Defendant FDIC Motion For Summary Judgment Plaintiff McKinley (Lawsuit #2)

Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 20 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE )
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
FDIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) hereby moves pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a) and the Court’s Minute Order of February 23, 2011, for summary judgment on
the only remaining issue in this Freedom of Information Act case: whether the FDIC satisfied its
obligation to conduct a reasonable search for responsive materials. Declarations, a Statement of
Material Facts Not In Dispute, a memorandum in support of the motion, and a proposed order are
attached.
Respectfully submitted,
COLLEEN J. BOLES
Assistant General Counsel
BARBARA SARSHIK
Senior Counsel /s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach
DANIEL H. KURTENBACH
BARBARA KATRON Counsel
Counsel D.C. Bar No. 426590
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
3501 Fairfax Drive, Room VS-D7026
Arlington, VA 22226
dkurtenbach@fdic.gov
703-562-2465 (office)
March 18, 2011 703-562-2477 (fax)

)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
FDIC’S STATMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
Defendant Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) hereby submits the following
Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment:
General
1. Each of the three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that are the subject of
this litigation refers to a specific provision of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Fisch Decl.
Exh. 1, 3, 5.
2. The referenced statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1823(c), includes a provision, subparagraph
(c)(4)(G), which creates an exception (known as the Systemic Risk exception) to the general
requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (E) that FDIC use the least costly method for resolving a
failed financial institution, and not take action which would increase losses to the Deposit
Insurance Fund. 12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4).
3. The relevant portion of the Systemic Risk provision (in effect in the time period of the
actions described in the three FOIA requests) states as follows:
1
Systemic risk
(i) Emergency determination by Secretary of the Treasury
Not withstanding subparagraphs (A) and (E), if, upon the written
recommendation of the Board of Directors (upon a vote of not less than two-thirds
of the members of the Board of Directors) and the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (upon a vote of not less than two-thirds of the members
of such Board), the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation with the President)
determines that --
(I) the Corporation’s compliance with subparagraphs (A) and (E)

with respect to an insured depository institution would have serious
adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability; and
(II) any action or assistance under this subparagraph would avoid

or mitigate such adverse effects,
the Corporation may take other action or provide assistance under this section as
necessary to avoid or mitigate such effects.
12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4)(G)(i) (2009).
4. The FDIC Board of Directors’ determinations referenced in Plaintiff’s three FOIA
requests are decisions by the Board to recommend to the Secretary of the Treasury that the
Secretary invoke the Systemic Risk exception. Dkt. 14 at 1-5.
5. The Executive Secretary Section of the Corporate, Consumer, Insurance, and
Legislation Branch of the Legal Division (ESS) is the official custodian of records of meetings of
the FDIC Board of Directors. Hammond Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4; Fisch Decl. ¶¶ 13, 19, 26.
6. The official records of the FDIC Board of Directors meetings of October 13, 2008,
November 23, 2008, and January 15, 2009 are in the custody of the ESS. Hammond Decl. ¶¶ 19,
25, 31.
FOIA Request No. 09-1976 (Citigroup)
7. On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff sent a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request
to the FDIC seeking records about the FDIC’s determination on November 23, 2008 to provide
2
financial assistance to Citigroup, Inc. Declaration of Vern McKinley, Dkt. 7-1 (“McKinley
Decl.”) ¶ 2. In addition to the requester’s contact information, the request included information
stating that it involved Citigroup of New York, that the requester agreed to pay up to $200 in
fees relating to the request, and a description of the information sought. The “Information
Requested” portion of this request reads as follows:
I am requesting further detail on information on the transaction described in the

following FDIC press release:
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08125.html
The source of this power is Section 13(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C. 1823(c)).
There is a requirement that under this section under the emergency determination
there must be a finding of "serious adverse effects on economic conditions or
financial stability" if the action is not taken. I would like any information
available on this determination such as meeting minutes or supporting memos.
More specifically, I understand this issue was addressed at an FDIC Board
Meeting on November 23, 2008. So I would like the minutes from this meeting,
the Board Case and any other supporting memos to these documents.
Fisch Decl. Exh. 1.
8. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 4, 2009, regarding Citigroup was received by
the FDIC’s Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Group (FOIA/PA Group) on December 4,
2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-1976. Fisch Decl. ¶ 11.
9. On December 7, 2009, request no. 09-1976 was forwarded to Supervisory Counsel
Frederick L. Fisch of the FOIA/PA Group. Mr. Fisch reviewed the request and determined,
based upon the “Information Requested” portion of the request, that the FDIC’s Executive
Secretary Section in the Legal Division (ESS) would have the records responsive to the request.
Further, Mr. Fisch determined that, because ESS would have all records responsive to the
request, there was no need to conduct a search in any other FDIC office or division. Fisch Decl.
¶¶ 12-13.
3
10. On December 11, 2009, the FOIA/PA Group forwarded request no. 09-1976 to
Catherine Hammond in ESS for the purpose of conducting a search for responsive records. Fisch
Decl. ¶ 14; Hammond Decl. ¶ 17.
11. On or about December 15, 2009, Ms. Hammond conducted a search of ESS records
and determined that two records in ESS were potentially responsive to request no. 09-1976: the
Minutes of the closed meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors held on November 23, 2008, and
a November 23, 2008 memorandum to the Board of Directors from James R. Wigand and
Herbert J. Held. Hammond Decl. ¶ 19.
12. On or about December 16, 2009, Ms. Hammond forwarded the potentially
responsive records to the FOIA coordinator for the Legal Division. Hammond Decl. ¶ 20. The
FOIA/PA Group received the records on January 27, 2010. Fisch Decl. ¶ 15.
FOIA Request No. 09-2054 (Bank of America)
13. On December 20, 2009, Plaintiff sent a second FOIA request to the FDIC seeking
records about the FDIC’s determination to provide financial assistance to Bank of America Corp.
McKinley Decl. at ¶4. In addition to the requester’s contact information, the request included
information stating that it involved Bank of America of Charlotte, North Carolina, that the
requester agreed to pay up to $200 in fees relating to the request, and a description of the
information sought. The “Information Requested” portion of this request reads as follows:

available on this determination such as meeting minutes and supporting memos.
4
Fisch Decl. Exh. 3.
14. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 20, 2009, regarding Bank of America was
received by the FOIA/PA Group on December 22, 2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-2054.
Fisch Decl. ¶ 17.
Secretary Section (ESS) would have the records responsive to the request. Further, Mr. Fisch
determined that, because ESS would have all records responsive to the request, there was no
need to conduct a search in any other FDIC office or division. Fisch Decl. ¶¶ 18-19.
17. On or about January 11, 2010, Ms. Hammond conducted a search of ESS records and
determined that two records in ESS were potentially responsive to request no. 09-2054: the
Minutes of the closed meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors held on January 15, 2009, and a
January 15, 2009 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman, Sandra L.
Thompson, Arthur J. Murton, and John V. Thomas. Hammond Decl. ¶ 24-25.
18. On or about January 11, 2010, Ms. Hammond forwarded the potentially responsive
records to the FOIA coordinator for the Legal Division. Hammond Decl. ¶ 26. The FOIA/PA
Group received the records on January 27, 2010. Fisch Decl. ¶ 22.
5
FOIA Request No. 09-2055 (TLGP)
19. Also on December 20, 2009, Plaintiff sent a third FOIA request to FDIC seeking
records about the FDIC’s determination to create a new program, known as the Temporary
Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), to provide financial assistance to banks, thrift institutions,
and certain bank holding companies. McKinley Decl. at ¶3. In addition to the requester’s
contact information, the request included information stating that it involved multiple
institutions, that the requester agreed to pay up to $200 in fees relating to the request, and a
description of the information sought. The “Information Requested” portion of this request reads
as follows:
I am requesting further detail on information on the program described in the

Fisch Decl. Exh. 5.
20. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 20, 2009, regarding TLGP was received by the
FOIA/PA Group on December 22, 2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-2055. Fisch Decl. ¶ 24.
Secretary Section (ESS) would have the records responsive to the request. Further, Mr. Fisch
determined that, because ESS would have all records responsive to the request, there was no
need to conduct a search in any other FDIC office or division. Fisch Decl. ¶¶ 25-26.
6
23. On or about January 11, 2010, Ms. Hammond conducted a search of ESS records and
determined that two records in ESS were potentially responsive to request no. 09-2055: the
Minutes of the closed meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors held on October 13, 2008, and an
October 13, 2008 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman.
Hammond Decl. ¶¶ 30-31.
24. On or about January 11, 2010, Ms. Hammond forwarded the potentially responsive
records to the FOIA coordinator for the Legal Division. Hammond Decl. ¶ 32. The FOIA/PA
Group received the records on January 27, 2010. Fisch Decl. ¶ 29.
COLLEEN J. BOLES
BARBARA SARSHIK
Senior Counsel
BARBARA KATRON
Counsel
/s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach

