FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC. V. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 739 F.Supp.2d 515 (2010) CASE BRIEF

FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC. V. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

739 F.Supp.2d 515 (2010)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Fox (P) seeks agency records from Treasury (D) related to the intervention of the federal government to prevent the impending financial collapse of American Insurance Group (“AIG”) and Citigroup, Inc. (“Citigroup” or “Citi”). D provided over 10,000 pages of documents to P, but withheld all or portions of approximately7,000 pages under applicable FOIA exemptions. The parties have cross-moved for summary judgment with respect to approximately 300 documents that P argues were improperly withheld.

FACTS: AIG’s financial situation was in a rapid free fall because of its underwriting derivatives against mortgage backed securities. D worked to avoid a free fall bankruptcy of AIG and gave them 100’s of billions in loans. Citigroup received TARP funds on three separate occasions between October 2008 and January 2009 for essentially the same reasons; underwriting derivatives against mortgage backed securities. Fox sent Treasury two FOIA requests. P sought the disclosure of an unredacted copy of Treasury’s custodian agreement with BONY, as well as records related to the compensation paid to BONY pursuant to that agreement, and any records. The second request sought records concerning any data collected regarding the effect of TARP funds on the availability of credit for consumers and small businesses, documents generated after September 1, 2008 concerning the Citigroup TARP transactions, and any documents submitted by Citigroup “in connection with Citigroup’s request for assistance pursuant to TARP.” When D failed to respond to P’s request for expedited processing within the statutory period, P commenced this action on December 18, 2008, and sought a preliminary injunction a few days later. The judge directed D to comply with P’s FOIA request within thirty days and to provide a Vaughn index within forty-five days. After a meet-and-confer required by P provided to D, a list of approximately 300 documents still in dispute. D filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the remaining disputed documents. P then cross moved for summary judgment.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner