University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Crisman v. Department of Justice NS-DC-0091
Docket / Court 1:12-cv-1871 ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) National Security
Case Summary
On November 19, 2012, an individual plaintiff and National Security Counselors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued Department of Justice, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the ... read more >
On November 19, 2012, an individual plaintiff and National Security Counselors filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued Department of Justice, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), the Privacy Act (collectively “FOIA/PA”), the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, and the All Writs Act.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the individual plaintiff was fired by a federal government contractor in 2004 when the FBI received Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA) alert document and placed her on national security and homeland security watch lists, which were disseminated to federal security agencies. The plaintiffs’ FOIA requests sought information regarding the individual plaintiff and actual or potentially classified records of each of the defendant agencies. The FOIA requests sought records related to FISA alerts and whether the private individual’s name appeared on the government’s No Fly list and/or Selectee list. The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief.

On May 2, 2013, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 15, 2013, the defendants moved for mediation and to stay pending resolution of ADR. In September 2013, the plaintiffs opposed the defendants’ motion. Judge Sullivan decided not to appoint a mediator for the parties.

On December 3, 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, indicating that the government agencies released reasonably segregable materials, conducted reasonable searches, and provided declarations or Vaughn indices explaining the administrative process associated with their processing of the plaintiffs’ FOIA/Privacy Act claims. The plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the summary judgment motion on January 29, 2014.

This case was reassigned to District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in June 2014. On June 10, 2014, the defendants filed a second motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. On August 19, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the second motion.

On September 18, 2018, Judge Chutkan granted the defendants’ motions in part and denied in part. Specifically, the court granted the defendants’ summary judgment on Counts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17; the court denied summary judgment as to Counts 3, 12, 13 and 15; the court granted in part and deny in part summary judgment on Counts 2 and 9. On Mar 25, 2019, Judge Chutkan granted the defendant’s summary judgment with respect to Count 2. 2019 WL 1330587.

On April 30, 2019, the parties filed a joint status report. The defendants planned to file a renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to several counts. Additionally, the Parties began to discuss the Court’s order that they meet and confer about the scope of the request submitted to DHS. As of May 26, 2019, the case is ongoing.

Susie Choi - 04/02/2017
Sichun Liu - 05/26/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Defendant-type
Law-enforcement
General
Record-keeping
Records Disclosure
Plaintiff Type
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Defendant(s) the United States
Plaintiff Description Plaintiff is a resident of the commonwealth of Virginia. Plaintiff National Security Counselors is a non-profit organization in Virginia that has the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Filing Year 2012
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
Docket(s)
1:12-cv-1871 (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0091-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/30/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [ECF# 1]
NS-DC-0091-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/19/2012
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 62] (332 F.Supp.3d 139) (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0091-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/18/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Memorandum Opinion [ECF# 66] (2019 WL 1330587) (D.D.C.)
NS-DC-0091-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 03/25/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Chutkan, Tanya Sue (D.D.C.) show/hide docs
NS-DC-0091-0002 | NS-DC-0091-0003 | NS-DC-0091-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers McClanahan, Kelly Brian (Maryland) show/hide docs
NS-DC-0091-0001 | NS-DC-0091-9000
Defendant's Lawyers McDaniel, Oliver W. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
NS-DC-0091-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -