Professional Documents
Culture Documents
)
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND )
ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 1:05cv00806 RMC
v. ) Hon. Rosemary M. Collyer
)
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION, )
)
Defendant. )
)
The Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint because no documents have been
follows. Defendant specifically denies each and every allegation of the Complaint not otherwise
1. Defendant admits that this is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended. The remainder of this paragraph characterizes Plaintiff’s request for
documents (Exhibit N to Plaintiff’s Complaint), which speaks for itself and to which the Court is
2. These allegations contain conclusions of law and state plaintiff’s theory of the case and
1
as such require no response.
response is required.
4-5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in these
paragraphs.
6. The first sentence of this paragraph is denied. The second sentence of this paragraph
within the Department of the Interior established pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. Defendant admits that it possesses certain records that have been
requested by Plaintiff. The remaining allegations in this paragraph state legal conclusions to
8-14. The allegations in these paragraphs state conclusions of law to which no response is
required.
Defendant refers the Court to the cited materials (which are attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint) for
full statements of their contents. To the extent any further response to these paragraphs is
required, denied.
26. Defendant admits that Plaintiff requested a Freedom of Information Act search by
letter dated March 18, 2005, that was received by the NIGC on March 21, 2005. The remainder
2
Complaint), which speaks for itself and to which the Court is referred for a full and accurate
27. Defendant admits that it acknowledged receipt of Plaintiff’s FOIA request by letter
dated March 22, 2005. Defendant refers the Court to that letter which speaks for itself and is the
best evidence of its content. See Exhibit O to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The third sentence of this
paragraph consists of conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent any
28. Defendant denies that Plaintiff has not received a response to its request. Defendant
mailed a response to Plaintiff’s request on May 9, 2005, a clarification letter on May 10, 2005,
and a supplemental response on May 19, 2005. Defendant has produced 98 pages in response to
29. The allegations in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is
required.
30. Defendant denies that it has not responded to Plaintiff’s request. The remainder of
32. The allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions that do not require a
response.
33. The allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions that do not require a
response.
34. The allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions that do not require a
3
response.
38. The allegations in this paragraph set forth legal conclusions that do not require a
response.
The remainder of the complaint constitutes a prayer for relief for which no answer is
answered.
PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN
United States Attorney
/s/
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Assistant Branch Director
JEFFREY M. SMITH (Bar No. 467936)
Of Counsel: Trial Attorney, Federal Programs Branch
Andrea Lord U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division
Staff Attorney 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6140
National Indian Gaming Commission Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel: (202) 514-5751
Fax: (202) 616-8470