Doc. 1 Complaint & Exhibit

Case 1:22-cv-00277 Document 1 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 21
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
AMY PHILLIPS, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
Case No. 22-CV-277
v. )
)
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Defendant. )
)
)
)
COMPLAINT
1. The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD)
maintains a list of people whose requests for information under the D.C. Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) are set aside for special review by high-ranking officials,
including the Chief of Police. People are put on this list when they publicly criticize
MPD or when they request information that has the potential to embarrass MPD or
its officers. Once on the list, the requesters face hurdles that the general public
avoids: They may be charged money for public information that others get for free,
they may have their requests delayed, or they may have their requests denied
outright. Plaintiff Amy Phillips is on the list because she requested information that
had the potential to—and in fact did—embarrass MPD, and she intends to continue
requesting potentially embarrassing information. She brings this Action to stop
MPD’s flagrant constitutional violations.
Parties
2. Amy Phillips is a criminal-defense lawyer in Washington, D.C. She is an
outspoken critic of MPD, and she often uses—and intends to continue using—FOIA
to learn about MPD’s operations and to publicly scrutinize those operations when
they are illegal, immoral, or contrary to Phillips’s sense of justice in her community.
3. The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation formed pursuant to
Article I of the United States Constitution. The District is sued for its policy and
practice of discriminating against FOIA requesters on the basis of the content and
viewpoint of their prior or anticipated speech.
1
Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Phillips brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of
her rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is
proper in this Court because all the events alleged in this Action occurred within this
judicial district.
Phillips’s Early Advocacy
5. For several years, Phillips has been a vocal and public critic of MPD.
6. In 2018, she began to invoke her rights under FOIA to obtain
information with which she could evaluate and, if necessary, criticize MPD.
7. Between 2018 and 2021, Phillips filed at least eight requests with MPD
under FOIA.
8. In one request, Phillips sought information concerning the activities of
MPD’s Disciplinary Review Division, the section of MPD responsible for disciplining
and terminating officers who break the law or MPD policy. Phillips sought transcripts
and information about past MPD Adverse Action Hearings, which are convened by
MPD when the department wants to suspend or fire a police officer. Phillips sought
to learn what types of criminal or misconduct accusations have been sustained
against MPD officers, and what discipline, if any, MPD imposed for that misconduct.
9. In another request, Phillips sought documents related to then–Chief of
Police Peter Newsham’s use of the term “zero-tolerance policing.” Newsham had
testified before the D.C. Council that MPD did not practice “zero-tolerance policing,”
stating that MPD “does not subscribe to” a kind of policing that includes “arresting
2
people for minor offenses such as open containers of alcohol or BB guns.” Phillips
sought to learn whether MPD had implemented any policies that would require MPD
officers to live up to the Chief’s testimony. The request also specifically sought
information about policies governing MPD’s specialized units, including the Gun
Recovery Unit, Narcotics and Special Investigations Division, and Crime Suppression
Teams, to determine whether the directives given to those units contradicted the
Chief’s promises to the community regarding arrests for minor offenses. The Gun
Recovery Unit had recently been the subject of intense judicial and public scrutiny
for car searches undertaken with questionable suspicion.
10. Between 2018 and 2021, Phillips often sent tweets from a personal
Twitter account that were critical of MPD and its officers.
The Lojocano Adverse Action Hearing And MPD’s Suspicious

Response to FOIA Requests
11. On March 7th, 8th, and 12th, 2019, Phillips attended an Adverse Action
Hearing held by MPD’s Disciplinary Review Division to adjudicate alleged
misconduct by then-Officer Sean Lojocano.
12. Adverse Action Hearings are held when MPD officers are accused of
actionable misconduct, including criminal conduct. They are trial-like proceedings,
with a panel of MPD officials acting as judges. The hearings are presumptively open
to the public.
13. Lojocano was alleged to have conducted unnecessarily invasive genital
searches of members of the public.
3
14. At least a dozen members of the public attended the Lojocano hearing,
including a news reporter and employees of the American Civil Liberties Union of the
District of Columbia (ACLU).
15. Members of the public were not permitted to record the proceedings.
16. MPD recorded the proceedings electronically, and that electronic
recording was later used to create complete transcripts of the official proceedings.
17. When Phillips entered the MPD building at which the Adverse Action
Hearing was held, she signed a guest log with her full name.
18. During the hearing, she sat in the public gallery, in full view of MPD
officials. Throughout the proceeding and during breaks, Phillips could be seen
carefully observing the proceedings, taking notes, and conversing with an ACLU
attorney and a news reporter.
19. The 2019 hearing resulted in a decision that Lojocano should be fired for
his misconduct. That decision was later upheld by the Office of the Chief of Police.
20. Lojocano’s conduct led to intense criticism of MPD. One of the people
whom Lojocano searched invasively had previously filed a lawsuit, in which he was
represented by the ACLU, which the District settled for an undisclosed six-figure
amount. And Lojocano’s actions garnered significant negative press attention during
the pendency of the lawsuit, which led to additional media coverage of the Adverse
Action Hearing.
4
21. On March 15, 2019, three days after the close of the Lojocano hearing,
Phillips submitted a FOIA request for the tapes of the proceedings and a transcript
of the proceedings.
22. In another request, Phillips sought information concerning MPD’s
scheduling of disciplinary hearings and records from other hearings. Prior to January
2022 the only way to know whether a hearing—which was presumptively open to the
public under D.C. law—was scheduled to occur was to travel to an MPD building;
sign in with one’s name; cross several locked doors; and read a calendar, which did
not contain officers’ names or the specific allegations against them, on a piece of paper
posted outside a room with no public signage.
23. Less than ninety minutes after Phillips submitted her Lojocano request
through the District’s online FOIA portal, she received a response denying her
request in full. The response came from Latrina Crumlin, who identified herself as a
“Staff Assistant, FOIA” for MPD. The response read “A release of such records would
constitute as a [sic] clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is exempt
from disclosure pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(2) and (a)(3)(C).”
24. This was wrong, and it was strange. Usually, MPD takes weeks or
months to provide any substantive response to FOIA requests. And Crumlin’s
position appeared to be that the records of a public hearing—one that Phillips and
many others attended—were categorically excludable as invasions of someone’s
privacy, which does not make any sense.
5
25. Phillips, as permitted by D.C. law, appealed MPD’s decision to the
Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel.
26. On April 2, 2019, that office issued an eight-page decision directing MPD
to release the records that Phillips requested, but permitting some redactions.
27. On May 21, 2019, Phillips emailed Inspector Vendette Parker, who was
at the time MPD’s FOIA Officer, inquiring when the responsive records would be
produced. Parker wrote back that Phillips’s request was “under reconsideration” and
that “[a] decision should be finalized in the next week or so of which you will be
informed.”
28. By June 2, 2019, Phillips had still received no records.
29. So she sued the District in Superior Court seeking an injunction
requiring the District to produce the records.
30. Phillips’s efforts to get information about the hearings were later
covered in an article in the Washington City Paper that was broadly critical of MPD.
In that article, Phillips was quoted criticizing MPD’s and the D.C. Attorney General’s
Office’s response to her requests. The article reads, in part:
“I continue to be surprised at just how vociferously MPD is

fighting against turning the[] [unredacted transcripts]
over,” [Phillips] says, noting her respect for D.C. Attorney
General Karl Racine, whose office is defending the District
in the case. . . . “[I]t is ludicrous to me that he’s publishing
op-eds in the media talking about his commitment to
reforming the police department and making sure that
people have access to better government, and then
attorneys who work for him . . . are coming into court
opposing a request like this one. That office is saying things
publicly that I don’t think is being born out in what they’re
doing in court. And it really makes me wonder if Mr. Racine
6
knows the positions that his staff attorneys are taking and
whether he would agree with them.”
31. While Phillips’s lawsuit was pending, she filed two FOIA requests
seeking all emails to or from Newsham and other high-ranking MPD officials that
contain any version of Phillips’s name. MPD produced several emails but noted that
it was withholding others pursuant to claimed FOIA exemptions. MPD has not
produced an index specifying the withheld records and the applicable exemptions.
32. The District opposed Phillips’s lawsuit in part. On September 26, 2019,
the night before the first hearing scheduled in Phillips’s Superior Court case, MPD
began producing documents responsive to Phillips’s requests, but with redactions
that Phillips believed were unwarranted. The parties briefed the District’s motions
for summary judgment, which the court denied, reasoning that factual disputes about
the production remained.
33. On January 12, 2022, Phillips voluntarily dismissed her Superior Court
case against the District with prejudice.
A Whistleblower Comes Forward
34. In early 2020, Phillips began communicating with Parker, who had just
retired as MPD’s FOIA Officer.
35. Parker began her career at MPD when she was 17 years old and served
for 21 years, attaining the rank of Inspector and serving for several years as
commander of the 7th District. From 2017 until her retirement in January of 2020,
Parker served as MPD’s FOIA officer.
36. Parker alerted Phillips to the existence of the watchlist policy.
7
37. Parker submitted a signed declaration in Phillips’s Superior Court case
explaining, in part, MPD’s policy and how it related to Phillips’s requests. Upon
seeing the declaration, the District asked that Phillips redact certain information to
protect its claimed attorney–client privilege. Phillips then withdrew the declaration.
She attaches it to this Complaint as Exhibit A, with the redactions requested by the
District.
MPD’s Watchlist Policy
38. MPD’s ordinary process of responding to a FOIA request is
straightforward: An intake assistant reviews the request to make sure it is seeking
records in the possession of MPD, rather than some other District agency. If the
request seeks documents from MPD, the intake assistant assigns the request to a
FOIA specialist and notifies the MPD unit that likely has the responsive records. The
intake assistant then emails the requester to confirm receipt of the request and notify
the requester of the name and contact information of the assigned FOIA specialist.
Then, the unit that possesses the records sends potentially responsive documents to
the specialist, who reviews them for responsiveness and redacts any information that
she deems exempt under the D.C. code or municipal regulations. Once that review is
complete, a FOIA supervisor or the FOIA Officer reviews the proposed production,
makes any necessary changes, and releases the documents to the requester. Although
D.C. law permits MPD to charge requesters a fee for producing documents, MPD has
historically not charged such a fee.
39. Some requests, though, get special treatment.
8
40. On Parker’s first day assigned to the FOIA office, LeeAnn Turner, the
Chief Operating Officer of MPD, explained the “expectations” for Parker in her new
position.
41. Turner explained that then-Chief Newsham felt that he was being
“blindsided” by the media when reporters questioned him regarding records that they
had received in response to FOIA requests.
42. To prevent Newsham from being so blindsided in the future, Turner told
Parker of an unofficial, unwritten policy requiring Parker to notify Newsham and
Turner of FOIA requests that may lead to criticism of the department, specifically
those originating from news reporters or people known to be critical of the
department, or those containing requests for information with the potential to
embarrass the department.
43. Each week, Parker was to send an email to Newsham and Turner in
which she listed all FOIA requests received the prior week. Parker was to highlight
requests with the potential to embarrass Newsham or the department.
44. Parker and Turner would then have a weekly meeting, on Tuesdays at
11:00 AM, at which Turner instructed Parker on how to process the last week’s
requests. Proposed responsive documents were to be presented to Turner in hard-
copy form because, Turner said, she did not want to generate more records that would
be subject to disclosure.
45. On some weeks, when Parker presented Turner with lists of requests,
Turner asked Parker to look into certain requesters to see if she could figure out why
9
they were seeking the records. Parker understood these requests to be indications
that those requesters ought to be highlighted in the weekly emails Parker sent to
Turner and Newsham, and Parker began highlighting subsequent requests from
those people after Turner flagged them in conversation.
46. Over time, Parker identified the following people (among others) as
requesters whom she should bring to the attention of Turner and Newsham: Eric
Flack, a reporter with WUSA-9; Marina Marraco, a reporter with FOX-5 DC; the
ACLU; Denise Krepp, an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner; Lorenzo Greene,
also an Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner; and Amy Phillips and other criminal-
defense lawyers.
47. Similarly, Turner periodically advised Parker to look specifically into
requests for information about the Gun Recovery Unit; personnel records of MPD
officers; emails to or from Newsham or Turner; use-of-force records; stop-and-frisk
records; and Adverse Action Hearing records.
48. Parker subsequently highlighted requests for information meeting these
categories (among others).
49. Parker was also generally instructed to use her discretion to identify
requests that may embarrass MPD, and she did.
50. At no point did Turner, Newsham, or anyone else instruct Parker not to
flag requests from these people for special attention.
10
51. On many occasions, Turner told Parker that she asked Newsham how
the department should respond to a flagged request and that Newsham responded by
directing the department’s response.
52. According to former colleagues of Parker, current Chief of Police Robert
Contee has not ended or suspended the policy.
The Watchlist Policy in Action
53. Parker estimates that between 2017, when she came to the FOIA office,
and the end of 2019, when she retired, MPD delayed, denied, or improperly altered
approximately 20 requests pursuant to the watchlist policy.
54. The treatment of a several specific requests—some from news reporters
and one from the ACLU—highlights the danger of being placed on MPD’s watchlist
and shows its operation in greater detail.
55. In 2018 or 2019, as part of a city- and nationwide debate over police
policies of stopping and frisking individuals without reasonable suspicion,
representatives of the ACLU requested that MPD produce all records of stops and
frisks conducted in the District over a certain period of time.
56. When an MPD officer conducts a stop and frisk, the officer is required
under the Neighborhood Engagement Achieves Results (NEAR) Act of 2016 to write
a report describing the interaction and explaining what, if any, evidence justified the
stop and frisk.
57. The NEAR Act has been the subject of extensive litigation in Superior
Court because, according to a group of plaintiffs, MPD systematically fails to comply
with its data-collection requirements.
11
58. Stop-and-frisk data, therefore, had a double potential to embarrass
MPD: the data could expose improper police conduct, and the absence of required
data could expose MPD failures to comply with D.C. recordkeeping requirements.
59. Because these records had the potential to result in significant public
criticism of MPD and because the request came from the ACLU, Parker flagged it for
Turner as a request deserving special attention.
60. At a meeting scheduled shortly thereafter, Turner asked Parker and the
rest of the FOIA staff to help her figure out how they could avoid producing
documents. Turner was explicit on this point, telling Parker and others that the goal
of these meetings was to frustrate the ACLU’s attempt to get these records.
61. Someone in the group realized that because the records were obviously
