Case 1:23-cv-00486-CJN Document 9 Filed 08/25/23 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
HERITAGE FOUNDATION )
214 Massachusetts Ave. N.E. )
Washington, D.C. 20002 )
)
MIKE HOWELL )
214 Massachusetts Ave. N.E. )
Washington, D.C. 20002 )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No. 23-cv-486
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE )
950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. )
Washington, D.C. 20408 )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Heritage Foundation and Mike Howell hereby move, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure (Fed.R.Civ.P.)15(a)(2) and the Court’s inherent authority, for leave to file the

attached Amended Complaint in the above-captioned case and state as follows:

1. Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) permits a party to “amend its pleading only with the

opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The court should freely give leave when

justice so requires.”

2. Following review of several actions currently before the District Court of the

District of Columbia, Plaintiffs discovered a pattern or practice of the Defendant of splitting

FOIA requests with “specifications” or “parts” into multiple requests via transmitting letters that:

(1) assign individualized, non-sequential identification numbers to each specification; (2) do not

definitively identify which request—or specification thereof—is being responded to; (3) do not
 Case 1:23-cv-00486-CJN Document 9 Filed 08/25/23 Page 2 of 3

explain in any way that FOIA requests have been split; (4) do not provide the date that the

request was received; and (5) often contain opaque descriptions of the request—or specification

of a request the letter is responsive to—that can cause confusion.

3. This pattern or practice creates significant, unnecessary, and unlawful delays that

frustrate the purpose of the FOIA and unlawfully shift the administrative burden from the

Defendant to the Plaintiffs.

4. This pattern or practice of improper splitting creates a structural legal issue that

Plaintiffs are entitled to place before a Court.

5. The Parties have met and conferred. Defendant opposes this Motion.

6. In deciding to allow or deny a motion for leave to file an amended complaint,

courts may consider “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,

repeated failures to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.” Forman v.

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

7. Plaintiffs have not unduly delayed in bringing this action, move to amend in good

faith, have not previously amended a complaint to bring this pattern or practice claim, and the

amendment is neither futile nor prejudicial to the Defendant.

In light of the foregoing and pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2) and the Court’s inherent

authority, Plaintiffs request leave to file the attached Amended Complaint.

Dated: August 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

ERIC NEAL CORNETT

(No. 1660201)
Law Office of Eric Neal Cornett
Telephone: (606) 275-0978
Email: neal@cornettlegal.com
Case 1:23-cv-00486-CJN Document 9 Filed 08/25/23 Page 3 of 3

DANIEL D. MAULER
(No. 977757)
The Heritage Foundation
Telephone: (202) 617-6975
Email: Dan.Mauler@heritage.org

SAMUEL EVERETT DEWEY

(No. 999979)
Chambers of Samuel Everett Dewey, LLC
Telephone: (703) 261-4194
Email: samueledewey@sedchambers.com

ROMAN JANKOWSKI
(No. 975348)
The Heritage Foundation
Telephone: (202) 489-2969
Email: Roman.Jankowski@heritage.org

Counsel for Plaintiffs