MOTION TO DISMISS

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 0005354766
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: June 23, 2015
• Document Release Date: September 29, 2010
• Case Number: F-2010-00666
• Publication Date: January 8, 2009

Case 1.08-cu-00708-JR Document 13 Filad 1 1 12 012 4 48 Page 1 of 6
IJ1VI'TEl) STATES b}ISTFZICT C~TJTtT
DISTI27CT QF ~?b,IIlVLBIA
S~19~[ES ~1~11~ISO V I'IS?.IE(:T,
t~laintifff,
v. ) Civil .4ct~oaa No.: 0$-0?708 (JF8
1
~'Ei0'TI2~4L, [NTEI.L,IGENC F, AOE'\'t'~', )
IBefersdant. ~
?i'IOTI~1\T T? I~bS1i~IISS EI12S'T A19'[Ei~TIlE~ C`63T,fll~'T
Defendant, the Central Intelligence Agency, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
moves co dismiss Plaintiffls First Amended Complaint pw~suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. I, I5(d) and
21. In support of this motion, the Caurt is respectfully referred to the accompanying
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support. A proposed Order is attached.
APPROVED FOR RELEASE^
DATE: 18-Aug-2010
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR, D.C. BAR ~ 448610
United States Attorney
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, D.C. BAR # 434122
Assistant United States Attorney
JUDITH A. INDWELL
Assistant United States Attonley
555 Fourth Street, N.W.- Civil Division
Room E4905
Washington, D.C. 20530
[phone]
 Case 1:0&cv-00708-JF2 Document 13 Filed 11!20/2008 Page 2 of 6
II1~lIT>/B3 S'IAI'~5I)IS'&`IBICI' C?L7iZ'I`
~IS'I'78IC'T ?F' C'~BI,LJ~I CIA
v.
c:~~ ~~,z~I, rNT~~,~,icil~fPl AiNT
Ie INTId(9~~7~'PIC~N'
On April 22, 2008, Plaintiff filed its complaint against Defendant Cenh~al hitelligence
Agency ("CIA"}, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("POIA"). Defendant moved for
summary judgment on July 14, 2008, and PlainCiff filed its opposition on August 11, 2008.
Biiefing concluded on August 26, 2008, upon the filing of Defendant's Reply.
Now, more than two and one-half months Iater, after fully briefing the FOIA claim set
forth in P1ainCifPs original complaint, Plaintiff has flied an amended complaint, without leave of
Court, seeking to add claims, based on recently made FOIA requests, and to acid additional
pu~ties to this suit. Por the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's first amended complaint should
be dismissed.
 fLIZ(;[l~~VT
61e PL.~IIVI'1F'F FAILELI "I'? SE~IC L.F;E4V~ t~F' C?~J12T
~'O SiJI'3'I,~1~FaaI'T ITS PLEAI)IRtG LJ~I3?k ~ F~~3 R CIS P 15(d)
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) authorizes the Court, "upon reasonable notice and upon such terms
as are jusP' to permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading setting forth events which have
happened since the date of the original complaint. Such supplements require leave of Cow~t and
the Court has broad discretion ur determining whether to allow supplemental pleadings in the
interests of judicial economy and convenience. United Slates v. Hacks, 283 F.3d 380, 385 (D.C.
Cir. 2002); Wright v. Herman, 230 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2005); 1Lliller~ v. Aar Larne Pilots f(ss'n
Int'1, 2000 WL 362042, at * 1 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2000); accord Banks v. York, 448 F.Supp.2d
213, 2I4 (D.D.C. 2006}.
[n Fall v. CIA, 437 F.3d 94 (D.C. Cir. 2006), the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of
leave to supplement a complaint to include a supplemental F07A claim.' There the court noted:
Delay and prejudice are precisely the matters to be
addressed in considering whether to grant motions
far supplemental pleadings; such motions are to be
`freely granted when doing sa will promote the economic
and speedy disposition of the entire controversy between
the parties, a.nd will not prejudice the rights of any of the
other' parties to the action.'