quite voluminous, MPD could perhaps justify charging the ACLU a significant
amount for the records.
62. Turner told Parker to generate an invoice for how much production of
the records would cost using a formula that D.C. law provides and that is based on
the amount of time necessary for production.
63. Other similarly voluminous requests were produced without sending
invoices.
64. Turner told Parker that the specific purpose of generating this invoice
was to deter the ACLU from pursuing the requested information.
65. Parker generated the invoice and gave it to Turner. Because of the
nature of the records, the invoice was for a very large amount of money.
12
66. Turner expressed concern about this: Recently, Denise Krepp had
publicly tweeted a copy of an invoice she had received from MPD for $5,387, which,
Krepp contended, was improper under D.C. law. Turner felt that this was
embarrassing to the department.
67. So Turner suggested a middle ground: she instructed Parker to tell the
ACLU that the request would likely be expensive to fulfill, and that Parker should
offer to produce a random selection of responsive documents from each of MPD’s
seven districts so that the ACLU could review whether it wanted to proceed.
68. Again, Turner specifically explained that the purpose of this process was
to discourage the ACLU from seeking the requested records.
69. Parker did as instructed and selected two stop-and-frisk reports at
random from each district.
70. When she gave the reports to Turner, Turner reviewed them to make
sure they were not themselves embarrassing to the department.
71. Upon concluding that they were not embarrassing, Turner instructed
Parker to produce them to the ACLU, which she did.
72. Eventually, MPD produced the data that the ACLU requested, but after
a significant delay caused by the selective imposition of a fee and the resulting
negotiations.
73. Flack, the reporter for WUSA-9, had a similar experience with a similar
request. In 2018, he too requested stop-and-frisk incident reports. When the FOIA
office received this request, Parker flagged it for Turner because it came from Flack
13
and because it was potentially embarrassing. Turner asked Parker to redact certain
information, which would be extremely time-consuming. After Parker and her staff
spent two days doing so, Turner changed her mind and said it would be silly to do all
that redacting. Turner simply held the request and instructed Parker not to produce
the documents unless “Flack followed up.” He did not, and the data was never
produced.
74. Also in 2018, a reporter requested documents that MPD officers must
complete to get approval for part-time outside work. Parker flagged this request for
Turner because it involved a news organization and had obvious potential to
embarrass the department based on the contents of the documents produced. This
reporter had previously written a story that criticized an MPD officer for his ticket-
writing practices, and Turner told Parker that she was concerned that this request
would lead to a story in a series connected with the earlier one.
75. When Turner saw the collected records, she said that several of the
documents—which had been generated on paper and then scanned into electronic
form—were “crooked” (literally, not figuratively), and that releasing scanned
documents that were not lined up on the page would make the department look
unprofessional. On several occasions, Turner asked Parker whether she felt
comfortable releasing documents that look this way, and asked whether Parker
wasn’t embarrassed to do so. Parker then asked the producing officer whether a
better copy existed, and he confirmed that it did not. So Turner directed that the
records not be produced, and they were not.
14
76. The concern about aesthetics was pretext: the office regularly produced
documents that did not look perfect, as it is of course required to do by FOIA. Turner’s
concern was, in fact, that the requesting reporter was planning to criticize MPD with
the documents he requested.
77. In 2018, an employee of Mayor Muriel Bowser was involved in a drunken
altercation after an office party in the Mayor’s office building. Ultimately, he was
taken to the hospital in police custody and, therefore, a police officer wrote a report
even though no charges were filed. Marina Marraco, the reporter for FOX-5 DC,
learned of the incident and filed a FOIA request for the arrest report. When the FOIA
office received the request, Parker flagged it for Turner because it came from a
reporter and because it had obvious potential to embarrass the department.
78. Turner told Parker to hold the request while she consulted with the
Mayor’s office and, after she did, Turner instructed Parker to redact the narrative
section of the incident report before producing it. But Turner evidently did not realize
that, pursuant to a separate law, police districts must produce unredacted copies of
certain arrest reports. Marraco, then, received an unredacted copy from the police
district alongside a redacted copy from the MPD FOIA office. On July 26, 2018,
Marraco posted the images alongside each other on Twitter, writing: “Media gets
redacted version. Anyone else: unredacted (only last names).”
79. Turner was right to perceive a potential for embarrassment to MPD:
Marraco then ran a story and posted a Tweet explaining that the Mayor’s office
employee had received special treatment by not being charged with a crime after his
15
conduct and noting the transparency problems arising from Marraco’s interactions
with MPD.
80. On another occasion, many community groups (including the ACLU)
requested MPD data on arrests for marijuana possession. When the FOIA office
received the request, Parker flagged it for Turner because it came from the ACLU
and because it had the obvious potential to embarrass the department. After Turner
received the responsive data and discovered that it showed that a disproportionate
number of the arrests occurred in neighborhoods with predominantly Black residents,
she directed Parker and her staff to withhold the data while MPD officials gathered
additional data regarding 9-1-1 calls and other calls for service so that they could
argue that the disproportionate arrests were due to disproportionate requests rather
than discrimination. It took at least a month to gather that additional data, and only
after the data was ready did MPD respond to the FOIA request, despite having
records in producible form at the beginning of that month.
81. Pursuant to the policy, then, requesters on the watchlist always at least
experience a delay in their requests while the department prepares for any criticism
that may result. On some occasions, requesters are subject to fees that others don’t
need to pay. And on other occasions, requesters simply don’t get information that they
are entitled to. The policy was either implemented at the direction of the Chief of
Police, or (without limitation) he acquiesced in its continued operation after receiving
many emails specifically implementing the policy and personally discussing it on
several occasions.
16
The Harm to Phillips
82. According to Parker, Phillips first came to the attention of the FOIA
office because she requested transcripts of Adverse Action Hearings, which records
have the potential to embarrass MPD.
83. Her request for records of the Lojocano hearing thus prompted double
scrutiny: The request came from Phillips, who had been placed on the list for
requesting similar records, and the request asked for records that themselves could
embarrass the department.
84. As explained above, the request was immediately denied under
suspicious circumstances.
85. Parker confirms that, contrary to the ordinary policy for FOIA requests,
Turner herself directed the denial after an email flagging the request for Turner and
Newsham.
86. After Phillips was successful in appealing to the Mayor’s Office of Legal
Counsel, Turner and others in the FOIA office decided (as they believe they are
permitted to do under D.C. law) to persist in withholding records.
87. After Phillips threatened to sue MPD if it did not produce responsive
records, Turner acquiesced and directed Parker to begin redacting the records to
remove, among other things, the names and official job titles of witnesses who
testified for and against Lojocano, even though those people testified in a public
hearing.
17
88. Parker began the process of redacting those records, but she had already
been delayed because Turner—again contrary to ordinary practice—took time to
consult with Newsham.
89. Phillips intends to continue her advocacy and to continue requesting
potentially sensitive records from MPD.
90. If MPD’s policy is not enjoined, then, Phillips’s future requests will
surely be delayed; may be subject to improper threats of fees; and may be denied
wrongly outright, as her Lojocano request was.
Claim for Relief
Count One: Content- and Viewpoint-Based Restriction of Speech in

