LWB Update: Probably no-one ever has bothered to calculate the average length of time for a federal FOIA lawsuit to run its course. But I suspect that my case - Bryant v. CIA, filed on May 20, 2009 as Civil Action No. 09-0940(EGS) in U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the venerable flagship courthouse for freedom-of-information litigation) - ranks within the top 100 or so such cases whose durations have surpassed nine months. I wonder what FOIA case holds the record for being the longest-running one in that particular court. Could it possibly be the one captioned National Security Archive v. Central Intelligence Agency (see: http://tinyurl.com/6mahok )?

That multi-year contest centered on (1) whether the privately funded Archive could convince the Agency and the court that it fully and permanently qualifies as a "representative of the news media" for the purpose of being entitled to full waiver of records-search/review fees during its various FOIA requests; and (2) whether the court should chastise the Agency for playing semantic games with legal precedent in this regard. The Archive prevailed, winning reimbursement of its attorneys' fees in the process.

Likewise, my case mirrors the same issues presented by the Archive's. Now, after these nine months of litigative gestation, we're on the verge of seeing some tangible, lively results. In recent weeks, the Agency has exhausted its resort to serial motions for enlargement of time for filing its answer to my complaint. The answer has come in the form of a Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In his February 18, 2010, response, my attorney, Jonathan L. Katz ( http://www.katzjustice.com ), has filed our opposition brief, pointing out the obvious flaws in the government's motion. In what should've been a case resolvable within several weeks of its filing, Bryant v. CIA now awaits the defendants' reply brief and whatever discovery process the judge might deem worthy of exercise.

In the meantime, I'm presenting here the text of Mr. Katz's "Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of His Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment":
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and states the following in support of this Opposition:

ARGUMENT:

A. Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment.

For the following reasons, Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment. Among these reasons is that Defendants' summary judgment motion precedes the commencement and completion of discovery, and, thus, is premature.

Here, it is necessary that "summary judgment be refused where the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251 n.5 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

Discovery is permitted in FOIA lawsuits - and Plaintiff's good faith need for discovery is illustrated by the Defendants' foot-dragging to review his FOIA request further until only after he filed this instant Complaint - and has been permitted in such suits. Weisberg v. Dept. of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 367 (D. C. Cir. 1980) ("[w]e reversed, however, finding material disputed facts regarding the existence of relevant but unreleased records, and holding that Weisberg was entitled to further discovery").

Plaintiff disputes the reliability, accuracy, and credibility of Defendant's sole witness (Delores Nelson) whose declaration is attached to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as Exhibit G thereto. Ms. Nelson makes sweeping and insufficiently supported statements about the systems, procedures and policies used by the CIA in responding to FOIA requests. Plaintiff challenges whether Ms. Nelson is a suitable affiant for Defendants' motion, in part because she makes numerous conclusions without showing sufficient personal knowledge about the search in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request. Discovery is needed to cover the matters addressed in this paragraph.

Neither Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion nor Ms. Nelson's Affidavit are sufficiently convincing - without permitting discovery - that a sufficient search was conducted to respond to Plaintiff's FOIA request.

B. Plaintiff's Complaint is Not Moot.

Defendants try to paint Plaintiff's Complaint as moot. However, Plaintiff has above urged that discovery be permitted herein, and that granting summary judgment is premature before discovery proceeds forward.

Moreover, it is clear that Defendants only granted Plaintiff with news media representative status subsequent to and as a result of this Complaint. Plaintiff filed his FOIA request in August 2008. The CIA denied his FOIA request and appeal by October 2008. Plaintiff then filed his Complaint on May 20, 2009. Only as a result of the filing of his Complaint did the CIA issue its June 23 letter not only granting news media representative status, but also finally agreeing to investigate his FOIA request further, to the point that the government obtained several extensions of its deadline to respond to the Complaint, to continue conducting such a review.

The Complaint also is not moot, because Plaintiff was forced to file his Complaint to get the CIA to do a further records search on his FOIA Complaint, because his Complaint became necessary to be granted news media representative status, and because before filing his Complaint he found the news media representative status denial to be a hurdle to his submitting FOIA requests to the CIA. Therefore, he is eligible for attorney's fees under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552(a)(4)(E).

CONCLUSION:

Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, summary judgment should be denied, discovery should be permitted to proceed, and Plaintiff should be permitted to recover attorney's fees.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan L. Katz
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
http://ufoview.posterous.com

TO: Director
U. S. postal Inspection Service
ATTN: Freedom-of-Information Manager
1735 North Lynn Street - Room 4039
Arlington, VA 22209-4039

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 23, 2010

About 50 years ago, officials at the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency targeted me as warranting a period of "mail cover" surveillance because I, as a UFO researcher, occasionally had queried the English-language broadcast of the radio program titled "Radio Moscow." My queries had focused on the extent of UFO sightings/research within the Soviet Union.

Since your agency continues its oversight of contemporary mail-cover policy/procedures, I hereby request, under terms of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act and the U. S. Privacy Act, that you provide me a photocopy of the following records:

(1) Any and all past and current mail-cover requests (and results thereof) issued against me and against all other affected UFO researchers by the CIA, National Security Agency, U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency, U. S. Office of Naval Intelligence, U. S. Departments of Army/Air Force/State, and any other intelligence/law-enforcement entity.