Counsel
D.C. Bar No. 426590
Arlington, VA 22226
703-562-2465 (office)
703-562-2477 (fax)
7

)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
FDIC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
The relevant background to this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)1 case is set out in
the Court’s Memorandum Opinion of December 23, 2010 (Dkt. 17). After the Court’s opinion
and associated Order (Dkt. 16) were issued, the FDIC released the redacted portions of the six
documents previously provided to Plaintiff,2 resolving the issue whether FOIA and Sunshine Act
exemptions were properly claimed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Accordingly, on February 23, 2011, the Court ordered the FDIC to file a motion for summary
judgment on the only remaining issue in this case: whether the FDIC satisfied its obligation to
conduct reasonable searches for responsive materials.
1
552 U.S.C. § 552, amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524.
2
As described in the parties’ Second Joint Status Report (Dkt. 19), on January 27, 2011, the Financial
Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) publicly released unredacted versions of the Citigroup and Bank of
America Case Memoranda and transcripts of those two Board meetings. Because the transcripts of the
meetings had been released, FDIC determined that the information contained in the Board Minutes of
those two meetings had already been made available. In light of the extensive disclosures by the FCIC on
agency responses to the financial crisis, and expiration of the TLGP as of December 31, 2010, FDIC
determined that it was now appropriate to release the TLGP Case Memorandum and Board Minutes.
1
As set out in detail in the Declarations accompanying this motion, the information
contained within the four corners of each request provided the basis for determining the scope of
the FDIC’s search for responsible materials. FDIC staff reviewed each request to identify the
types of records requested, and reasonably concluded that any records responsive to Plaintiff’s
requests would be located in one place: the FDIC’s Executive Secretary Section (ESS). This is
because the requests sought information about statutory determinations made by the FDIC’s
Board of Directors, and specified that the types of information being sought were “meeting
minutes and supporting memos.” As the custodian of the official records of the Board of
Directors meetings, ESS was the most likely place to find those documents. Also as set out in
detail in the Declarations, FDIC staff in the ESS responsible for conducting the searches had
only one electronic indexing system and one paper records system to search, and because each of
the three requests concerned a Board of Directors meeting on a specific date concerning a
specific topic, locating potentially responsive records was a straightforward process.
II. Standard Of Review For A Motion For Summary Judgment
The Court’s Memorandum Opinion in this case (Dkt. 17), sets out the standard for
reviewing a motion for summary judgment:
The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with
affidavits or declarations, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(c). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. The nonmoving party, however, cannot rely on
“mere allegations or denials.” If the Court concludes that “the nonmoving party
has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of [its] case with
respect to which [it] has the burden of proof,” then the moving
party is entitled to summary judgment.
Dkt. 17 at 5-6 (citations omitted).
2
As the Court also stated, a defendant agency has the burden of proof in a FOIA
action to show that it complied with FOIA. Id. at 8. An agency meets its burden by:
“ . . . providing ‘a reasonably detailed affidavit, setting forth the search terms and
the type of search performed, and averring that all files likely to contain
responsive materials . . . were searched.’” Although the affidavit or declaration
submitted by the agency “need not set forth with meticulous documentation the
details of an epic search for the requested records, [it must] describe what records
were searched, by whom, and through what processes.”
Id. at 8-9 (citations omitted). The Court found that the FDIC’s original declaration “does not
explain the search methods employed by the FDIC to respond to plaintiff’s requests, who
conducted the searches, whether he is personally aware of the search procedures used, or if such
procedures were followed by the Executive Secretary [Section].” The Court stated that:
The FDIC must . . . provide the Court with declarations from which the Court can
find that the declarants have personal knowledge that the search methodology,
procedures, and searches actually conducted were reasonably designed to locate
documents responsive to plaintiff’s requests.
Id. at 10-11.
III. Argument
The declarations of Fredrick L. Fisch (Fisch Declaration) and Catherine L. Hammond
(Hammond Declaration) submitted with this motion satisfy the FDIC’s burden of production in
this case: They permit the Court to find that the declarants have personal knowledge that the
search methodology, procedures and searches actually conducted were reasonably designed to
locate documents responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. The searches conducted for documents
responsive to Plaintiff’s requests were “consistent with governing caselaw,” Dkt. 17 at 10.
The actual searches for responsive records, as conducted by Catherine Hammond in the
ESS, and described in her declaration, were straightforward. The actual records -- the official
records of meetings of the FDIC Board of Directors -- are in paper form in a standardized format.
3
ESS staff search for particular records by date or topic using their electronic indexing system.
Because Plaintiff’s requests referred to specific Board meetings involving specific topics and
specific dates, Ms. Hammond was able to locate potentially responsive records with no
difficulty.
The real point of contention here is the decision by FDIC’s FOIA staff in each instance to
search for responsive records only in the ESS.
As set out step by step in the Fisch Declaration, the reasoning was simple: In each
request, Plaintiff was seeking information about a “determination” made by the FDIC Board of
Directors; in each request, Plaintiff stated that the types of information he was seeking were
“meeting minutes and supporting memos”;3 and because the ESS is the custodian of the official
records of FDIC Board of Directors meetings, in each instance the ESS was the most likely place
to find records “such as meeting minutes and supporting memos.”
Each of the Board actions that was the subject of a FOIA request by Plaintiff involved a
recommendation to the Secretary of the Treasury that he make a determination under the
“systemic risk exception,” which would allow the FDIC to exercise powers that are normally
limited by statute. The relevant portion of the systemic risk provision, 12 U.S.C.
§ 1823(c)(4)(G)(i), is set out at ¶ 3 of the FDIC’s Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute.
The provision specifies that the recommendation to the Secretary is made by “the Board of
Directors (upon a vote of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Board of Directors).”
Such an action cannot be taken by the Chairman of the FDIC, or by a senior executive or other
staff of the FDIC, or by any office or division of the FDIC. It can only be taken at a Board
3
One of the three requests, no. 09-1976 (Citigroup) contained additional descriptive information not
found in the other two: “More specifically, I understand this issue was addressed at an FDIC Board
Meeting on November 23, 2008. So I would like the minutes from this meeting, the Board Case and other
supporting memos to these documents.” Fisch Decl. Exh. 1 (emphasis added).
4
meeting by a two-thirds vote of the FDIC Board of Directors. Thus, the official records of such
actions would be found where all of the records of all Board meetings and Board votes are found
-- in the ESS.
There is no requirement under FOIA that every agency record must be searched in an
effort to locate every possible document that may be responsive to a FOIA request. Rather, as
this Court has stated:
An agency's search is adequate if its methods are reasonably calculated to

