Case 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 6legaltimes.typepad.com/files/hunton-williams-foia-complaint.pdfCase 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1-2 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 19

Case 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 6






EXHIBIT A

Case 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1-1 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 5





EXHIBIT B


ATLANTA AUSTIN BANGKOK BEIJING BRUSSELS CHARLOTTE DALLAS HOUSTON LONDON LOS ANGELES McLEAN MIAMI NEW YORK NORFOLK RALEIGH RICHMOND SAN FRANCISCO TOKYO WASHINGTON

www.hunton.com

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10166-0005 TEL 212 • 309 • 1000 FAX 212 • 309 • 1100

PATRICK L. ROBSON DIRECT DIAL: 212 • 309 • 1157 EMAIL: [email protected] FILE NO: 46124.930

June 4, 2013

BY CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Richard J. Osterman, Jr. Acting General Counsel Legal Division, FOIA/Privacy Act Group Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20429-9990

Re: Appeal of Denial of FOIA Request No. 13-0497

Dear Mr. Osterman:

By letter dated May 13, 2013, Hunton & Williams LLP (“Hunton”) submitted a request (the “Request”) to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., for certain documents relevant to the “Determination of Insufficient Assets to Satisfy Claims Against Financial Institution in Receivership” (the “Determination”) made by the FDIC on April 15, 2013 in connection with Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama (FIN #10103), notice of which Determination was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2013. See 78 Fed. Reg. 76, 23565. The Request asked that the FDIC process the requests “out of turn” pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 309.5(d)(5) so that Hunton’s client, Bank of America (“BoA”), could provide a timely and informed response to the FDIC’s motion to dismiss in the lawsuit captioned Bank of America, N.A. v. FDIC, 1:10-cv-01681-BJR (D.D.C.) (the “District Court Action”), which motion to dismiss was predicated entirely on the Determination.

The FDIC denied Hunton’s request for accelerated treatment of the Request. When the FDIC did respond to the Request, by letter from Jim Braun dated May 24, 2013, the FDIC indicated it was withholding all documents responsive to 12 of the 14 categories in the Request, purportedly because the responsive documents were exempt from disclosure under various provisions of FOIA. Specifically, the FDIC responded that the first category of documents in the Request—“The Administrative Record for the Determination and any related exhibits”—consisted of 36 pages but withheld the document(s) entirely based on FOIA Exemptions 4, 5, and 6. The FDIC also withheld documents responsive to categories 3-13 of the Request on the basis that the documents within those categories were “included in” or “duplicative of” the records responsive to category 1—i.e., the Administrative Record—


Richard J. Osterman, Jr. June 4, 2013 Page 2 and, according to the FDIC, were covered by the same FOIA exemptions. The FDIC further asserted that responding to categories 7-13 of the Request “would require the FDIC to undertake an unduly burdensome records search.” Accordingly, the FDIC refused to produce any documents responsive to categories 1 and 3-13 of the Request.1

Hunton hereby appeals the partial denial of its Request without prejudice to its right to pursue other legal remedies. Hunton’s specific grounds for appeal are set forth below. As a general matter, FOIA’s “exemptions from the basic disclosure requirement are to be narrowly construed with all doubts resolved in favor of disclosure.” E.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 409 F. Supp. 2d 379, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); accord Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass’n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001) (“[C]onsistent with the Act’s goal of broad disclosure, [its] exemptions have been consistently given a narrow compass …. FOIA exemptions are to be narrowly construed.”) (collecting authority; internal quotation marks omitted). It is the FDIC’s burden to justify any deviation from the general presumption of disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(5)(B).

The Determination and Access to the Underlying Administrative Record

Hunton objects to the FDIC’s refusal to produce the Administrative Record behind the Determination, together with 11 other categories of information that the FDIC contends are subsumed within that Administrative Record.