Violation of the First Amendment Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
91. The District of Columbia maintains a policy of delaying, burdening, or
denying FOIA requests on the basis of the content and viewpoint of speech that
requesters will voice using the requested information and on the basis of the content
and viewpoint of speech that requesters have voiced in the past.
92. This policy was implemented by the Chief of Police, who is a delegated
policymaker with respect to the subject of this suit under D.C. law.
93. In the alternative, this policy was ratified by the Chief of Police, who is
a delegated policymaker with respect to the subject of this suit under D.C. law.
94. In the alternative, this policy is a custom or practice so pervasive as to
take on the force of law.
95. Phillips is subject to delays, burdens, and denial of FOIA requests that
she will file in the future because of the content and viewpoint of her prior protected
18
speech and because of the content and viewpoint of the speech that she intends to
voice with requested information in the future.
96. The District has no good reason for imposing these burdens, let alone a
reason that is narrowly tailored to forward a compelling government purpose.
97. The District’s policy, therefore, violates the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Prayer for Relief
Plaintiff Amy Phillips respectfully requests:
• An injunction requiring the District to cease its policy of unfavorable treatment

of certain FOIA requests and requesters (as described in the above Complaint)
and to instead treat all FOIA requests in a materially identical fashion without
regard to the content or viewpoint of the requesters’ prior or anticipated
speech. The injunction should include a way for Phillips and this Court to
ensure continued compliance;
• A declaratory judgment that the District’s policy of unfavorable treatment of
certain FOIA requests and requesters (as described in the above Complaint)
violates the United States Constitution;
• An award of nominal damages in the amount of $1;
• An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and,
• All other relief that this Court may consider just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Charles Gerstein