locate records responsive to a FOIA request, see Oglesby v. United States Dep't of
the Army, 920 F.2d 57, 68 (D.C.Cir.1990), and an agency is not obligated to
expand the scope of its search or to search all of its systems of records when it has
searched the systems of records most likely to contain responsive records. See
Campbell v. United States Dep't of Justice, 164 F.3d 20, 28 (D.C.Cir.1998)
(stating that an agency generally need not search every records system as long as
it conducts “a reasonable search tailored to the nature of a particular request”)
(citing Oglesby, 920 F.2d at 68). “[T]he issue to be resolved is not whether there
might exist any other documents possibly responsive to the request, but rather
whether the search for those documents was adequate.” Weisberg v. Dep't of
Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citing Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121,
128 (D.C.Cir.1982)).
Wolfson v. United States, 672 F. Supp. 2d 20, 26 (D.D.C. 2009). The critical factor in measuring
the adequacy of an agency’s search for responsive records is “the reasonableness of the effort in
light of the specific request.” Larson v. Dept. of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2009), citing
Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 956 (D.C.Cir.1986). Thus it is the parameters of the specific
request, as reasonably interpreted by the agency, that determine the scope of the search. In this
case, the information contained within the four corners of Plaintiff’s specific requests pointed
directly to the types of records maintained by ESS.
There is no question, nor has Plaintiff ever argued, that the documents located in the ESS
searches (Board Minutes and Case Memoranda for each of the three Board meetings) were in
any way non-responsive. In fact, they were exactly what Plaintiff was looking for. Rather,
5
Plaintiff’s complaint is that the FDIC should have searched beyond the ESS to find additional
responsive records. “Plaintiff requested any and all information available on the three
recommendations made by the FDIC [but] the FDIC only provided a single set of minutes and a
single supporting memorandum for each of the recommendations.” Dkt. 14 at 8 (emphasis
added).
FDIC staff properly interpreted Plaintiff’s requests in a manner that would not render
them patently overbroad. It is well established that requests in terms such as “any and all” do not
reasonably describe records sought, as required by FOIA. Dale v. IRS, 238 F. Supp. 2d 99, 104
(D.D.C. 2002) (deficient request sought “any and all documents, including but not limited to
files, that refer or relate in any way to Billy Ray Dale”); Latham v. DOJ, 658 F. Supp. 2d 155,
161 (D.D.C. 2009) (request for “any records . . . that pertain in any form or sort to [plaintiff]”
was overly broad); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Exp.-Imp. Bank, 108 F. Supp. 2d 19, 27-28 (D.D.C.
2000) (rejecting request for records of “contact with companies, entities, and/or persons related
or doing or conducting business in any way” with China); Mason v. Callaway, 554 F.2d 129, 131
(4th Cir. 1977) (request for “all correspondence, documents, memoranda, tape recordings, notes,
and any other material” inadequately identified records sought). As the Fourth Circuit stated in
Mason v. Callaway: “This request typifies the lack of specificity that Congress sought to
preclude in the requirement of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3) that records sought be reasonably described.”
554 F.2d. at 131. Rather that rejecting the requests in their entirety based on the phrase “any
information available,” FDIC staff gave Plaintiff’s requests reasonable interpretations based on
the large amount of specific information otherwise contained in the requests.
Plaintiff further complains that: “The FDIC did not produce any email correspondence,
meeting notes, or memoranda. The GAO report specifically indicated that such records exist.”
6
Dkt. 14 at 8. Very simply, if Plaintiff was reading the GAO report and decided that he wanted
email correspondence, meeting notes, or memoranda from “FDIC officials” dating from before
the Board meetings, Dkt. 14 at 8-9, he should have asked for that information. He did not.
Rather, he asked for records about the “determinations” that the Board made (as described in the
press releases) and that only the Board could make under section 1823(c); and he asked for
records “such as” meeting minutes and supporting memos. FDIC staff had no reason to believe
that Plaintiff meant something other than exactly what he asked for, and had no reason to look in
places other than where the specified records requested by Plaintiff were most likely to be found
-- and actually were found.
In his Reply brief in support of his previous motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14 at 9)
Plaintiff complained that the searches were inadequate because the FDIC failed to provide
another document allegedly responsive to his request regarding the Temporary Liquidity
Guarantee Program (TLGP). Plaintiff asserted that the FDIC should have located and provided a
document specifically mentioned in the Board Minutes and in the Case Memorandum as “a
recent study” by FDIC staff “on the effect of a run on uninsured deposits on economic activity.”
Dkt. 5-6 (Exh. C Pt. 1 to FDIC Motion to Dismiss) at 7 (bates no. 56470); Dkt. 5-7 (Exh. C Pt. 2
to FDIC Motion to Dismiss) at 3. Even if this reference to “a recent study” could be construed as
a “supporting memo” regarding the Board’s systemic risk determination as to the TLGP, an
agency is not required to delve into the documents they locate to seek out clues to other
responsive documents:
The agency is not required to speculate about potential leads. More specifically,
the [agency] is not obliged to look beyond the four corners of the request for leads
to the location of responsive documents. Of course, if the requester discovers
leads in the documents he receives from the agency, he may pursue those leads
through a second FOIA request.
7
Kowalczyk v. Dept. of Justice, 73 F.3d 386, 389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (emphasis added); Rein v. U.S.
Patent & Trademark Office, 553, F3d 353, 365 (agency not required to “chase rabbit trails that
may appear in documents uncovered during their search”).
The declarations submitted in support of this motion describe fully and in detail how the
FDIC conducted searches reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to Plaintiff’s
requests. The FDIC has met its burden of proof to show that its handling of Plaintiff’s requests
complied with the FOIA. Accordingly, the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment should be
granted.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated, the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
COLLEEN J. BOLES
BARBARA SARSHIK
Senior Counsel
BARBARA KATRON
Counsel
/s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach

Counsel
D.C. Bar No. 426590

Arlington, VA 22226
703-562-2465 (office)
703-562-2477 (fax)
8
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 20-2 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 12

)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
DECLARATION OF FREDRICK L. FISCH
I, Fredrick L. Fisch, declare as follows:
1. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) employs me as a Counsel in the
Legal Division.
2. Until January 31, 2010, I served as the Supervisory Counsel in charge of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act Group in the FDIC Legal Division at FDIC
Headquarters in Washington, D.C. (FOIA/PA Group). I worked as the supervisor of the FDIC’s
FOIA/PA Group since late 1997.
3. Due to the nature of my official duties in the FOIA/PA Group, I was and am familiar
with the provisions of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2006), amended by the OPEN Government Act
of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524, et seq., and judicial interpretations of those
provisions.
with the procedures followed by the FDIC in responding to requests for information pursuant to
the FOIA.
1
with the organizational structure of the FDIC, the nature of the work carried out by each division
and office, and the types of records maintained by each division and office.
6. In the ordinary course of business, all requests to the FDIC for records pursuant to the
FOIA are routed to the FOIA/PA Group.
7. One responsibility of the FOIA/PA Group is to keep a record of each FOIA request,
assign it a number and route each request to the appropriate FDIC Divisions and/or Offices so
that those Divisions or Offices can conduct searches for responsive records. It was my
responsibility as Supervisory Counsel of the FOIA/PA Group to review new FOIA requests
referred to me by FOIA/PA Group staff to determine whether staff had identified the appropriate
Divisions or Offices to which the FOIA requests should be referred for purposes of conducting
searches for responsive records.
8. I am specifically aware of three FOIA requests submitted to the FDIC by Vern
McKinley (Plaintiff), which are the subject of this litigation.
9. The statements herein are made on the basis of personal knowledge or other
information made known to me in my former capacity as Supervisory Counsel in charge of the
FOIA/PA Group.
10. On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff sent a FOIA request to the FDIC seeking records
about the FDIC’s determination on November 23, 2008, to provide financial assistance to
Citigroup, Inc. A copy of this FOIA request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 1. A copy
of the press release referenced in the request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 2. In
addition to the requester’s contact information, the request included information stating that it
2
involved Citigroup of New York, that the requester agreed to pay up to $200 in fees relating to
the request, and a description of the information sought. The “Information Requested” portion of
this request reads as follows:

Meeting on November 23, 2008. So I would like the minutes from this meeting,
11. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 4, 2009, regarding Citigroup was received by
the FOIA/PA Group on December 4, 2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-1976.
12. On December 7, 2009, request no. 09-1976 was forwarded to me. In reviewing the
“Information Requested” portion of the request, I concluded as follows:
a. As indicated by the words “the transaction,” the reference to the FDIC
press release, and the words “this determination,” Plaintiff was seeking
information on a specific action taken by the FDIC Board of Directors on a
specific date.
b. The phrase “any information available” was overbroad and failed to
reasonably describe the records sought by Plaintiff, and therefore failed to comply
with the FDIC’s FOIA regulation, which provides, at 12 C.F.R. § 309.5(b)(3):
A request for identifiable records shall reasonably describe the

records in a way that enables the FDIC’s staff to identify and produce the
records with reasonable effort and without unduly burdening or
significantly interfering with any of the FDIC’s operations.
3
Accordingly, because that portion of the request failed to comply with subsection
(a)(3)(A) of the FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A)), the word “any” should be
disregarded in interpreting Plaintiff’s request for “information available on this
determination.” However, the phrase “any information available” did not render
the request defective (12 C.F.R. § 309.5(c)) to the extent that other information in
the request concerning “this determination” satisfied the criteria for “identifiable
records.”
c. The phrase “such as meeting minutes or supporting memos” provided
examples of the types of information that Plaintiff was seeking. Because the
request referred to a specific action taken by the FDIC Board of Directors, the
phrase “meeting minutes” meant the minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors
meeting at which the “determination” was made. Because the request referred to
a specific action taken by the FDIC Board of Directors, the phrase “supporting
memos” meant memoranda describing, explaining, providing the background and
reasoning for, and/or recommending the action that would become the Board
“determination.” Because the request referred to a specific action taken by the
FDIC Board of Directors, “supporting memos” could only be those memos
actually seen, used, and/or relied upon by the Board in taking that action.
d. The sentence, “More specifically, I understand this issue was addressed at
an FDIC Board Meeting on November 23, 2008” confirmed that Plaintiff was
interested in information about the referenced meeting.
e. The sentence, “So I would like the minutes from this meeting, the Board
Case and any other supporting memos to these documents” indicated that this
4
sentence contained his specific request for action from by the FDIC (“So” having
the meaning “accordingly”). This sentence also confirmed that Plaintiff’s request
was narrow, and sought two specific items (“the minutes from this meeting” and
“the Board Case”) together with “any other supporting memos to these
documents,” such as any exhibits or attachments to the minutes or the Board Case
that may have contained additional information submitted to the Board.
f. Because the Minutes of meetings of the FDIC Board of Directors are
exclusively prepared and maintained by the Executive Secretary Section of the
FDIC Legal Division (ESS), the only reasonable place to search for the Minutes
requested by Plaintiff was the ESS.
g. Because the memoranda prepared for and used by the FDIC Board of
Directors that describe, explain, provide the background and reasoning for, and/or
recommend action (commonly known as “Board Cases” or “Case Memoranda”)
are kept and maintained by the ESS as part of the official records of Board
meetings in which such memoranda are used, the only reasonable place to search
for the “Board Case” and “supporting memos” requested by Plaintiff was the
ESS.
13. Accordingly, I determined that, because the ESS was the official repository for all
records responsive to the request, there was no need to conduct a search in any other FDIC
Office or Division.
Catherine Hammond in the ESS for the purpose of conducting a search for the Minutes of the
5
November 23, 2008 meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors, the “Board Case” used in that
meeting, and any other “supporting memos.”
15. On January 27, 2010, the FOIA/PA Group received the records located in the ESS
search, consisting of the Minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors meeting of November 23,
2008, and a November 23, 2008 memorandum to the Board of Directors from James R. Wigand
and Herbert J. Held.
16. On December 20, 2009, Plaintiff sent a FOIA request to FDIC seeking records about
the FDIC’s determination to provide financial assistance to Bank of America. A copy of this
FOIA request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 3. A copy of the press release referenced
in the request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 4. In addition to the requester’s contact
information, the request included information stating that it involved Bank of America of
Charlotte, North Carolina, that the requester agreed to pay up to $200 in fees relating to the
request, and a description of the information sought. The “Information Requested” portion of

17. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 20, 2009, regarding Bank of America was
received by the FOIA/PA Group on December 22, 2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-2054.
6
a. As indicated by the words “the transaction,” the reference to the FDIC
press release, and the words “this determination,” Plaintiff was seeking
information on a specific action taken by the FDIC Board of Directors on a
specific date.

records.”
c. The phrase “such as meeting minutes and supporting memos” provided
phrase “meeting minutes” meant the Minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors
7
d. Because the Minutes of meetings of the FDIC Board of Directors are
exclusively prepared and maintained by the ESS, the only reasonable place to
search for the Minutes requested by Plaintiff was the ESS.
e. Because the memoranda prepared for and used by the FDIC Board of
for “supporting memos” requested by Plaintiff was the ESS.
Office or Division.
20. In order to help guide the ESS in conducting their search, I made handwritten
annotations to a copy of the FOIA request. I underlined the words “Bank of America.” Beneath
the words “meeting minutes,” I wrote “FDIC BOD” (meaning FDIC Board of Directors).
Beneath the word “memos” I wrote “case memorandum.”
8
meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors at which the “determination” was made, and
“supporting memos.”
22. On January 27, 2010, the FOIA/PA Group received the records located in the ESS
search, consisting of the Minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors meeting of January 15, 2009,
and a January 15, 2009 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman,
Sandra L. Thompson, Arthur J. Murton, and John V. Thomas.
23. On December 20, 2009, Plaintiff sent a FOIA request to FDIC seeking records about
the FDIC’s determination to create a new program, known as the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee
Program (TLGP), to provide financial assistance to banks, thrift institutions, and certain bank
holding companies. A copy of this FOIA request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 5. A
copy of the press release referenced in the request is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit 6. In
addition to the requester’s contact information, the request included information stating that it
involved multiple institutions, that the requester agreed to pay up to $200 in fees relating to the
request, and a description of the information sought. The “Information Requested” portion of

9
24. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 20, 2009, regarding TLGP was received by the
FOIA/PA Group on December 22, 2009, and assigned FDIC log no. 09-2055.
a. As indicated by the words “the program,” the reference to the FDIC press
release, and the words “this determination,” Plaintiff was seeking information on
a specific action taken by the FDIC Board of Directors on a specific date.

records.”
c. The phrase “such as meeting minutes and supporting memos” provided
10
phrase “meeting minutes” meant the Minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors
d. Because the Minutes of meetings of the FDIC Board of Directors are
exclusively prepared and maintained by the ESS, the only reasonable place to
search for the Minutes requested by Plaintiff was the ESS.
e. Because the memoranda prepared for and used by the FDIC Board of
for “supporting memos” requested by Plaintiff was ESS.
Office or Division.
27. In order to help guide the ESS in conducting their search, I made handwritten
annotations to a copy of the FOIA request. I wrote “TLGP” next to the reference to the press
11
release. Beneath the words "meeting minutes," I wrote "FDIC BOD" (meaning FDIC Board of
Directors). Beneath the word "memos" I wrote "case memorandum."
28. On December 30, 2009, the FOIAIPA Group forwarded request no. 09-2055 to
meeting of the FDIC Board of Directors at which the "determination" was made, and
"supporting memos."
29. On January 27,2010, the FOIAIPA Group received the records located in the ESS
search, consisting of the Minutes of the FDIC Board of Directors meeting of October 13,2008,
and an October 13,2008 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
March 201 L.
12-~y of
~i~
12
EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 20-3 Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 24 Page 1 of 1
Rosser, Felice L.
tJ9-/17~
From: vern_mckinley(çyahoo.com
Sent: Friday, December 04,20098:32 AM
To: EFOIA
Subject: FOIA Request Form _
. This Email was sent from the EFOIARequest application on the Production server www2.fdic.gov. ·
The following EFOIA Request was sent on December 4,2009 at 8:31 AM.
SENDER NAME: Vern McKinley

E-MAIL: vern _ mcki n ley(çya hoo. com
FIRM:
20745 Ashburn Station Place
..=
= ..r
ADDRESS:
?: -' om
-C)
Ashburn, VA 20147 i1
,-)
c:
rn )/'):
COUNTRY: ~ -r1 (" '''r
._.-.
, -n
.c :::.CJ
PHONE: 703-470-9893 ';'1 .--.¿
.J --
"9 ~-:J ë.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME: Citigroup .,
,_.. ::J-
co
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LOCATION: New York CP ïJZ
c.
MAXIMUM FEE: $200 .-
INFORMATION I am requesting further detail on information on the transaction
REQUESTED: described in the following FDIC press release:
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08125.htm i
The source of this power is Section 13(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
1823(c)). There is a requirement that under this section under the
emergency determination there must be a finding of "serious
adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stabiliy" if
the action is not taken. I would like any information available on
this determination such as meeting minutes or supporting
memos. More specifically, I understand this issue was addressed
at an FDIC Board Meeting on November 23, 2008. So I would like
the minutes from this meeting, the Board Case and any other
supporting memos to these documents.
12/4/2009
EXHIBIT 2
FDIC: Press Releases - PR-125-2008 11/23/2008 Page 1 of 1
Advanced Search
Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank Search FDIC... Su
Home | Deposit Insurance | Consumer Protection | Industry Analysis | Regulations & Examinations | Asset Sales | News & Events | About FDIC
Press Releases Online Press Room Conferences & Events Financial Institution Letters Special Alerts Letters to the Editor/Opinion Editorials Speeches & Testimony
Home > News & Events > Press Releases
Press Releases
Joint Statement by Treasury, Federal Reserve and the FDIC on

Citigroup
Washington, DC— The U.S. government is committed to supporting

financial market stability, which is a prerequisite to restoring vigorous
economic growth. In support of this commitment, the U.S. government on
Sunday entered into an agreement with Citigroup to provide a package of
guarantees, liquidity access and capital.
As part of the agreement, Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation will provide protection against the possibility of unusually large
losses on an asset pool of approximately $306 billion of loans and securities
backed by residential and commercial real estate and other such assets,
which will remain on Citigroup's balance sheet. As a fee for this
arrangement, Citigroup will issue preferred shares to the Treasury and FDIC.
In addition and if necessary, the Federal Reserve stands ready to backstop
residual risk in the asset pool through a non-recourse loan.
In addition, Treasury will invest $20 billion in Citigroup from the Troubled
Asset Relief Program in exchange for preferred stock with an 8% dividend to
the Treasury. Citigroup will comply with enhanced executive compensation
restrictions and implement the FDIC's mortgage modification program.
With these transactions, the U.S. government is taking the actions necessary
to strengthen the financial system and protect U.S. taxpayers and the U.S.
economy.
We will continue to use all of our resources to preserve the strength of our
banking institutions and promote the process of repair and recovery and to
manage risks. The following principles guide our efforts:
 We will work to support a healthy resumption of credit flows to

households and businesses.
 We will exercise prudent stewardship of taxpayer resources.
 We will carefully circumscribe the involvement of government in the
financial sector.
 We will bolster the efforts of financial institutions to attract private
capital.
Attachment:
Summary of Terms (PDF Help)
Media Contact:
Andrew Gray (202) 898-7192
FDIC PR-125-2008
Last Updated 11/23/2008 communications@fdic.gov
Home | Contact Us | Search | Help | SiteMap | Forms | En Español