As noted above, the FDIC has cited the Determination as grounds for dismissing, with prejudice, BoA’s claims in the District Court Action. Moreover, the FDIC has asserted that the Determination is definitive and cannot be challenged in the District Court Action. Rather, the FDIC, through its counsel, has expressly asserted (1) that the Determination may be challenged solely by means of a proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”); and (2) that in testing such “an administrative decision under the APA, the court’s review is limited to the Administrative Record.” See May 24, 2013 letter from Christopher Morris to Patrick Robson (enclosed herewith) (emphasis added). Courts have indicated that review under the APA “is to be based on the full administrative record that was before the [agency] at the time [it] made [its] decision.” Walter O. Boswell Memorial Hosp. v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 788, 792 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (citation omitted). “To review less than the full administrative record might allow a party to withhold evidence unfavorable to its case, and so the APA requires review of ‘the whole record.’” Id. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706). 1 In response to categories 2 and 14, the FDIC (i) pointed to publicly available materials

on its website and (ii) provided certain records for which disclosure is required pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15)(B)-(C). In other words, the FDIC provided only materials that a party would be entitled to outside the FOIA process.


Richard J. Osterman, Jr. June 4, 2013 Page 3

It would violate fundamental norms of due process—as well as the fundamental premise of the APA that agency action is subject to judicial review—for the FDIC to insist that its actions may be reviewed only under a statute that requires resort to the Administrative Record, yet to withhold that record from the party whose interests are at stake. Each of the grounds raised by the FDIC to resist producing the Administrative Record is facially incompatible with the FDIC’s position regarding the Determination. It would not only be unfair, but illogical for the FDIC to contend that the Determination must be tested by examination of the Administrative Record—but that the Administrative Record somehow constitutes a trade secret, private or personal information, etc. For that reason alone, this appeal should be granted and the FDIC should comply in full with Hunton’s requests. Moreover, as discussed in the sections that follow, there are additional defects in each of the grounds proffered by the FDIC for withholding the documents in question.

Exemption for Privileged Materials (5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(5))

The FDIC asserts FOIA Exemption 5 as the basis for withholding all documents in categories 1 and 3-13, including the Administrative Record. Hunton appeals the FDIC’s assertion that this Exemption provides a basis to withhold documents here.

Exemption 5 “exempt[s] those documents, and only those documents, normally privileged in the civil discovery context, those privileges being (1) the attorney work-product privilege, (2) the deliberative-process privilege, and (3) the attorney-client privilege.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, 800 F. Supp. 2d 202, 210 (D.D.C. 2011). Mr. Braun’s letter provides no indication as to which of these privileges, if any, the FDIC is asserting applies here. But it is highly unlikely that the Administrative Record could qualify for withholding under any of them.2

It is not apparent what portions of the Administrative Record could plausibly reflect attorney-client communications, attorney work-product, or the deliberative process. In any event, these privileges cannot extend to shield factual information of the type likely contained in the Administrative Record. See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 87-88 (1973) (Exemption 5 does not apply to “memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material or purely factual material contained in deliberative memoranda and severable from its context”). See also Petroleum Info. Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 976 F.2d 1429, 1436 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (requiring 2 Indeed, the FDIC evidently took a different view in litigation with GTS900F, LLC

relating to the receivership of Corus Bank. There, the FDIC voluntarily provided the full Administrative Record related to its no-value determination, redacting only parts of 6 lines of text. Here, on the other hand, the FDIC has refused to provide even one page of the exact same form of document – the Administrative Record relating to a no-value determination.


Richard J. Osterman, Jr. June 4, 2013 Page 4 disclosure of “materials that do not embody agency judgments - for example, materials relating to standard or routine computations or measurement over which the agency has no significant discretion”).

To the extent that responsive documents contain both protected content and material that must be disclosed, such as factual material, FOIA requires that “Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.” 5 USC 552(b). Here, there is no indication that the FDIC has performed any segregation analysis. Rather, the FDIC has simply withheld all materials within categories 1 and 3-13.

The FDIC has not provided any index of the materials it has withheld. Consequently, Hunton has no ability to evaluate whether the FDIC has carried its burden of establishing that the withheld documents are protected under Exemption 5. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(5)(B). Similarly, the FDIC has not met its burden of demonstrating that no segregable portions exist. Judicial Watch, 800 F. Supp. 2d at 219. The FDIC has simply provided no insight whatsoever into its analysis, if indeed it performed any analysis.

Hunton requests that the FDIC produce all documents previously withheld on the basis of Exemption 5.

Exemption for Confidential Information Obtained from Others (5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(4))

The FDIC asserts FOIA Exemption 4 as the basis for withholding all documents in categories 1 and 4-13, including the Administrative Record. Hunton appeals the FDIC’s assertion of this Exemption as a basis to withhold documents.

