Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 32 Filed 02/24/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1695

Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, No. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
louisflores@louisflores.com
1 (646) 400-1168



24 February 2016

BY ECF


Honorable John Gleeson, United States District Judge,
Honorable Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge,
United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York,
225 Cadman Plaza East,
Brooklyn, New York 11201.


Dear Hon. U.S. District Court Judge Gleeson and Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Mann :

Re : 56.1 Statement


Louis Flores v. United States Department of Justice

No. 15-CV-2627 (Gleeson, J.) (Mann, M.J.)



Please accept this letter reply as Plaintiffs Surreply to Defendants Response to Plaintiffs
Dispute and Answer to Defendants 56.1 Statement.

As was expected, the Government is trying to take advantage of dispositive motion
practice to gain an upper hand in the Courts review of the DOJs inadequate FOIA
responses, its unlawful searches, and its pattern and practise of misconduct. Each time
Plaintiff noted in Plaintiffs 56.1 Answer that the Government was selectively presenting
facts by omitting other facts, the Government, in its 56.1 Response, has asked the Court to
ignore Plaintiffs presentation of facts. Is this how the DOJ is rigging this process, by
asking the Court to not consider all the facts in this case ? Whereas there are numerous
instances where facts are not available in this case, as noted in Plaintiffs 56.1 Answer and
in Plaintiffs Declaration, the Court must reject the Governments unilateral offering of
undocumented statements. See, e.g., PL 56.1 Answer 13, 25, 27-28, 32-38, 43, 46-50,
53-55, 75, and 81. See also Flores Decl., 4(A)-(P). Plaintiff has disputed, contested,
objected, or dispelled various aspects of Defendants 56.1 Statement. See, e.g., PL 56.1
Answer 2, 7-10, 14, 16-17, 20, 23-24, 26, 29-31, 39-41, 43-45, 51-52, 59-63, 65, 79-80,
and 82-83. Furthermore, just because the Government is embarrassed for the Court to
see the full record of the DOJs failure to comply with FOIA having played itself out in the

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 32 Filed 02/24/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1696

Hon. U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson
Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann
Eastern District of New York
24 February 2016
Page 2

media, thats no reason for this Court to ignore the Governments pattern and practise of
violating FOIA. (PL 56.1 Answer 84-93).

The facts presented by Plaintiff about the Governments failure to claim exemptions is
true and correct, and the press reports are material to proving Plaintiffs assertion that
the Government willfully violates FOIA with impunity until the Courts become involved,
and some of these reports are in actuality Congressional oversight documents. (PL 56.1
Answer 84-93). These facts are material to Plaintiffs arguments, in particular to
Plaintiffs Rule 52 memorandum, but not at the expense of Plaintiffs opposition brief, and
these facts provide context and explanation for the Governments misconduct.

Where Plaintiff has rightly rebutted the Governments 56.1 Statement, Plaintiff provided
facts and information that detailed how the Governments 56.1 Statement was
incomplete, incorrect, or baseless. Plaintiffs 56.1 Answer speaks for itself. Plaintiff
reiterates that just because the Government filed its 56.1 Statement first, that does not
mean that the Governments presentation should be accorded any preference over the
56.1 Answer later filed by Plaintiff. By now, it should be plainly evident to the Court that
the Government is taking advantage of the dispositive motion practise to unjustly stack
the deck in its favour against a pro se plaintiff.

It should also be clear and convincing to the Court that the Government is engaging in a
form of legal arbitrage to its unfair advantage. This has been Plaintiffs contention all
along : That the Government has purposefully and willfully refused to process FOIA
requests generally, and the Free Speech FOIA Requests in particular, until requesters
commence litigation to compel compliance with FOIA. The Governments disregard of
FOIA is documented in the record by the numerous press reports that prove that the
Government avoids its responsibilities, duties, obligations, and requirements under FOIA
until proceedings commence in the Federal Courts. (PL 56.1 Answer 84-93). Even
then, the mere commencement of proceedings doesnt mean much, because the
Government uses these proceedings to thwart compliance, as is happening now, and these
proceedings offer Your Honors a ring-side seat to witness the Governments willful lack of
compliance first-hand. This kind of misconduct is not what either FOIA or the Courts
were meant to enable ; the Government is not serving any public interest in this fashion.

Plaintiff is not asking the Court to do Plaintiffs work for him, but Plaintiff commenced this
action, because it was only going to be as a result of this Courts sole power and authority
as the administrator of justice to determine whether the DOJ was going to be compelled to
comply with FOIA and to release the duly requested records. Your Honors have this

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 32 Filed 02/24/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1697

Hon. U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson
Hon. U.S. Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann
Eastern District of New York
24 February 2016
Page 3

power and authority, and the law supports your just actions. In dispositive motion
practice, if a nonmovant shows that facts are unavailable to the nonmovant, then the
Court may : (1) defer considering the motion or deny it ; (2) allow time to obtain
affidavits or declarations or to take discovery ; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). As such, the Court must review the facts and apply the law de
novo, and [a]ll doubts [are] resolved in favor of disclosure. Bloomberg v. Bd. Of
Governors of the Fed. Reserve System, 601 F.3d 143, 147 (2d Cir. 2010).

Respectfully submitted,

Louis Flores
Pro se Plaintiff


cc :

[By e-mail only to : rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov]

Rukhsanah L. Singh, Assistant U.S. Attorney

U.S. Attorneys Office - Eastern District of New York
271 Cadman Plaza East, 7th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Attorney for Defendant

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JG-RLM Document 32 Filed 02/24/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1698

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


LOUIS FLORES,




Plaintiff,
15-CV-2627 (JG)(RLM)


v.
AFFIRMATION

OF SERVICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE,




Defendant.





I, LOUIS FLORES, declare under penalty of perjury that I have served a copy of the attached
PLAINTIFF SURREPLY TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS 56.1 DISPUTE AND
ANSWER

upon

RUKHSANAH

L.

SINGH,

whose

address

is

c/o United States Attorneys Office, Eastern District of New York, 271 Cadman Plaza East,
7th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201 by ELECTRONIC MAIL DELIVERY to :
rukhsanah.singh@usdoj.gov.

Dated : Jackson Heights, New York

February 24, 2015

Louis Flores
34-21 77th Street, Apt. 406
Jackson Heights, New York 11372
Phone : (646) 400-1168
louisflores@louisflores.com