Website Policies | Privacy Policy | USA.gov | FDIC Office of Inspector General
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center | FDIC Open Government Webpage | No FEAR Act Data
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr08125.html 3/11/2011
November 23, 2008
Summary of Terms
Eligible Asset Guarantee
Eligible Assets: Asset pool consisting of loans and securities backed by residential real
estate and commercial real estate, and their associated hedges, as agreed,
and other such assets as the U.S. Government (USG) has agreed to
guarantee. Each specific asset must be identified on signing of guarantee
agreement. Assets will remain on the books of institution but will be
appropriately “ring-fenced.”
Size: Up to $306 bn in assets to be guaranteed (based on valuation agreed upon

between institution and USG).
Term of Guarantee: FDIC standard loss-sharing protocol: Guarantee is in place for 10 years
for residential assets, 5 years for non-residential assets.
Deductible: Institution absorbs all losses in portfolio up to $29 bn (in addition to

existing reserves)
Any losses in portfolio in excess of that amount are shared USG (90%)
and institution (10%).
USG share will be allocated as follows:

UST (via TARP) second loss up to $5 bn;
FDIC takes the third loss up to $10 bn;
Financing: Federal Reserve funds remaining pool of assets with a non-recourse loan,
subject to the institution’s 10% loss sharing, at a floating rate of OIS plus
300bp. Interest payments are with recourse to the institution.
Fee for Guarantee -

Preferred Stock: Institution will issue $7 bn of preferred stock with an 8% dividend rate
(under terms described below). $4 bn of preferred will be issued to UST.
$3 bn will be issued to the FDIC.
Management of
Assets: USG will provide institution with a template to manage guaranteed assets
This template will include the use of mortgage modification procedures
adopted by the FDIC, unless otherwise agreed.
Risk Weighting: Institution will retain the income stream from the guaranteed assets. Risk
weighting for assets will be 20%.
1
November 23, 2008
Dividends: Institution is prohibited from paying common stock dividends, in excess

of $.01 per share per quarter, for 3 years without UST/FDIC/FRB consent.
A factor taken into account for consideration of the USG’s consent is the
ability to complete a common stock offering of appropriate size.
Executive
Compensation: An executive compensation plan, including bonuses, that rewards long-
term performance and profitability, with appropriate limitations, must be
submitted to, and approved by, the USG
Corporate
Governance: Other matters as specified
2
November 23, 2008
Preferred Securities
Issuer: Citigroup (“Citi”)
Initial Holder: United States Department of the Treasury (“UST”).
Size: $20 billion
Security: Preferred, liquidation preference $1,000 per share. (Depending upon the
available authorized preferred shares, the UST may agree to purchase
preferred with a higher liquidation preference per share, in which case the
UST may require Citi to appoint a depositary to hold the Preferred and
issue depositary receipts.)
Ranking: Same terms as preferred issued in CPP.
Term: Perpetual life.
Dividend: The Preferred will pay cumulative dividends at a rate of 8% per annum.
Dividends will be payable quarterly in arrears on February 15, May 15,
August 15 and November 15 of each year.
Redemption: In stock or cash, as mutually agreed between UST and Citi. Otherwise,
redemption terms of CPP preferred terms apply.
Restrictions
on Dividends: Institution is prohibited from paying common stock dividends, in excess
of $.01 per share per quarter, for 3 years without UST consent. A factor
taken into account for consideration of the UST’s consent is the ability to
complete a common stock offering of appropriate size.
Repurchases: Same terms as preferred issued in CPP.
Voting rights: The Preferred shall be non-voting, other than class voting rights on (i) any
authorization or issuance of shares ranking senior to the Preferred, (ii) any
amendment to the rights of Preferred, or (iii) any merger, exchange or
similar transaction which would adversely affect the rights of the
Preferred.
If dividends on the Preferred are not paid in full for six dividend periods,
whether or not consecutive, the Preferred will have the right to elect 2
directors. The right to elect directors will end when full dividends have
been paid for (i) all prior dividend periods in the case of cumulative
Preferred or (ii) four consecutive dividend periods in the case of non-
cumulative Preferred.
3
November 23, 2008
Transferability: The Preferred will not be subject to any contractual restrictions on

transfer.
Executive
Compensation: An executive compensation plan, including bonuses, that rewards long-
term performance and profitability, with appropriate limitations, must be
submitted to, and approved by, the USG.
Summary of Warrant Terms
Warrant: Institution will issue a warrant to UST for an aggregate exercise value of
10% of the total preferred issued to USG (in both transactions) ($2.7 bn).
Exercise Price: The strike price will be equal to $10.61 per share (the 20 day trailing
average ending on November 21, 2008). The warrants issued to UST are
not subject to reduction based on additional offerings.
Term: Ten years, immediately exercisable, in whole or in part.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD
__________________________ _______________________________
CITIGROUP INC. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP.
___________________________ ______________________________
4
EXHIBIT 3
Page 1 of 1
Simms, Mary E. OC7-dC6tl

From: vern_mckinley(§yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 20,20097:42 AM
To: EFOIA
* This Email was sent from the EFOIARequest application on the Production server ww2.fdic.gov. *
The following EFOIA Request was sent on December 20, 2009 at 7:42 AM.

E-MAIL: vern_mckinley~yahoo.com
FIRM:
ADDRESS: 20745 Ashburn Station Place
Ashburn, VA 20147
COUNTRY:
PHONE: 703-470-9893
'- ~..
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME: Bank of America
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LOCATION: Charlotte, Norl Carolina
MAXIMUM FEE: 200
INFORMATION i am requesting further detail on information on the transaction
http://ww.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09004.html
The source of this power is Section 13(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stabilty" if
the action is not taken. i would like any information available on
this determination such as meeting minutes and supporting
memos.
CAJt
/ L
PPfc /3of)
,.
..r-,
c.:.:)
,."
ii,-
C) rr
1 :.-C)
C)
. '.-
:~ .... :,:...
~ ØwIt 1(/V~ " ) .'

N . .~:J
',,
.;-"
,. -
) :.)-
.,,. .,J
-.......
en
12/22/2009
EXHIBIT 4
Advanced Search
Press Releases
Treasury, Federal Reserve and the FDIC Provide Assistance to Bank of

America
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact:

January 16, 2009 Andrew Gray (202) 898-7192
Washington, DC – The U.S. government entered into an agreement today

with Bank of America to provide a package of guarantees, liquidity access
and capital as part of its commitment to support financial market stability.
Treasury and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation will provide

protection against the possibility of unusually large losses on an asset pool
of approximately $118 billion of loans, securities backed by residential and
commercial real estate loans, and other such assets, all of which have been
marked to current market value. The large majority of these assets were
assumed by Bank of America as a result of its acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
The assets will remain on Bank of America's balance sheet. As a fee for this
arrangement, Bank of America will issue preferred shares to the Treasury
and FDIC. In addition and if necessary, the Federal Reserve stands ready to
backstop residual risk in the asset pool through a non-recourse loan.
In addition, Treasury will invest $20 billion in Bank of America from the
Troubled Assets Relief Program in exchange for preferred stock with an 8
percent dividend to the Treasury. Bank of America will comply with
enhanced executive compensation restrictions and implement a mortgage
loan modification program.
Treasury exercised this funding authority under the Emergency Economic

Stabilization Act's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The investment
was made under the Targeted Investment Program. The objective of this
program is to foster financial market stability and thereby to strengthen the
economy and protect American jobs, savings, and retirement security.
Separately, the FDIC board announced that it will soon propose rule
changes to its Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program to extend the
maturity of the guarantee from three to up to 10 years where the debt is
supported by collateral and the issuance supports new consumer lending.
With these transactions, the U.S. government is taking the actions necessary
to strengthen the financial system and protect U.S. taxpayers and the U.S.
economy. As was stated in November when the first transaction under the
Targeted Investment Program was announced, the U.S. government will
continue to use all of our resources to preserve the strength of our banking
institutions and promote the process of repair and recovery and to manage
risks.
Attachment:
Summary of Terms
Summary of Terms - PDF (PDF Help)
Explanation of the FDIC's Loss Sharing Exposure
FDIC PR-4-2009