“Exemption Four applies only if a tripartite test is satisfied: (1) The information for which exemption is sought must be a trade secret or commercial in character; (2) it must be obtained from a person; and (3) it must be privileged or confidential.” Bloomberg v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 601 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2010). Mr. Braun’s letter says nothing about these three elements. Indeed, the FDIC has provided no information to demonstrate that it has met any of the requirements—let alone all three—sufficient to invoke Exemption 4 appropriately.

First, the FDIC has not characterized at all the information that it claims is protected from disclosure here, but that information seems unlikely to constitute a trade secret, which the D.C. Circuit has defined as “as a secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or processing of trade commodities and that can be said to be the end product of either innovation or substantial effort.” Pub. Citizen Health Research Grp. v. FDA, 704 F.2d 1280, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1983).



Second, “Courts have read the requirement that information be ‘obtained from a person’ to restrict the exemption’s application to data which have not been generated within the Government.” Id. at 148. It is difficult to imagine that the FDIC’s own Administrative Record and the purportedly duplicative documents in categories 4-13 consist principally of materials obtained from other persons. As just one example, category 13 in the Request calls for factual records identifying “lawsuits, claims, causes of action, and counterclaims” asserted by the FDIC as receiver for Colonial Bank. It makes no sense that the FDIC must obtain from another person information relating to lawsuits the FDIC filed. Third, as discussed above, it is unlikely that any of the information in the Administrative Record and related materials is privileged, or even confidential, as necessary to trigger protection under Exemption 4.

Moreover, as noted above, the FDIC evidently has made no attempt to segregate portions of documents that are not exempt under FOIA from those that purportedly are pursuant to Exemption 4. Instead, the FDIC has simply withheld all materials in eleven categories.


Exemption for Personal Information (5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6))

The FDIC invokes FOIA Exemption 6 as the basis for withholding all documents in categories 1 and 4-13, including the Administrative Record. Hunton appeals the FDIC’s assertion that this Exemption protects these documents from disclosure.

Exemption 6 applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). The FDIC’s burden in establishing Exemption 6 is high; FOIA’s “presumption favoring disclosure . . . is at its zenith under Exemption 6.” Consumers’ Checkbook Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 554 F.3d 1046, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Mr. Braun’s letter says nothing whatsoever about the nature of any information being withheld pursuant to Exemption 6—a proposition that not only is highly unlikely but borders on the absurd, given the improbability that any of Hunton’s requests would call for either personnel files or medical files, much less personnel or medical files the disclosure of which would invade personal privacy.

Yet even if they did, two principles are clear and suggest that the FDIC has improperly withheld documents here. First, Exemption 6 does not apply to information that “merely identifies the names of government officials who authored documents and received


Richard J. Osterman, Jr. June 4, 2013 Page 6 documents from third parties.” VoteHemp, Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 567 F. Supp. 2d 1, 14-15 (D.D.C. 2004). In other words, the FDIC cannot withhold documents because those documents identify the names of FDIC employees or representatives. Second, “only individuals (not commercial entities) may possess protectable privacy interests under Exemption 6.” Hodes v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 532 F. Supp. 2d 108, 119 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Accordingly, HUD improperly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold information on the Unclaimed Funds List concerning commercial entities.”). Based on these principles, Hunton believes that Exemption 6 provides no basis for the FDIC to withhold documents responsive to the Request.

In any event, here again it appears the FDIC has not performed any segregation analysis. To the extent there is personal information that warrants withholding, such information could easily be redacted from the responsive documents.


Undue Burden

Finally, the FDIC claims producing documents in response to categories 7-13 would be “unduly burdensome.” But the FDIC also claims that the documents within each of these categories are “duplicative of” the Administrative Record, which the FDIC states consists of only 36 pages. If the documents in categories 7-13 are duplicative of the Administrative Record, a discrete group of documents that has apparently already been identified, it makes no sense that there would be any burden associated with producing the documents in those categories. Moreover, the FDIC cannot withhold documents on the theory that it would be unduly burdensome to produce duplicative copies where it has declined to produce the documents in the first place.

