This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

AIG’s financial situation was in a rapid free fall because of its underwriting derivatives against mortgage-backed securities. D worked to avoid a free fall bankruptcy of AIG and gave them 100’s of billions in loans. Citigroup received TARP funds on three separate occasions between October 2008 and January 2009 for essentially the same reasons; underwriting derivatives against mortgage-backed securities. Fox sent Treasury two FOIA requests. P sought the disclosure of an unredacted copy of Treasury’s custodian agreement with BONY, as well as records related to the compensation paid to BONY pursuant to that agreement, and any records. The second request sought records concerning any data collected regarding the effect of TARP funds on the availability of credit for consumers and small businesses, documents generated after September 1, 2008, concerning the Citigroup TARP transactions, and any documents submitted by Citigroup “in connection with Citigroup’s request for assistance pursuant to TARP.” When D failed to respond to P’s request for expedited processing within the statutory period, P commenced this action on December 18, 2008, and sought a preliminary injunction a few days later. The judge directed D to comply with P’s FOIA request within thirty days and to provide a Vaughn index within forty-five days. After a meet-and-confer required by P provided to D, a list of approximately 300 documents still in dispute. D filed a motion for summary judgment concerning the remaining disputed documents. P then cross-moved for summary judgment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.