Charles Gerstein
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
810 7th Street NE, Suite 301
Washington, DC 20002
[email protected]
(202) 670-4809
/s/ Jason Harrow

Jason Harrow
GERSTEIN HARROW LLP
3243B S. La Cienega Blvd.,
19
Los Angeles, CA 90016

[email protected]
(323)-744-5293
20
Case 1:22-cv-00277 Document 1-1 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 12
DECLARATION OF VENDETTE T. PARKER
I, Vendette T. Parker, declare the following:
1. I am over the age of 18 and competent to render testimony

contained herein based on my knowledge and experience as a former
employee of the District of Columbia, Metropolitan Police
Department (MPD).
2. I retired from MPD in January 2020 at the rank of Inspector. I
served as MPD's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer from
October 2017 until my retirement.
3. In 2019, Ms. Amy Phillips filed a FOIA request with MPD for
the entire Adverse Action Hearing file for Officer Sean Lojocano
including all electronic communications, such as emails, text
messages, etc., associated with it.
4. The request was received by MPD on the same day it was filed.
The FOIA office began processing the request immediately.
5. FOIA requests are generally processed as follows: (1) request is
received by intake assistant; (2) the intake assistant reviews the
request to ensure it is seeking records for which MPD is the
repository; (3) once confirmed the request is one in which MPD holds
records, the intake assistant assigns the request to a FOIA specialist
and then sends a notification to the MPD unit likely to be in
possession of the records that a request for records has been made
and requests·that unit to forward all responsive documents to the
assigned FOIA specialist; (4) the intake assistant sends the requester
an email confirming receipt of the request and notifies the requester

of the name and contact information of the FOIA specialist assigned
to process the request; (5) the records are located and forwarded to
the assigned FOIA specialist; (6) the FOIA specialist reviews the
documents for responsiveness. Of the records that are responsive,
the FOIA specialist prepares the records for release to the requester
by redacting any information deemed exempt under DC Code,
DCMR, or any other controlling authority; (7) upon completion, the
proposed responsive records to be released are reviewed by the FOIA
supervisor or the FOIA officer for completeness and accuracy; finally,
(8) the responsive records are released to the requester.
6. Although this is generally how FOIA requests were processed,
there was a different process for certain situations.
7. On my very first day assigned to the FOIA office, my new
supervisor, the then Chief Operating Officer, LeeAnn Turner,
conferenced with me and gave me her expectations of me in my new
role. She explained first that the office was generating surplus Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints and that she wanted me
to quell those intraoffice issues. Second, she explained that the then
Chief of Police, Peter Newsham, felt he was being blindsided as the
media and others confronted him with questions regarding records
they had obtained from FOIA; records he was unaware had been
released.
8. As a result and to prevent Chief Newsham from being
blindsided in the future, Ms. Turner advised me of an unofficial,
2
unwritten policy that required the FOIA officer to notify Chief

Newsham and Ms. Turner of any FOIA request originating from the
media, certain identified individuals, or requests for certain records.
9. Although Ms. Turner did not name any specific individual in
this meeting, she made it clear that I should bring to her attention any
request coming from a person he has previously published a negative
media article about Chief Newsham or MPD, if he uses the records
for litigation if he is outspoken in City Council or community
meetings in a negative way toward Chief Newsham or MPD, if the
requester is the subject of a high profile incident, or if he repeatedly
requests records that have the potential to be detrimental to Chief
Newsham or MPD, regardless is of whether or not what is currently
being requested is potentially detrimental.
10. Some examples are Eric Flack, WUSA9 reporter; Marina
Marraco, Fox5 reporter; the ACLU; Denise Krepp ANC
Commissioner; Lorenzo Greene, ANC Commissioner; Benjamin
Douglass, Anti-Defamation League (ADL); Emily Barth, Public
Defender's Office; and Amy Phillips, Public Defender's Office;
among others.
11. Examples of requested records that would invoke the unofficial
and unwritten procedure were requests for any Gun Recovery Unit
(GRU) records, personnel records, the Chief's or Ms. Turner's emails,
use of force records, stop and frisk records, any records related to a
recent negative high profile event involving MPD, any type of
statistics or data, and adverse action records, among others.
3
12. When such records were requested, Ms. Turner would often
either direct me to or research the requester herself using publicly
available sources such as google. Ms. Turner was interested in who
the requester was to better predict the motivation of the requester for
requesting the records they requested and how those records might
be used (to harm MPD or Chief Newsham reputationally, in
litigation, etc.).
13. To facilitate this unofficial and unwritten policy, I sent an email
to Chief Newsham and Ms. Turner weekly which included a listing
of all FOIA requests received the prior week, highlighting any
requests that originated from the media, specific individuals, or
sought certain records.
14. Additionally, Ms. Turner convened a weekly FOIA meeting
every Tuesday at 11:00am where the highlighted FOIA requests were
discussed and I was given specific instruction on how Ms. Turner
wanted them handled.
15. Once these highlighted FOIA requests had been processed, I
was required to present the proposed responsive records to Ms.
Turner, at the aforementioned Tuesday meetings, for authorization to
release. The proposed responsive records were to be presented to
Ms. Turner in printed form. The Chief and Ms. Turner were averse to
emails as they created material susceptible to FOIA laws or discovery
in litigation.
16. The purpose of presenting the records to Ms. Turner was to
allow her and Chief Newsham an opportunity to inspect what
4
records were about to be released in order to prepare in case any of