The Request calls for documents that, by the FDIC’s admission, are not voluminous and that all relate to one discrete topic: the FDIC’s Determination relating to Colonial Bank, an action that was taken little more than six weeks ago. The FDIC “is obligated to conduct a reasonable search for responsive records using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested.” Public Citizen, Inc. v. Dep’t of Education, 292 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003). The FDIC has not fulfilled this obligation with respect to categories 7-13 of the Request.

* * *



For these reasons, the FDIC should release all documents responsive to the Request.3

We have enclosed with this appeal a copy of the Request and the letter dated May 24, 2013 from Mr. Braun denying substantially all of the Request. We remind you that a decision on administrative appeal is due within 20 business days of receipt of this letter. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii); 12 C.F.R. § 309.5(h)(3).

Very truly yours,

Hunton & Williams LLP By: Patrick L. Robson

Enclosures

cc: Jim Braun (by email: [email protected])

3 Because the FDIC has provided no index of the withheld materials, has offered only

the most conclusory bases for its withholdings, and has otherwise given us no ability to evaluate the appropriateness of any withholdings, Hunton reserves all rights of appeal with respect to the FDIC’s response to the Request.

46124.000927 EMF_US 45884796v4


May 24, 2013 VIA EMAIL & REGULAR US MAIL Patrick L. Robson, Esq. Hunton & Williams LLP Bank of America Plaza, St 3500 101 South Tryon St Charlotte, NC 28240

Re: Bank of America, N.A. v. FDIC as Receiver for Colonial Bank and Platinum Community Bank, 10-cv-1681

Dear Patrick:

I write in further response to your letter of Monday, May 20, 2013, requesting an expedited response to your requests for accounting information relating to the Colonial Receivership pursuant to FOIA and Section 1821(d)(15). From the items you have requested, I surmise that it is your client’s goal to challenge the FDIC-Receiver’s no value determination as part of your response to our pending motion to dismiss.

If my surmise is correct, please be advised that BoA may neither collaterally attack the FDIC’s no value determination nor seek discovery with respect to the no value determination in the context of the FDIC-Receiver’s motion to dismiss. Rather, BoA’s sole remedy is to institute a challenge of the FDIC’s agency decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. See Adams v. RTC, 927 F.2d 348, 355 n.15 (8th Cir. 1991) (A federal banking regulatory agency’s “determination of worthlessness is a ‘final agency action, which is reviewable under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in an action against the [agency], but not subject to collateral attack through discovery or other means in individual lawsuits against the receiver.”) (internal citations omitted); Kosnitsky v. FDIC, 2012 WL 4127327, at * 2 (S.D. Fla. July 26, 2012) (plaintiff was not entitled to discovery or to collaterally attack FDIC’s no value determination in its lawsuit against the receiver); Haggard v. Osege, 2011 WL 4711926, at * 1-2 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 4, 2011) (holding that litigant who did not make a claim under the APA was not entitled to discovery in order to challenge a no value determination).

Under the APA, as I assume you know, judicial review of the agency's decision is limited to determining whether the agency's decisions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706; see U.S. ex rel. Pogue v. DTCA, 235 F.R.D. 521, 2006 WL 1515914, *7–8 (D.D.C. June 2, 2006). The party challenging the agency's action bears the burden of proof. Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188, at 196, 102 S.Ct. 1665, 72 L.Ed.2d 1 (1982). “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious' standard is narrow


Patrick L. Robson, Esq. May 24, 2013 Page 2 and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Arent v. Shalala, 70 F.3d 610, 616 (D.C.Cir.1995) (citing Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983)). Under this highly deferential standard, the court must determine “whether the [agency's] decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.” Id. No agency action will be set aside if the action is rational, based on relevant factors, and within the agency's statutory authority. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). Importantly, the reviewing court is limited to the administrative record as it existed at the time of the agency's decision. Eugene Burger Mgmt. Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Hous. & Urban Dev., 192 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C.1999); GTS 900F, LLC v. FDIC, et. al., 2012 WL 2086305, at *11 (C.D. Cal. June 1, 2012) (“In testing an administrative decision under the APA, a court’s review is limited to the Administrative Record.”).

