• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 VERN McKINLEY, ))Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 09-1263 ESH)v. ))FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE )CORPORATION
 , et al.
, ))Defendants. )____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINSTDEFENDANT FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION
 Plaintiff Vern McKinley, by counsel and pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, hereby moves for partial summary judgment against Defendant Federal DepositInsurance Corporation. As grounds therefore, Plaintiff respectfully refers the Court to theaccompanying Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant FDIC’s Motion for SummaryJudgment and in Support of Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment andPlaintiff’s Response to Defendant FDIC’s Statement of Material Facts and Plaintiff’s Statementof Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue.Dated: November 25, 2009 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul J. OrfanedesD.C. Bar No. 429716JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.501 School Street, S.W., Suite 700Washington, DC 20024(202) 646-5172
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 18 Filed 11/25/09 Page 1 of 25
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
 VERN McKINLEY, ))Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 09-1263 ESH)v. ))FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE )CORPORATION
 , et al.
, ))Defendants. )____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTFDIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FORPARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
 Plaintiff Vern McKinley, by counsel and pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, respectfully submits this memorandum of law in opposition to the motion forsummary judgment of Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and insupport of his cross-motion for partial summary judgment against the FDIC. As grounds thereof,Plaintiff states as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
 
I. Introduction.
This case implicates the quintessential purpose behind FOIA – piercing the veil of government secrecy and opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny – a purposerecognized and promoted by President Barack Obama himself.
See
Memorandum of Points andAuthorities in Support of FDIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“FDIC Mem.”) at 2;
see also
 
 Department of Air Force v. Rose
, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976).
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 18 Filed 11/25/09 Page 2 of 25
 
 2On September 29, 2008, the FDIC’s Board of Directors voted to provide “open bank assistance” to facilitate Citigroup, Inc.’s acquisition of Wachovia Bank, N.A. (“Wachovia’), thenation’s fourth largest bank in terms of market value, which was in danger of failing.Specifically, the FDIC agreed to absorb a share of possible losses on a $312 billion pool of loansin exchange for receiving $12 billion in preferred stock and warrants from Citigroup, Inc. tocompensate taxpayers for bearing this risk.
See
FDIC Mem., Exhibit 2. In order to provide thisassistance, the FDIC was required by law to make a determination that the assistance wasnecessary to avoid or mitigate “serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financialstability.”
See
12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4)(G). Four days later, on October 3, 2008, Wachoviaspurned Citigroup, Inc.’s acquisition in favor of an acquisition by Wells Fargo & Co. that did notrequire any government assistance. Approximately two months later, in late November 2008,Citigroup, Inc. received its own “bailout” from the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the U.S.Department of the Treasury.At issue in this litigation are Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain information from the FDIC aboutits determination that this “open bank assistance” was necessary to avoid or mitigate “seriousadverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability.”
II. Factual Background.
On November 18, 2008, Plaintiff served a FOIA request on the FDIC seeking access toinformation about the FDIC’s September 29, 2008 determination.
See
FDIC Mem., Exhibit 1.In December 2008 and early January 2009, Plaintiff exchanged emails and had at least onetelephone conversation with an FDIC FOIA specialist about the request.
See
Declaration of Vern McKinley (“McKinley Decl.”), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, at ¶ 11. He also received onetelephone message from the FDIC’s FOIA specialist.
 Id 
. The FDIC claims that, during a
Case 1:09-cv-01263-ESH Document 18 Filed 11/25/09 Page 3 of 25
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...