Case Summary
**Case Summary: Citizens for Responsibility v. Department of Justice**
**Docket Number**: 83-45986
**Court**: [Specific Court Not Provided]
**Date Filed**: [Filing Date Not Provided]
**Parties Involved**:
- **Plaintiff**: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
- **Defendant**: United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
**Background**:
The case revolves around a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting ethics and accountability in government. CREW sought access to certain records from the Department of Justice, believing that the documents would provide insight into government actions and accountability.
**Legal Issues**:
The central issues in this case include:
- Whether the Department of Justice complied with the FOIA request submitted by CREW.
- The applicability of various FOIA exemptions claimed by the DOJ in denying or redacting portions of the requested records.
**Arguments**:
- **Plaintiff’s Argument**: CREW argued that the DOJ's failure to fully comply with the FOIA request infringed upon the organization's rights and thwarted its mission to promote government transparency. They contended that the documents sought were in the public interest and should be released without unnecessary exception.
- **Defendant’s Argument**: The DOJ maintained that certain documents could be withheld or redacted under permissible FOIA exemptions, citing reasons related to national security, privacy concerns, or the ongoing nature of investigations.
**Procedural History**:
- The case was initiated when CREW filed a complaint after the DOJ failed to adequately respond to its FOIA request within the statutory time limits.
- The parties proceeded through various stages of litigation, including potential negotiations for document disclosure and court motions regarding the appropriateness of the withheld materials.
**Outcome**:
[Details about the outcome of the case, such as the court's decision, whether records were released or further litigation ensued, would be included here.]
**Significance**:
This case highlights the ongoing tension between governmental transparency and the justifications for withholding information from the public. It serves as a pertinent example of the challenges faced by watchdog organizations in accessing information vital for public accountability.
**Conclusion**:
The case exemplifies the complexities of FOIA litigation and emphasizes the importance of governmental openness in a democratic society. The ruling in this case could set precedents for future FOIA requests and the manner in which federal agencies handle requests for public documents.
(Note: Specific details about the outcome, dates, and particular legal arguments would need to be filled in based on the actual court records and proceedings, as this case summary is a generalized framework.)