In short, we think any challenge to the no value determination is baseless and a waste of time. While your client is entitled to information under Section 1821(d)(15), we point out now the above authority so that the resources of the parties in our present suit can be directed to meaningful and constructive advancement of this litigation. Sincerely, /s/ Christopher S. Morris Christopher S. Morris cc: Kristin Myles






Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 550 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20429-9990 Legal Division

May 24, 2013

Patrick Robson Hunton & Williams LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 RE: FDIC FOIA Log Number 13-0497 Dear Mr. Robson: This will respond to your letter of May 13, 2013, in which you requested 14 categories of records relating to the receivership of Colonial Bank, Montgomery, Alabama, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We will address each category of your request separately. 1. The Administrative Record for the Determination and any related exhibits.

Response: Records responsive to this category (consisting of 36 pages) are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 4, 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(4), (b)(5) and (b)(6). Exemption 4 of the FOIA protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information [that is] obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.” FOIA Exemption 5 permits the withholding of inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency. Exemption 6 protects information about individuals and signatures in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

2. The receivership balance sheet.

Response: The final Receivership Balance Sheet Summary is publicly available at http://www2.fdic.gov/drrip/bal/balancesheet.asp.

3. The Resolution Transaction Overview and Financial Analysis Summary Sheet.

Response: This document is included in the records responsive to category 1 above and is being withheld in its entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5.

4. Any recommendation, with any related memoranda and exhibits, prepared by staff of the FDIC in connection with the Determination.

Response: Records requested in this category are duplicative of records requested in category 1 above and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 4, 5 and 6.


http://www2.fdic.gov/drrip/bal/balancesheet.asp

2

5. All factual records underlying the Determination or any recommendation prepared by staff of the FDIC in connection with the Determination.


6. Factual records that identify the amounts of the following categories of assets and liabilities referenced in the Notice and the calculation of those amounts: (a) “maximum value of assets” (b) “maximum possible recoveries on professional liability claims against directors, officers, and other professionals” (c) “potential tax refunds” (d) “administrative expenses” (e) “depositor liabilities”


7. Factual records that identify the amount of all Receivership Estate Assets and the calculation of that amount.

Response: Records requested in this category are duplicative of records requested in category 1 above and are being withheld in their entirety pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 4, 5 and 6. In addition, responding further to this category would require the FDIC to undertake an unduly burdensome records search.

8. Factual records that identify any other potential assets of the receivership not included in the calculation of Receivership Estate Assets, and their amounts.


9. Factual records that identify the amount of all Receivership Estate Potential Recoveries and the calculation of that amount.


3


10. Factual records that identify any other potential recoveries of the receivership not included in the calculation of Receivership Estate Potential Recoveries, and their amounts.


11. Factual records that identify the amount of all Receivership Estate Liabilities and the calculation of that amount.


12. Factual records that identify any other potential liabilities of the receivership not included in the calculation of Receivership Estate Liabilities, and their amounts.


13. Factual records that identify all law suits, claims, causes of action, and counterclaims made in any forum by the FDIC in its capacity as receiver for Colonial Bank that seek or have the potential for recovery for Colonial Bank, and the amount of potential recovery associated with each.


14. Each and every “annual accounting or report” prepared by the FDIC in connection with the receivership of Colonial Bank. See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(15)(B)-(C).

Response: Records responsive to this category (consisting of 360 pages) are being released to you without redaction.


4

Since your request has been denied in part, you may appeal the denial to the FDIC’s General Counsel within 30 business days following receipt of this letter. If you decide to appeal, please submit your appeal in writing to the Legal Division, FOIA/Privacy Act Group, at the above address. Please refer to the FDIC log number and include any additional information that you would like the General Counsel to consider. Lastly, in accordance with the FDIC's FOIA regulations (12 C.F.R § 309.5), your request was categorized to be for commercial use. Therefore, you are responsible for the payment of all search, review and duplication costs associated with the processing of your request. An invoice for such costs is attached. This completes the processing of your request. Please contact me at 703-562-2719 if you have questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Signed

Jim Braun Senior FOIA Specialist FOIA/Privacy Act Group

Enclosures (as stated 360 pages and invoice)



CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 (Rev. 3/13 DC)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

Hunton & Williams LLP Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF 88888 COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NarE: IN LANDCONDEMNATIONCASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED

(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

Jonathan H. Lasken (D.C. Bar No. 997251) Benjamin L Bailey (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Hunton & Williams LLP Christopher S. Manis (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Bailey & Glasser, LLP washington, DC 20037 209 Capitol Street (202) 955-1500 Charleston, WV 25301

(304) 345-6555

U. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN" IN ONE BOX FOR {PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!