The Court stated that "the addition of the new FOIA request [by the plaintiff) is plainly a
supplemental pleading as defined by Federal Rute of Civil Procedure 15(d}, as it `sets forth
tt~ansactions or occurrences or events which have happened since the date of the pleading sought
to be supplemented. "' Id. (citing United States v. Kic(rs, 283 F.3d at 385}).
 Case 1:08-cv-00708-JR Document 13 Filed 11(20/2008 Page 4 of 6
August I I, 2008 ~ Furthermore, Plaintiff now seeks to add new claims based an FOL requests
to the US. Depar hnent of Justice and the Federal Bureau o'f Investigation, two new parties to this
action.
The addition of these new claims and new panties in this suit will unreasonably delay the
resolution of this case and should, therefore, not be allowed by the Court Moreover, this
amendment will prejudice Defendant CIA's ability to reach a just and speedy resolution of the
pending claims. See Fed. R Civ. P. 1 (indicating that the rules of the Court should be "construed
and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action."}.
C'hetefore, Plaintiff's amended complaint should be dismissed.
I~fl. PL.~lI~'1'IFF FAIL~1~ P(B S~;rIC L~Ait~ ~F C?IJI~'C
'C~ AI}D AIlI?I'hI~hIESI. PA12'CIF'3
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, in relevant part, that:
Pasties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or
of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.
Fed. lZ. Civ. P. 21. Although Fed. R. Civ. P. IS(a) permits a plaintiff to amend a complaint
without leave of Court prior to any responsive pleading being filed, Plaintiff has run afoul of Fed.
K. Civ. P. 21, by filing its amended complaint and adding additional parties, without first seeking
Leave of Court. See Age of Majority .Educational Corp. v. Preller, 512 E2d 1241 (4th Cu'. 1975)
(plaintiff was required to seek leave of court before filing an amended complaint that dropped
one plaintiff, added two new plaintiffs and added eight defendants); Commodity Fttitures TYading
Commission v. American Metal Exchange Corp., 693 F.Supp. 168, 189 (D. N.J. 1488) (even
~ On August 27, 2008, Plaintiff amended its new request. In addition, Plaintiff sought a
fee waiver, which the CIA granted on August 28, 2008.
 proposed amended complaint that adds parties not named in the original complaint can be
amended only with leave of court); Madeey v. International Sound Technicians, 74 F.R.D. 154
(D. C. Cal. 1478) (notwithstanding written consent of defendants, plaintiff was required to secure
leave o~F court to add parties not named in the original complaint}; Internutsona113YOtherhood of
Tean~steYS v. AF"L-CIO, 32 F.RD. 441, 442 (E.D. Mich. 1963) (an amendment to compIaint to
add or drop a parry requires an order of court and limits Rule 15(a)). Accordingly, Plaintiff's
first amended compIaint should be dismissed.
C'oanelusean
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint should be granted.
JEFFREY A. TAYLOR, D.C. BAR # 498610
United States Attorney
RUDOLPFI CQNTRERAS, D.C. BAR # 434122
Assistant United States Attorney
JUDITH A. KIDWELL
Assistant United States Attorney
555 Fourth Street, N.W.- Civil Divisio
Room EA905
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) S I4-7250
 ~~~~i~~~ s~rA~~s ~szs~~c~~ ~~a~~z~r
~~s~~zr~?c ?r ~~~u~~rA
aA~T~~ ti7A1~1~~a~~ P~zc~J~c~~, ?
~'[aic~tiff, )
v. ) Civil .~cgi~a~a 1\'o.e QR-070S
6"F;.~'7I2AC, I~'FEI,L.[CE~'CE AG~~CY, )
~efend~art, )
()I2~DI2
UPON CONSIDERATION OF Defendant Central Intelligence Agency's motion to
dismiss PIaintiffls first amended complaint, any opposition thereto, and the entire record, it is
hereby,
ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint is
granted; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED, that Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint is dismissed.