denied, pending the submission by CIA's counsel of a inore, su?pcicntiy detailed
affidavit, or, altem.tiveip, iMP should be permitted to undertake h titer discovery.
Date: August 11, 2008
Bradley P. Moss, Faq.
D.C. Barr975?.;0>
Mark S. Zaid, Fsa_
D.C. Bar 4440532
Mark S. Zaid. P.C.
1250 C.on nec.ticut Al-enue, \,CV
Suite 200
Washmaton, D.C. 20036
[phone]
[phone] tax
[e-mail]
-t arki RIarkZa;d.coin
Kelly Brian McClanahan
Y'S Bar #4563748
Mark S. Zaid, F.C.
1250 Connecticut Avenue, \.\
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
Kel. .JamesMadisoiiProj ec t. orc'
Of Counsel