Advanced Search
Search FDIC... Su
Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank
Press Releases
Summary of Terms
January 15, 2009
Eligible Asset Guarantee
Eligible Assets: A pool of financial instruments consisting of securities

backed by residential and commercial real estate loans
and corporate debt, derivative transactions that
reference such securities, loans, and associated
hedges, as agreed, and such other financial instruments
as the U.S. government (USG) has agreed to guarantee
or lend against (the Pool). Each specific financial
instrument in the Pool must be identified on signing of
the guarantee agreement. Financial instruments in the
Pool will remain on the books of institution but will be
appropriately "ring-fenced."
The following financial instruments will be excluded from

the Pool: (i) foreign assets (definition to be provided by
USG); (ii) assets originated or issued on or after March
14, 2008; (iii) equity securities; and (iv) any other assets
that USG deems necessary to exclude.
Size: The Pool contains up to $118 billion of financial
instruments. More specifically, the Pool includes cash
assets with a current book (i.e., carrying) value of up to
$37 billion and a derivatives portfolio with maximum
potential future losses of up to $81 billion (based on
valuations agreed between institution and USG).
Term and Guarantee is in place for 10 years for residential assets
Coverage of and 5 years for non-residential assets. Residential
Guarantee: assets will include loans secured solely by 1-4 family
residential real estate, securities predominately
collateralized by such loans, and derivatives that
predominately reference such securities. Institution has
the right to terminate the guarantee at any time (with the
consent of USG), and the parties will negotiate in good
faith as to an appropriate fee or rebate in connection
with any permitted termination. If institution terminates
the guarantee, it must prepay any outstanding Federal
Reserve loan (described below) in full.
Guarantee covers Eligible Losses on the Pool. Eligible

Losses are the aggregate incurred credit losses (net of
any gains and recoveries) on the Pool during the term of
the guarantee, beyond the January 15, 2009, marks and
credit valuation adjustments for the Pool (as agreed
between institution and USG). Eligible Losses do not
include unrealized mark-to-market losses but do include
realized losses from a sale permitted under the asset
management template (described below).
Deductible:
Institution absorbs all Eligible Losses in the Pool up to
$10 billion.
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09004a.html 3/11/2011
USG (UST/FDIC) will share Eligible Losses in the Pool

in excess of that amount, up to $10 billion. All Eligible
Losses beyond the institution’s deductible will be shared
USG (90%) and institution (10%).
Financing: Federal Reserve will provide a non-recourse loan facility
to institution, subject to institution’s 10% loss sharing.
Federal Reserve loan commitment will terminate (and
any loans thereunder will mature) on the termination
dates of USG guarantee. Institution has the right to
terminate the Federal Reserve loan commitment and
prepay any Federal Reserve loans at any time (with
consent of Federal Reserve).
Federal Reserve will charge a fee on undrawn amounts

of 20 bp per annum and a floating interest rate on drawn
amounts of OIS plus 300 bp per annum. Interest and fee
payments will be with recourse to the institution.
Institution may draw on Federal Reserve loan facility if

and when additional mark-to-market and incurred credit
losses on the Pool reach $18 billion.
Fee for Institution will issue to USG (UST/FDIC) (i) $4 billion of
Guarantee – preferred stock with an 8% dividend rate (under terms
Preferred Stock described below); and (ii) warrants with an aggregate
and Warrants: exercise value of 10% of the total amount of preferred
issued. The fee may be adjusted, as necessary, based
on the results of an actuarial analysis of the final
composition of the Pool, as required under section 102
(c) of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of
2008.
Management of Institution generally will manage the financial
Assets: instruments in the Pool in accordance with its ordinary
business practices, but will be required to comply with
an asset management template provided by USG. This
template will require institution, among other things, to
obtain USG approval (not to be unreasonably withheld)
before any Material Disposition. A Material Disposition is
a disposition of financial instruments in the Pool that
creates an Eligible Loss that, combined with other
dispositions of Pool instruments in the same year,
exceeds 1% of the Pool size at the beginning of the
year. This template also will include, among other
things, a foreclosure mitigation policy acceptable to
USG.
Revenues and Institution will retain the income stream from the Pool.
Risk Weighting: Risk weighting for the financial instruments in the Pool
will be 20%.
Dividends: Institution is prohibited from paying common stock
dividends in excess of $.01 per share per quarter for
three years without USG consent. A factor taken into
account for consideration of USG consent is the ability
to complete a common stock offering of appropriate
size.
Executive An executive compensation plan, including bonuses,
Compensation: that rewards long-term performance and profitability,
with appropriate limitations, must be submitted to, and
approved by, USG. Executive compensation
requirements will be consistent with the terms of the
preferred stock purchase agreement between USG and
institution.
Corporate Other matters as specified, consistent with the terms of
Governance: the preferred stock purchase agreement between USG
and institution.
The foregoing is accepted and agreed by and among the following as
of January 15, 2009:
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD

BANK OF AMERICA FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION CORP.

Advanced Search
Press Releases
Explanation of the FDIC's Loss Sharing Exposure
The FDIC's exposure is capped at $2.5 billion. The FDIC and the Treasury's
Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) will provide guarantees on certain
residential assets for 10 years and certain other assets for a period of 5
years. BAC will bear the first $10 billion in losses. Additional losses will be
shared with the FDIC, Treasury, and the Federal Reserve covering 90
percent of the losses with BAC bearing 10 percent. After the first $10 billion
in losses, the FDIC and Treasury will cover losses pro rata in proportions of
25% for the FDIC and 75% for Treasury up to a cap of $2.5 billion for the
FDIC and $7.5 billion for the Treasury. Further losses will be covered 90%
by the Federal Reserve through nonrecourse lending. The FDIC will receive
compensation in the form of what is projected to be $1 billion in preferred
stock and warrants with an aggregate exercise value of 10% of the amount
of preferred issued.

http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2009/pr09004b.html 3/11/2011
EXHIBIT 5
Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 20-3 Filed 03/18/11 Page 19 of 24Page 1 of 1
Simms, Mary E.
.. t2tj~J()5-
From: vern_mckinley~yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 20098:03 AM
To: EFOIA
* This Email was sent from the EFOIARequest application on the Production server ww2.fdic.gov. *
The following EFOIA Request was sent on December 20, 2009 at 8:02 AM.

E-MAIL: vern_mckinley~yahoo.com
FIRM:
ADDRESS: 20745 Ashburn Station Place
Ashburn, VA 20147
COUNTRY:
PHONE: 703-470-9893
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION NAME: Multiple Institutions
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION LOCATION: Multiple Institutions
MAXIMUM FEE: 200
INFORMATION I am requesting further detail on information on the program
http://ww.fdic.gov/news/news/press~1 r L CrP
The source ofthis power is Section 13(c) ofthe FDI Act (12 U.S.C.
adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stabilty" if
the action is not taken. i would like any information available on
this determination such as meeting minutes and supporting
V ~L
C fiSt 6n 0 _0,
. :-1
r-'"
,
-111
-=) i"
: ¡-:')
'.J :.~.~: ~~::
t1/1 t1rl/¡ (y( h"V\()U ~ ¡"J

-'0
í-v
;:: "j)
., _ ~:.
,J~
.i
u
12/22/2009
EXHIBIT 6
Advanced Search
Press Releases
FDIC Announces Plan to Free Up Bank Liquidity

Creates New Program to Guarantee Bank Debt and Fully Insure Non-
Interest Bearing Deposit Transaction Accounts
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact:

October 14, 2008 Andrew Gray (202) 898-7192
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announces a new

program—the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program—to strengthen
confidence and encourage liquidity in the banking system by guaranteeing
newly issued senior unsecured debt of banks, thrifts, and certain holding
companies, and by providing full coverage of non-interest bearing deposit
transaction accounts, regardless of dollar amount.
"The FDIC is taking this unprecedented action because we have faith in our
economy, our country, and our banking system," said FDIC Chairman Sheila
C. Bair. "The overwhelming majority of banks are strong, safe, and sound. A
lack of confidence is driving the current turmoil, and it is this lack of
confidence that these guarantees are designed to address."
Under the plan, certain newly issued senior unsecured debt issued on or
before June 30, 2009, would be fully protected in the event the issuing
institution subsequently fails, or its holding company files for bankruptcy.
This includes promissory notes, commercial paper, inter-bank funding, and
any unsecured portion of secured debt. Coverage would be limited to June
30, 2012, even if the maturity exceeds that date.
In addition, any participating depository institution will be able to provide full

deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing deposit transaction
accounts, regardless of dollar amount. These are mainly payment-
processing accounts, such as payroll accounts used by businesses.
Frequently, these exceed the current maximum limit of $250,000. This new,
temporary guarantee—which expires at the end of 2009—will help stabilize
these accounts.
"The program will be funded through special fees and does not rely on
taxpayer funding," Bair said.
Participants will be charged a 75-basis point fee to protect their new debt
issues, and a 10-basis point surcharge will be added to a participating
institution's current insurance assessment in order to fully cover the non-
interest bearing deposit transaction accounts.
To implement the program, the FDIC Board approved the use of its statutory
authority to prevent systemic risk. The Secretary of the Treasury, after
consultation with the President and the Federal Reserve Board, made a
comparable systemic risk determination.
All FDIC-insured institutions will be covered under the program for the first
30 days without incurring any costs. After that initial period, however,
institutions wishing to no longer participate must opt out or be assessed for
future participation. If an institution opts out, the guarantees are good only
for the first 30 days.
###
Attachments:
 Statement by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila
Bair; U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, FDIC Joint Press Conference
Congress created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 to

restore public confidence in the nation's banking system. The FDIC insures
deposits at the nation's 8,451 banks and savings associations and it
promotes the safety and soundness of these institutions by identifying,
monitoring and addressing risks to which they are exposed. The FDIC
receives no federal tax dollars – insured financial institutions fund its
operations.
FDIC press releases and other information are available on the Internet at
www.fdic.gov, by subscription electronically (go to
www.fdic.gov/about/subscriptions/index.html) and may also be obtained
through the FDIC's Public Information Center (877-275-3342 or 703-562-
2200). PR-100-2008

Advanced Search
Press Releases
Statement by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair; U.S.