the records being released would have a reputationally detrimental
impact to Chief Newsham or MPD before the requester received the
potentially detrimental records.
17. I have no knowledge of whether Ms. Turner and Chief
Newsham actually met to discuss any proposed releasable records. I
was never a part of their meetings. I only know that Ms. Turner told
me she would discuss them with Chief Newsham.
18. In the case of Ms. Phillips, two criteria were met requiring her
requests be elevated to the attention of Chief Newsham and Ms.
Turner. Ms. Phillips was one of the specific individuals and she was
requesting records pertaining to Lojocano; an officer involved in a
high-profile incident.
19. The Public Defender's Office originally came to the attention of
Chief Newsham and Ms. Turner due to the records its representatives
sought in FOIA requests filed prior to the one at subject here and
because she was a public defender requesting them. The PDS had
previously requested all of the names and badge numbers for every
officer assigned to each patrol district, the Narcotics and Special
Investigations Division (NSID), and the Gun Recovery Unit (GRU).
Ms. Phillips, in her capacity as a public defender, also requested
copies of the transcripts for every Adverse Action Hearing that
occurred during a specified time period, among other requests.
20. . In compliance with MPD' s unofficial FOIA policy, when Ms.
Phillips' s request for Lojocano' s adverse action hearing transcripts
5
was received, I notified Ms. Turner of the request. She advised me to

deny the request as the agency considered these documents to be
personnel records and it was the agency's position not to release such
records under the personal privacy exemption.
21. A letter was sent to Ms. Phillips notifying her that her request
was denied and providing her with information on the appeal
process.
22. There are two options once a District of Columbia government
agency denies, in whole or part, a FOIA request. The requester may
appeal to the MOLC (agency that handles FOIA complaints), or the
requester may file a lawsuit to seek judicial remedy.
23. Ms. Phillips appealed the denial to the Mayor's Office of Legal
Counsel (MOLC).
24. After consideration, the MOLC ruled that these records were a
matter of public interest; the public's interest in the case outweighed
Lojocano' s privacy interest and that MPD should release the records.
25. Redacted
· 26. Redacted
27. Redacted
6
Redacted
28. Redacted
29. Redacted
30. Redacted
31. While the FOIA office awaited a decision from the Chief's
office, Ms. Phillips contacted the FOIA office to follow up on the
disposition of her request. I informed Ms. Phillips that MPD received
the MOLC' s ruling and was in the process of considering next steps.
Ms. Phillips provided a deadline to begin receiving records and
informed me should that deadline expire without receiving any, she
would file a lawsuit.
32. Redacted
7
33. I contacted Ms. Phillips the same day and informed her that we
would process and release responsive records to her as soon as
possible.
34. Redacted
35. The records were stored ·on a shared drive to which members of
OGC had access.
36. Ms. Phillips contacted me via email once again to ask the
disposition of her request. I informed her that her request was still
being processed. Ms. Phillips again threatened litigation.
37. Ms. Phillips' s second threat was communicated to Ms. Turner
via phone, not email.
38. Shortly afterward, in approximately June of 2019, I was notified
by the District of Columbia, Office of the Attorney General (OAG),
that Ms. Phillips had indeed filed a lawsuit seeking release of the
requested records.
39. I advised Ms. Turner via phone conversation and reminded her
that I had completed processing the records and they were ready to
be released once authorized.
8
40. Redacted
41. Redacted
42. Redacted
43. Redacted
44. Redacted
45. The day before the scheduled hearing, Ms. Turner gave final
authorization and all responsive records within FOIA' s custody at
that time were released with the exception of Body Worn Camera
(BWC) footage.
9
46. BWC video was not processed as part of Ms. Phillip's request
because Ms. Turner informed me that it was the agency's position
that the BWC video was not responsive.
47. All records that the FOIA office received from MPD' s
Disciplinary Review Office in response to Ms. Phillips' s request were
saved on the aforementioned shared drive for which all FOIA
specialists, FOIA supervisors, the FOIA officer, and several members
of OGC had access. At no time did I store any records on a storage
medium to which I only had access.
48. Additionally, all records that the FOIA office received from
MPD' s Disciplinary Review Office (repository unit for adverse action
hearing records) in response to Ms. Phillips' s request were processed
by me then reviewed by Mr. Viehmeyer and Ms. Turner. The
documents proposed for release, the applied redactions, and those
withheld were approved by both.
49. Although I was the FOIA officer for MPD, it is not accurate that
I approved nor made the final determination to release all records. In
many situations, the approval to release documents, which ones, and
when to release them were made by Ms. Turner and Chief Newsham.
This case is an example of one of them.
50. Redacted
10
51. Other examples of FOIA requests where Ms. Turner took

