Well here's the Memorandum Contra linked at Scribd.com; the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is linked here at Scribd.com.
On the Memorandum, I like this part the most:
The uncontrovered Affidavit leads to a rebuttable presumption that he was suspended, which in context with all of the other issues, complaints and “missing” material supports Production of Bruce McKay’s personnel file in part or in whole:
At a minimum he is entitled to review unredacted items “TT” which are training reviews and performance evaluations. Defendant calls them “internal personnel practices,” but Petitioner has reviewed them (they are all fully redacted) and it is obvious that there is review of McKay’s behaviour involved. As a matter of Law, these evaluations are not part of McKay’s private life because they occur on the clock and they are not complaints that have been filed but deemed without merit, which courts often hold are not reviewable (Fn3: In fact, none of the Complaints against McKay fall into such category because none of them were investigated, much less officially deemed to be without merit).
By their redactions, particularly at Vaughn TT, Defendants have removed from public review the very documentation that will buttress the request for more documentation in light of what we DO know about McKay. And that of course would include the information in that narrative at pp. 99-101 where he admits to doing Unconstitutional things like seizing Liko Kenney because he was in a high crime area – which is exactly why Judge Cyr struck the arrests of the others at Fox Hill Park.
The haters can get up early in the morning to get ahead of me but it doesn't work: I sleep with both eyes open.
PS: And when I look over at das MacBook look what else I find, early in the morning:
And they never even filed any Affidavits regarding the purported Good Faith nature of their FOIA “searches”, which is fatal. Diamond v. IRS, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19534; An agency may demonstrate compliance with the obligations of FOIA by providing supporting affidavits. Perry v. Block, 221 U.S. App. D.C. 347, 352, 684 F.2d 121, 126 (1982).
The supporting affidavits must be sufficiently detailed, not overly conclusive, and submitted in good faith. Id. at 352, 684 F.2d at 126. An agency is not required to provide "meticulous documentation" and instead, "affidavits that explain in reasonable detail the scope and method of the search conducted by the agency will suffice to demonstrate compliance." Id. at 353, 684 F.2d at 127. When the adequacy of an agency's search is challenged by a plaintiff, a reviewing court must decide if the materials submitted by the agency demonstrate a satisfactory search was undertaken. Id. If the agency's responses make it doubtful that a proper search was initiated and completed by the agency, summary judgment in favor of the government would usually be inappropriate. Id.