32. After the litigation commenced, defendant provided plaintiff with additional recordson December 15, 2006, free of charge.
First Dorn Decl. ¶ 30.
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff filed its complaint on May 23, 2006, alleging a failure to conduct anadequate search, failure to provide all responsive records, failure to reply to FOIAappeals, improper withholding, and an improper denial of a fee waiver. On February 21,2007, defendant gave plaintiff its supplemental response to plaintiff’s initial FOIArequest and included an updated
Index with their latest search. Second DornDecl. ¶ 5. This search included records that originated with other agencies which, perstandard operating procedure, defendant referred to the other agencies, the DrugEnforcement Administration (“DEA”) and Department of State (“DOS”), respectively.First Dorn Decl. ¶ 8. On April 13, 2007, defendant moved for summary judgment,arguing that they supplemented the previous search with a search of both the Directorateof Intelligence and the Director of the CIA Area for files on PEPES, that they correctlydid not run a search for Pablo Escobar under a
response, and a number of exemptions under the FOIA statute. On June 13, 2007, plaintiff filed its own motion forsummary judgment, challenging the sufficiency of defendant’s search, undue delay bydefendant with the referral of records to other agencies, and broadly claiming exemptionswhile failing to properly describe the justifications. Plaintiff also requested declaratoryrelief for the defendant’s failure to respond to the original appeal within twenty days anddefendant’s denial of a request for public interest fee waiver. Plaintiff also alleged thatdefendant violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to respond to FOIAappeals in a timely manner.