control include: (1) a request in which outside employment records
were requested in response to a recent news story on a local news
channel. The request generated hundreds of responsive documents.
One of the records appeared to have been faxed and was distorted
and off center on the copy. Ms. Turner was unhappy with the
aesthetic of the record and refused to allow them to be released. She
directed me to contact the unit responsible for keeping the records to
see if they had a better copy. I contacted that unit and was informed
the distorted copy was the only one they had. When I told Ms.
Turner this, she said the distorted copy looked unprofessional and
refused to approve the release of the records; (2) a request which
sought stop and frisk reports was delayed from release until each
report was read and several meetings were held with a group of Ms.
Turner's direct reports (Mr. Matthew Bromeland, then chief of staff;
Ms. Kelly O'Meara, director of strategic change; Ms. Maureen
O'Connell, director of policy and standards; Ms Heidi Fieselmann,
special assistant to chief of police; Mr. Dustin Sternbeck, Public
Information Officer, and me) where the ramifications of releasing the
requested records were discussed and what the agency's response
should be; (3) a request for injured person to hospital reports. After I
gathered all of the responsive documents, Ms. Turner directed
Commander Leslie Parson, Criminal Investigations Division, to
conduct a full investigative follow-up on each report and update the
classification of those needing updating. Ms. Turner conferenced
11
with Commander Parson and me and went through each report

before approving the records for release.
52. It should be noted here that Ms. Turner was aware of the time
restraints the DC FOIA law placed on each agency and that her
refusal to authorize release of records until the agency was
comfortable with what was being released would put the agency in
violation of the DC FOIA law's time restraints.
53. I did not convey MPD' s unofficial and unwritten FOIA
procedure to the OAG or any other authority because I felt
intimidated. Four months prior to being assigned to the FOIA office,
Chief Newsham took retributive action against me in what can only
be defined an act of retaliation. I was demoted from commander to
inspector after speaking up about a different incident and perceived
that if I spoke up about the issues described in this statement that I
would be retaliated against once more.
54. My statements here are being made from my memory of events
that occurred at least three years ago and without the benefit of or
ability to review notes or emails. I retired from MPD in 2020 and no
longer have access to those verifying documents.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is ~-----.;
correct to the best of my recollection.@
Inspector Vendette T. Parker, retired
12
CIVIL COVER SHEET
JS-44 (Rev. 11/2020 DC)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
AMY PHILLIPS THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF _____________________ COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT _____________________
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
Gerstein Harrow LLP
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX FOR
(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY) PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT) FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY!
o 1 U.S. Government o 3 Federal Question

PTF DFT
o1 o1
PTF
o4 o4
DFT
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of this State Incorporated or Principal Place
of Business in This State
o 2 U.S. Government o 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State o2 o2 Incorporated and Principal Place o5 o5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of
of Business in Another State
Parties in item III) Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
o3 o3 Foreign Nation o6 o6
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an X in one category, A-N, that best represents your Cause of Action and one in a corresponding Nature of Suit)
o A. Antitrust o B. Personal Injury/ o C. Administrative Agency o D. Temporary Restraining
Malpractice Review Order/Preliminary
410 Antitrust Injunction
310 Airplane 151 Medicare Act
315 Airplane Product Liability Any nature of suit from any category
320 Assault, Libel & Slander Social Security
may be selected for this category of
861 HIA (1395ff)
330 Federal Employers Liability case assignment.
862 Black Lung (923)
340 Marine
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) *(If Antitrust, then A governs)*
345 Marine Product Liability
864 SSID Title XVI
350 Motor Vehicle
865 RSI (405(g))
355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Other Statutes
360 Other Personal Injury
891 Agricultural Acts
362 Medical Malpractice
893 Environmental Matters
365 Product Liability
890 Other Statutory Actions (If
367 Health Care/Pharmaceutical
Administrative Agency is
Personal Injury Product Liability
Involved)
368 Asbestos Product Liability
o E. General Civil (Other) OR o F. Pro Se General Civil

Real Property Bankruptcy Federal Tax Suits
210 Land Condemnation 422 Appeal 27 USC 158 870 Taxes (US plaintiff or 465 Other Immigration Actions
220 Foreclosure 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 defendant) 470 Racketeer Influenced
230 Rent, Lease & Ejectment 871 IRS-Third Party 26 USC & Corrupt Organization
240 Torts to Land Prisoner Petitions 7609
480 Consumer Credit
245 Tort Product Liability 535 Death Penalty
Forfeiture/Penalty 485 Telephone Consumer
290 All Other Real Property 540 Mandamus & Other
625 Drug Related Seizure of Protection Act (TCPA)
550 Civil Rights
Property 21 USC 881 490 Cable/Satellite TV
Personal Property 555 Prison Conditions
690 Other 850 Securities/Commodities/
370 Other Fraud 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions
Exchange
371 Truth in Lending of Confinement
Other Statutes 896 Arbitration
380 Other Personal Property
375 False Claims Act 899 Administrative Procedure
Damage Property Rights
376 Qui Tam (31 USC Act/Review or Appeal of
385 Property Damage 820 Copyrights
3729(a)) Agency Decision
Product Liability 830 Patent
400 State Reapportionment 950 Constitutionality of State
835 Patent – Abbreviated New
430 Banks & Banking Statutes
Drug Application
450 Commerce/ICC Rates/etc 890 Other Statutory Actions
840 Trademark
460 Deportation (if not administrative agency
880 Defend Trade Secrets Act of
462 Naturalization review or Privacy Act)
2016 (DTSA)
Application
o G. Habeas Corpus/ o H. Employment o I. FOIA/Privacy Act o J. Student Loan
2255 Discrimination
530 Habeas Corpus – General 442 Civil Rights – Employment 895 Freedom of Information Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted
510 Motion/Vacate Sentence (criteria: race, gender/sex, 890 Other Statutory Actions Student Loan
463 Habeas Corpus – Alien national origin, (if Privacy Act) (excluding veterans)
Detainee discrimination, disability, age,
religion, retaliation)
*(If pro se, select this deck)* *(If pro se, select this deck)*
o K. Labor/ERISA o L. Other Civil Rights o M. Contract o N. Three-Judge