(2) All inter-/intra-office correspondence, e-mail, after-action reports, decision memoranda, intelligence estimates/analyses, and planning guidance generated by, and received by, your agency in the course of conducting the above-cited mail-cover operations.

Since I submit this request as a representative of the news media (principally as a columnist for the newsstand periodical UFO Magazine), I expect you to waive all records-search/processing fees incident to your fulfillment of this request.

Please note that neither the practice of UFO research nor the act of whistleblowing as to any official cover-up of the UFO experience constitutes criminal activity or subversive intent; therefore, your agency has no grounds for invoking any law-enforcement/national-security exemption so as to stifle mandatory disclosure of the sought-for records.

By snail-mail, I'm sending you a signed printout of this e-formatted letter.

LARRY W. BRYANT

Copy furnished to: Editor, UFO Magazine
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

ADVERTISEMENT POSTED UPON THE WEB SITE OF CLASSIFIEDads.com (http://tinyurl.com/y8ez77u ):

== CITIZENS ALERT: BLOW THE WHISTLE ON ANY "MAIL COVERS" ISSUED AGAINST UFO RESEARCHERS! ==

Recently revealed evidence (see http://tinyurl.com/y9eb7nk ) that the U. S. Postal Inspection Service can rely on its little-known directive called Publication 55 to fulfill "mail cover" requests from such agencies as the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency to spy upon lawful activity of UFO researchers/UFO-coverup whistleblowers prompts me to issue this alert. About 50 years ago, CIA officials targeted me for such "mail cover" surveillance; see my resultant freedom-of-information request to the Postal Inspection Service (now posted as Item 2.58 upon my blog at http://ufoview.posterous.com ). If you, or someone you know, have reason to believe you've become (or might become) a target for such invasive "mail cover" surveillance because of your UFO-E.T. research/whistleblowership, please contact me to help coordinate all available protective measures. Write to: Larry W. Bryant (director of the Washington, D. C., office of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy), 3518 Martha Custis Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302; phone: 703-931-3341; e-mail: overtci@cavtel.net .

TO: Ms. Delores M. Nelson
Freedom of Information Coordinator
U. S. Central Intelligence Agency
Washington, DC 20505

FROM: Larry W. Bryant
3518 Martha Custis Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302

DATE: February 22, 2010

In my capacity - now acknowledged by your office in response to my recent litigation - as a representative of the news media (RNM - principally as a columnist for UFO Magazine), I hereby submit this e-formatted letter as a freedom-of-information request that you send me a photocopy of all CIA-generated and CIA-received records pertaining to the January 25, 2010, observation and photographing of one or more mysterious airborne craft emerging from the ocean near Newfoundland.

For some recent press coverage of this potential UFO-E.T. encounter, I refer you to the following internet URL's: http://tinyurl.com/ydt8jtz and http://tinyurl.com/ykwfofa .

The sought-for records in this case would include any and all records produced/held by the CIA-operated Foreign Broadcast Information Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the intelligence-collection elements of the U. S. Department of State, and the system for collecting/reporting/disseminating evidence of "vital intelligence sightings" (CIRVIS) under authority of the U. S. Defense Department's Joint Army-Navy-Air Publication No. 146. This event's responsive records originating from such agencies as the U. S. Office of Naval Intelligence, the U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency, and the U. S. National Security Agency should be included in your ensuing records search and subsequent agency referral-for-release.

Please note my expectation that your office will grant me full waiver of all records-search/processing fees to which my RNM-requester status entitles me under provisions of the U. S. Freedom of Information Act.

By snail-mail, I'm sending to you a signed printout of this letter.

LARRY W. BRYANT

Copy furnished to: Editor, UFO Magazine
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

TEXT OF THE CLASSIFIED AD BEING CARRIED BY CLASSIFIEDads.com AT: http://tinyurl.com/yhfs5e5

== BLOW THE WHISTLE ON WHAT (AND WHO) VISITED NEWFOUNDLAND ON JAN. 25, 2010 ! ==

What do certain U. S.-Canadian officials know (and when did they know it) about the dramatic visitation by one or more mysterious aerial craft upon the sea near Newfoundland on Jan. 25, 2010? See the related internet reportage at http://tinyurl.com/ykwfofa . As I await fulfillment of my Feb. 22, 2010, freedom-of-information request to the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency in my quest for answers to that public-interest question, I invite all prospective whistleblowers to expose any official coverup/deception about that incident of UFOlogical sea-going activity - and about any other, yet-to-be-reported case of such visitation. Your submitted "insider" accounts and verifiable documentation may prove pivotal to the success of the people's growing movement for international, official disclosure of the UFO-E.T. presence upon planet Earth's air, land, and sea. Please share your smoking-gun material with me at: Larry W. Bryant, 3518 Martha Custis Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302; e-mail: overtci@cavtel.net. For the text of my Feb. 22 FOIA request to the CIA, see Item 2.57 of my blog at: http://ufoview.posterous.com .