0 0 PTF DFT PTF DFT 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question 01 01 04 04 Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State Incorporated or Principal Place

of Business in This State

0 2 U.S. Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 02 02 Incorporated and Principal Os os Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of

Place of Business in Another State Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a 03 03 06 Foreign Country Foreign Nation 06

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT Place an X in one cate o , A-N that best re

0 A. Antitrust 0 B. Personallnjuryl Malpractice

410 Antitrust 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product Liability 0 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 0 330 Federal Employers Liability 0340Marine 0 345 Marine Product Liability 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury 0 362 Medical Malpractice 0 365 Product Liability 0 367 Health Care/Pbarmaceutical

Personal Injury Product Liability 0 368 Asbestos Product Liability

0 E. General Civil (Other)

Real Property

OR

of Confinement

Prooerty Rights 0 820 Copyrights 0830Patent 0 840 Trademark

Federal Tax Suits 0 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or

defendant)

0 C. Administrative Agency Review

893 Environmental Matters 890 Other Statutory Actions (If

Administrative Agency is Involved)

0 F. Pro Se General Civil

400 State Reapportionment 430 Banks & Banking

0450 CommerceJICC Rates/etc.

0 460 Deportation 0 462 Natoralizlltion

Application 0 465 Other Immigration

Actions 0 470 Racketeer Influenced

& Corrupt Organization

0 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC 7609

Nature of Suit

0 D. Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction

Any nature of suit from any category may be selected for this category of case assignment

*(If Antitrust, then A governs)*

0480 Consumer Credit 0490 Cable/Satellite TV 0850 Securities/Commodities/

Exchange 0896 Arbitration 0899 Administrative Procedure

Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision

0950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

0 890 Other Statutory Actions (if not administrative agency review or Privacy Act)


0 G. Habeas Corpus/ 0 H. Employment e I. FOIA/Privacy Act 0 J. Student Loan 2255 Discrimination

D 530 Habeas Corpus- General 442 Civil Rights- Employment [][I 895 Freedom of Information Act 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted

OslO Motion!Vaeate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, D 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan

0 463 Habeas Corpus- Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans)

Detainee discrimination, disability, age, religion, retaliation)

*(If prose, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)*

0 K. Labor/ERJSA 0 L. Other Ovil Rights 0 M. Contract 0 N. Three-Judge (non-employment) (non-employment) Court

110 Insurance 0710 Fair Labor Standards Act 0441 Voting(ifnotVotingRights 120Marine 0 441 Civil Rights- Voting 0720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 0130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act) Q740 Labor Railway Ad 0 443 Housing/Accommodations D 140 Negotiable Instrument 0751 Family and Medical 0440 Other Civil Rights 0 ISO Recovery of Overpayment

Leave Act 0445 Americans w!Disabilities- & Enforcement of 0 790 Other IJabor Litigation Employment Judgment 0791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Ad D 446 Americans w!Disabilities- 0153 Recovery of Overpayment

Other of Veteran's Benefits 0448 Education 160 Stockholder's Suits

190 Other Contracts

195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise

V.ORIGIN

e 1 Original 0 2Remand 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multi-district 07 Appeal to Proceeding from State Appellate Court Reopened another district Litigation District Judge

Court (specify) from Mag. Judge

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.) Violations of the Freedom of lnfonnation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. {"FO!A"), for the FDIC's refusal to produce agency records relevant to its "no value" determination.

VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND$ Check YES only if de in complaint ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 YES D NO COMPLAINT JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instruction) YES[]_{] NO If yes, please complete related case form IF ANY

DATE: July 22, 2013 I SIGNATUREOFATTORNEYOFRECORD jdfllf~ P'

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44 Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.

I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 1100 I to indicate plaintiff if resident of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed QJl!y if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction under Section II.

IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best represents the~ cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only 2!J& category. You IDl.!§1 also select one corresponding nature of suit found under the category of the case.

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.

VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complele a related case form, which may be oblained from the Clerk's Office.

Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.




Documents

Case 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 6legaltimes.typepad.com/files/hunton-williams-foia-complaint.pdfCase 1:13-cv-01123 Document 1-2 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 19