(non-employment) (non-employment) Court
110 Insurance
710 Fair Labor Standards Act 441 Voting (if not Voting Rights 120 Marine 441 Civil Rights – Voting
720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations Act) 130 Miller Act (if Voting Rights Act)
740 Labor Railway Act 443 Housing/Accommodations 140 Negotiable Instrument
751 Family and Medical 440 Other Civil Rights 150 Recovery of Overpayment
Leave Act 445 Americans w/Disabilities – & Enforcement of
790 Other Labor Litigation Employment Judgment
791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act 446 Americans w/Disabilities – 153 Recovery of Overpayment
Other of Veteran’s Benefits
448 Education 160 Stockholder’s Suits
190 Other Contracts
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
V. ORIGIN
o 1 Original o 2 Removed o 3 Remanded o 4 Reinstated o 5 Transferred o 6 Multi-district o 7 Appeal to o 8 Multi-district
Proceeding from State from Appellate or Reopened from another Litigation District Judge Litigation –
Court Court district (specify) from Mag. Direct File
Judge
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE.)
Action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 to enjoin a policy violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAND $ 1 Check YES only if demanded in complaint
COMPLAINT ACTION UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: YES NO ✘
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instruction)
YES NO ✘ If yes, please complete related case form
IF ANY
2/2/2022
DATE: _________________________
/s/ Charles Gerstein
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD _________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET JS-44

Authority for Civil Cover Sheet
The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and services of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the
Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed.
Listed below are tips for completing the civil cover sheet. These tips coincide with the Roman Numerals on the cover sheet.
I. COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT (b) County of residence: Use 11001 to indicate plaintiff if resident
of Washington, DC, 88888 if plaintiff is resident of United States but not Washington, DC, and 99999 if plaintiff is outside the United States.
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Basis of Jurisdiction
under Section II.
IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your case will depend on the category you select that best
represents the primary cause of action found in your complaint. You may select only one category. You must also select one corresponding
nature of suit found under the category of the case.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write a brief statement of the primary cause.
VIII. RELATED CASE(S), IF ANY: If you indicated that there is a related case, you must complete a related case form, which may be obtained from
the Clerk’s Office.
Because of the need for accurate and complete information, you should ensure the accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form.
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12; DC 3/15) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
__________
District District of __________
of Columbia
Amy Phillips, )
)
)
)
Plaintiff(s) )
)
v. Civil Action No. 22-CV-277
)
The District of Columbia, )
)
)
)
Defendant(s) )
SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION
To: (Defendant’s name and address) The District of Columbia,

1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW
A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,
whose name and address are: Charles Gerstein
Gerstein Harrow LLP
If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.
ANGELA D. CAESAR, CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Doc. 1 Complaint & Exhibit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doc. 1 Complaint & Exhibit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doc. 1 Complaint & Exhibit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-00277 Document 1 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 21

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1. The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPD)

requesting potentially embarrassing information. She brings this Action to stop

MPD’s flagrant constitutional violations.

2. Amy Phillips is a criminal-defense lawyer in Washington, D.C. She is an

3. The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation formed pursuant to

viewpoint of their prior or anticipated speech.

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Phillips brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of

Phillips’s Early Advocacy

6. In 2018, she began to invoke her rights under FOIA to obtain

8. In one request, Phillips sought information concerning the activities of

to learn what types of criminal or misconduct accusations have been sustained

9. In another request, Phillips sought documents related to then–Chief of

for car searches undertaken with questionable suspicion.

Twitter account that were critical of MPD and its officers.

The Lojocano Adverse Action Hearing And MPD’s Suspicious

Hearing held by MPD’s Disciplinary Review Division to adjudicate alleged

misconduct by then-Officer Sean Lojocano.

actionable misconduct, including criminal conduct. They are trial-like proceedings,

13. Lojocano was alleged to have conducted unnecessarily invasive genital

searches of members of the public.

District of Columbia (ACLU).

16. MPD recorded the proceedings electronically, and that electronic

attorney and a news reporter.

22. In another request, Phillips sought information concerning MPD’s

posted outside a room with no public signage.

constitute as a [sic] clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and is exempt

from disclosure pursuant to D.C. Official Code § 2-534(a)(2) and (a)(3)(C).”

months to provide any substantive response to FOIA requests. And Crumlin’s

many others attended—were categorically excludable as invasions of someone’s

privacy, which does not make any sense.

25. Phillips, as permitted by D.C. law, appealed MPD’s decision to the

Mayor’s Office of Legal Counsel.

28. By June 2, 2019, Phillips had still received no records.

29. So she sued the District in Superior Court seeking an injunction

requiring the District to produce the records.

Office’s response to her requests. The article reads, in part:

“I continue to be surprised at just how vociferously MPD is

began producing documents responsive to Phillips’s requests, but with redactions

the production remained.

case against the District with prejudice.

A Whistleblower Comes Forward

retired as MPD’s FOIA Officer.

Parker served as MPD’s FOIA officer.

36. Parker alerted Phillips to the existence of the watchlist policy.

37. Parker submitted a signed declaration in Phillips’s Superior Court case

MPD’s Watchlist Policy

38. MPD’s ordinary process of responding to a FOIA request is

straightforward: An intake assistant reviews the request to make sure it is seeking

historically not charged such a fee.

39. Some requests, though, get special treatment.

had received in response to FOIA requests.

Parker of an unofficial, unwritten policy requiring Parker to notify Newsham and

those originating from news reporters or people known to be critical of the

department, or those containing requests for information with the potential to

embarrass the department.

requests with the potential to embarrass Newsham or the department.