Treasury, Federal Reserve, FDIC Joint Press Conference
October 14, 2008
Good morning. Thank you for coming.
As Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke indicated, the extraordinary

steps we're taking today are intended to bolster public confidence in our
financial institutions and throughout the American economy.
Achieving this goal will require a sustained and coordinated effort by

government authorities. In short, all of us are prepared to do whatever it
takes, to fix whatever problems arise, and to work with Wall Street and Main
Street to unclog the financial system so that it can continue fueling economic
growth, and creating jobs.
Our efforts also parallel those by European and Asian nations. Their
guarantees for bank debt and increases in deposit insurance would put U.S.
banks on an uneven playing field unless we acted as we are today.
Despite what we hear about the credit crisis and the problems facing banks,
the fact is that the bulk of the U.S. banking industry is healthy and remains
well-capitalized. What we do have, however, is a liquidity problem, largely
caused by uncertainty about the value of mortgage assets, which is making
banks reluctant to lend to each other, or lend to consumers and businesses.
Today's actions to inject more capital into the banking system, combined
with other recent coordinated measures to free up credit markets, should
give banks the self-assurance to resume normal lending.
FDIC liquidity program
In addition to the actions just announced by Secretary Paulson and

Chairman Bernanke, the FDIC board yesterday approved a new Temporary
Liquidity Guarantee Program to unlock inter-bank credit markets and restore
rationality to credit spread. This will free up funding for banks to make loans
to creditworthy businesses and consumers.
The program, which is voluntary, has two key features.
The first feature guarantees new, senior unsecured debt issued by any bank,
thrift or holding company, which will help banks fund their operations. Both
term and overnight funding of banks has come under extreme pressure, with
the costs of funding ballooning to several hundred basis points.
This guarantee will allow banks and their holding companies to roll maturing
senior debt into new issues fully backed by the FDIC. However, guaranteed
maturities cannot extend beyond three years. The ability to tap into this
program expires at the end of June 2009.
The second feature of the new program gives unlimited insurance coverage
for non-interest bearing deposit transaction accounts. These are mainly
payment processing accounts such as payroll accounts used by businesses.
Frequently, they exceed the current maximum insurance limit of $250,000.
Many smaller, healthy banks have been losing these accounts to their much
larger competitors because of uncertainties in the financial system.
This new, temporary guarantee –- which runs until the end of next year –-
should help stabilize these accounts, and help us avoid having to close
otherwise viable banks because of deposit withdrawals.
This aspect of the program allows bank customers to conduct normal

business knowing that their cash accounts are safe and sound. This is the
fundamental goal of deposit insurance, safeguarding peoples' money, and
vital to public confidence in the banking system.
No cost to taxpayers or insurance fund
Let me stress that the program does not rely on taxpayer funding. Nor does
it rely on the Deposit Insurance Fund. Instead, both aspects of the program
will be paid for by direct user fees included as part of a bank's regular
insurance premium.
Coverage for both parts of the program will be automatic for the first 30 days,
without charge. After that, the FDIC will begin assessing premiums for the
coverage unless an institution opts out. If an institution opts out, the
guarantees are good only for that first 30 days.
These are all major steps necessitated by the crisis in our credit markets,
which has been fed by mounting fear about our economic future. They are
designed to hold down the cost of any future bank failures, and to lead to a
return to normal bank lending activity.
The FDIC is taking this unprecedented action because we have faith in our
economy, our country, and our banking system. The overwhelming majority
of banks are strong, safe and sound. But a lack of confidence is driving the
current turmoil. And it is a lack of confidence that these guarantees are
designed to address.
Above all else, there must be no doubt in our government. Institutions like
the FDIC -- created 75 years ago to deal with times of financial stress -- are
strong, and will successfully bring the country through these extraordinary
times. Thank you.


)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
DECLARATION OF CATHERINE L. HAMMOND
I, Catherine L. Hammond, declare as follows:
1. I have been an employee of the The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for
33 years.
2. The FDIC currently employs me as the Lead Board Support Specialist, grade 12, in
the Executive Secretary Section of the Corporate, Consumer, Insurance, and Legislation Branch
of the Legal Division (ESS).
3. I have worked in ESS or its predecessor organizations for 25 years, and have personal
knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of ESS, its operations and procedures, and its record
systems.
4. ESS is the official custodian of records of meetings of the FDIC Board of Directors
(Board).
5. As part of my official duties, I assist in compiling, organizing, and maintaining the
official records of meetings of the Board.
1
6. The offcial records of meetings of the Board are compiled, organized, and maintained
as paper records stored in a secure location in an FDIC building in Washington, D.C.
7. The offcial records of meetings ofthe Board consist ofa file folder or "jacket" for
each meeting of the Board. Contained in each jacket is a copy of the agenda for that Board
meeting; each "Board Case" (sometimes called the "case memorandum") to be considered by the
Board at that meeting; the minutes of the Board meeting; and a copy of every resolution adopted
by the Board at that meeting. The meeting jackets are filed by the dates of the Board meetings
for which they were prepared.
8. The Board Case consists of a memorandum and any attachments (such as a draft
resolution) prepared by FDIC staff in advance of the Board meeting for the Board's use at the
meeting when considering a particular action. When the Board is considering a particular action,
the signed Board Case serves as the formal basis for the Board's deliberations and action. A
copy of each Board Case is filed in the jacket of the Board meeting at which it was considered.
9. After the Board meeting, ESS prepares the minutes of that meeting, and files the
offcial paper copy of the minutes in the jacket of the Board meeting.
10. In addition to offcial paper records of meetings of the Board, ESS utilizes an
electronic indexing system called STAR for management of those paper records. The STAR
index is compiled using keywords drawn from the minutes of Board meetings. The STAR index
can be searched by meeting date or keyword to identify a Board meeting held on a particular date
or any Board meeting at which a particular topic was considered.
11. As part of my official duties, I conduct searches of the offcial records of meetings of
the Board for documents potentially responsive to Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) requests
2
forwarded to ESS by the FDIC's Freedom ofInformation Act/Privacy Act Group (FOIAIPA
Group).
12. Because the records systems in ESS pertaining to meetings of the Board are the
STAR electronic index and the Board meeting jackets, the ESS process of conducting a FOIA .
search for potentially responsive records of Board meetings is straightforward. First, I select
dates and/or keywords from the requester's description of the records sought, and from
comments or instructions from the FOIAIPA Group (if any) relating to a particular request.
13. I then enter those dates and/or keywords into the STAR system as search terms. The
results of a STAR system search identify the particular Board meeting jackets for Board
meetings held on those dates and/or Board meeting records containing those keywords. The
more specific the request in the context of the types of records maintained in ESS, the easier and
faster it is to conduct a search for potentially responsive ESS records.
14. After identifying Board meeting jackets using the STAR system, I then do a physical
search of the Board meeting jackets to locate those identified by STAR. I then use the
requester's description of the records sought, and comments or instructions from the FOIAIP A
Group (if any) relating to the particular request, to locate potentially responsive documents in
each Board meeting jacket previously identified.
15. Once potentially responsive documents have been located in Board meeting jackets, I
scan those paper records to create electronic copies, and then forward those electronic copies to
the FOIA coordinator for the Legal Division.
16. I personally conducted the searches in ESS of the offcial records of meetings of the
Board for documents responsive to FOIA requests 09-1976 (Citigroup), 09-2054 (Bank of
3
America), and 09-2055 (TLGP). The following statements are made based on my personal
knowledge.
17. On December 11,2009, I received an email from the FOIAIPA Group to which was
attached an electronic copy of a FOIA request "control record" and a copy of a FOIA request
marked as 09-1976. The "Information Requested" portion of this request read as follows:

http://www .fdic.gov /news/news/press/2008/pr08125 .html
Meeting on November 23,2008. So I would like the minutes from this meeting,
18. The email and attachment from the FOIAIPA Group contained no instructions or
guidance for conducting a search for responsive documents within ESS.
19. On December 15,2009, I conducted a search for records potentially responsive to
this FOIA request, using the STAR system and the Board meeting jackets. Because the FOIA
request specified the Board meeting held on November 23, 2008, I had no difficulty identifying
the Board meeting jacket. Because the FOIA request specified "meeting minutes or supporting
memos," I located the Board minutes for the November 23, 2008 Board meeting, and the Board
Case for that meeting, which included the only "supporting memo" contained in the Board
meeting jacket for the November 23,2008 Board meeting, .a November 23,2008 memorandum
to the Board of Directors from James R. Wigand and Herbert J. Held.
4
20. I scanned the Board minutes for the November 23,2008 Board meeting and the
Board Case for that meeting. On December 16,2009, I sent those electronic copies by email to
the FOIA coordinator for the Legal Division.
21. On December 30,2009, I received an email from the FOIAIPA Group to which was

http://ww .fdic. gov /news/news/press/2009 /pr09004 .html
22. The copy of the FOIA request I received included certain handwritten annotations.
The words "Bank of America" in the "Financial Institution Name" field were underlined. In
addition, the words "meeting minutes" in the "Information Requested" field were underlined,
and beneath them was written "FDIC BOD," which I understood to mean "FDIC Board of
Directors." Additionally, beneath the word "memos" in the "Information Requested" field were
written the words "case memorandum." I understood these handwritten annotations to be
pointing out that the request involved the Bank of America, and asked for FDIC Board meeting
minutes and the related Board Case (case memorandum).
23. Because the requester's description of the "Information Requested" did not include
any obvious date range, I obtained a copy of the press release referenced in the request. The
5
press release was dated January 16, 2009, but did not specify the date of the Board meeting at
which action was taken.
24. On or about January 11, 2010, I conducted a search for records potentially responsive
to this FOIA request, using the STAR system and the Board meeting jackets. Using "Bank of
America" as a keyword, I conducted a search in the STAR system. The results of the search
included a Board meeting held on January 15, 2009, one day before the date of the press release
referenced in the FOIA request. The information in STAR concerning this meeting also
indicated that it concerned joint action with the U.S. Treasury, as mentioned in the press release,
and involved 13(c) financial assistance, 13(c) also having been mentioned in the FOIA request.
Other search results from STAR not appearing to be related to what was being requested, I
concluded that the Board meeting jacket for the January 15, 2009 Board meeting was the most
likely to contain potentially responsive documents.
25. In that Board meeting jacket, I located the Board minutes for the January 15,2009
Board meeting, and the Board Case for that meeting, which included the only "supporting
memo" contained in the Board meeting jacket for the January 15, 2009 Board meeting, a January
15,2009 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman, Sandra L.
Thompson, Arhur J. Murton, and John V. Thomas.
26. I scanned the Board minutes for the January 15,2009 Board meeting and the Board
Case for that meeting. On January 11, 2010, I sent those electronic copies by email to the FOIA
coordinator for the Legal Division.
6
27. On December 30, 2009, I received an email from the FOIAIPA Group to which was

http://www .fdic.gov/news/news/press/2008/pr081 00 .html
The source of this power is Section 13(c) of the FDI Act (12 U.S.c. 1823(c)).
financial stability" ifthe action is not taken. I would like any information
28. The copy of the FOIA request I received included certain handwritten annotations.
The last portion of the URL for the press release in the "Information Requested" field were
underlined, and next to them was written "TLGP." In addition, lines forming a 'V' were added
beneath the words "meeting minutes" in the "Information Requested" field, and under the 'V'
was written "FDIC BOD," which I understood to mean "FDIC Board of Directors."
Additionally, lines forming another 'V' were written in beneath the word "memos" in the
"Information Requested" field, and under the 'V' was written the words "case memorandum." I
understood these handwritten annotations to be pointing out that the request involved the TLGP
program, that is, the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, and asked for FDIC Board
meeting minutes and the related Board Case (case memorandum).
29. Because the requester's description of the "Information Requested" did not include
any obvious date range, I obtained a copy of the press release referenced in the request. The
press release was dated October 14,2008, but did not specify the date of the Board meeting at
which action was taken.
7
30. On or about January 11,2010, I conducted a search for records potentially responsive
to this FOIA request, using the STAR system and the Board meeting jackets. Using "Temporary
Liquidity Guarantee Program" as a keyword, I conducted a search in the STAR system. The
results of the search included a Board meeting held on October 13,2008, one day before the date
of the press release referenced in the FOIA request. The information in STAR concerning this
meeting also indicated that it concerned the implementation ofTLGP, as mentioned in the press
release. Other search results from STAR not appearing to be related to what was being
requested, I concluded that the Board meeting jacket for the October 13, 2008 Board meeting
was the most likely to contain potentially responsive documents.
31. In that Board meeting jacket, I located the Board minutes for the October 13, 2008
Board meeting, and the Board Case for that meeting, which included the only "supporting
memo" contained in the Board meeting jacket for the October 13,2008 Board meeting, an
October 13, 2008 memorandum to the Board of Directors from Mitchell L. Glassman.
32. I scanned the Board minutes for the October 13,2008 Board meeting and the Board
Case for that meeting. On January 11, 2010, I sent those electronic copies by email to the FOIA
coordinator for the Legal Division.
8
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
this /~ay of March 2011.
~ot~£
letherine L. Hammo'nd
9

)
VERN McKINLEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 1:10-cv-00420-EGS
)
CORPORATION )
)
Defendant. )
)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court having reviewed the pleadings, declarations, and other materials on file, and
having determined that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the Defendant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it is hereby ORDERED that the FDIC’s Motion for
Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
__________________________________________
United States District Judge

Defendant FDIC Motion For Summary Judgment Plaintiff McKinley (Lawsuit #2)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Defendant FDIC Motion For Summary Judgment Plaintiff McKinley (Lawsuit #2)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:10-cv-00420-EGS Document 20 Filed 03/18/11 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FDIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

obligation to conduct a reasonable search for responsive materials. Declarations, a Statement of

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FDIC’S STATMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

2. The referenced statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1823(c), includes a provision, subparagraph

Insurance Fund. 12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4).

actions described in the three FOIA requests) states as follows:

(i) Emergency determination by Secretary of the Treasury

(I) the Corporation’s compliance with subparagraphs (A) and (E)

(II) any action or assistance under this subparagraph would avoid

12 U.S.C. § 1823(c)(4)(G)(i) (2009).

4. The FDIC Board of Directors’ determinations referenced in Plaintiff’s three FOIA

Secretary invoke the Systemic Risk exception. Dkt. 14 at 1-5.

5. The Executive Secretary Section of the Corporate, Consumer, Insurance, and

FOIA Request No. 09-1976 (Citigroup)

7. On December 4, 2009, Plaintiff sent a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request

Requested” portion of this request reads as follows:

I am requesting further detail on information on the transaction described in the

Fisch Decl. Exh. 1.

8. Plaintiff’s FOIA request of December 4, 2009, regarding Citigroup was received by

9. On December 7, 2009, request no. 09-1976 was forwarded to Supervisory Counsel

Decl. ¶ 14; Hammond Decl. ¶ 17.

Herbert J. Held. Hammond Decl. ¶ 19.

FOIA Request No. 09-2054 (Bank of America)

I am requesting further detail on information on the transaction described in the

Fisch Decl. Exh. 3.

Fisch Decl. ¶ 17.

Decl. ¶ 21; Hammond Decl. ¶ 21.

Thompson, Arthur J. Murton, and John V. Thomas. Hammond Decl. ¶ 24-25.

FOIA Request No. 09-2055 (TLGP)

I am requesting further detail on information on the program described in the

Fisch Decl. Exh. 5.

Decl. ¶ 28; Hammond Decl. ¶ 27.

Hammond Decl. ¶¶ 30-31.

/s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FDIC’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

conduct reasonable searches for responsive materials.

specific topic, locating potentially responsive records was a straightforward process.

II. Standard Of Review For A Motion For Summary Judgment

reviewing a motion for summary judgment:

Dkt. 17 at 5-6 (citations omitted).

The declarations of Fredrick L. Fisch (Fisch Declaration) and Catherine L. Hammond

search for responsive records only in the ESS.

to find records “such as meeting minutes and supporting memos.”

this Court has stated:

An agency's search is adequate if its methods are reasonably calculated to

directly to the types of records maintained by ESS.

single supporting memorandum for each of the recommendations.” Dkt. 14 at 8 (emphasis

the large amount of specific information otherwise contained in the requests.

-- and actually were found.

may appear in documents uncovered during their search”).

FDIC conducted searches reasonably calculated to locate records responsive to Plaintiff’s

/s/ Daniel H. Kurtenbach

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DECLARATION OF FREDRICK L. FISCH

I, Fredrick L. Fisch, declare as follows:

1. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) employs me as a Counsel in the

FOIA/PA Group since late 1997.

FOIA are routed to the FOIA/PA Group.