Skip to content

FOIA Activity: 9 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

by FOIA Project Staff on November 5th, 2020

We have added 9 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between October 25, 2020 and October 31, 2020. These are associated with 9 FOIA cases pending in federal district court. Note that because there can be delays between the date a decision is made and when it shows up on PACER, this listing includes only decisions that appeared on PACER during this period.

Click on the date to view the full text of the decision. Click on a case title below to view other details for that case, including links to the docket report and complaint.

  1. CAC 2:2019cv08872National Public Radio, Inc. et al v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services et al

    • October 26, 2020: DISMISSAL ORDER by Judge Dale S. Fischer. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the FRCP and the separately filed stipulation [28] of the Parties, this action is dismissed with prejudice. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)
  2. CAN 3:2020cv04619American Small Business League v. Small Business Administration

    • October 26, 2020: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY; DEFERRING RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The SBA's Motion to Stay is granted, and, to the extent ASBL's FOIA request seeks PPP loan information, the above-titl ed action is stayed pending a decision in Washington Post and Center for Public Integrity. The parties are directed to submit, no later than 14 days after such decision, a Joint Status Report apprising the Court of the effect thereof on the instant action and proposing a schedule for proceeding in the instant action. The SBA is directed to provide, by November 20, 2020, a response to the remainder of ASBL's FOIA request. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 26, 2020. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2020)

    • October 27, 2020: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion and order, Dkt. [25] , it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt. [14] , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 19 , is DENIED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/27/2020. (lcrdm1)
  4. DC 1:2018cv02294SCHNEIDER v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

    • October 28, 2020: MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants' [35] Motion for Summary Judgment. See text for details. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on October 28, 2020. (lcdlf3)

    • October 30, 2020: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION in support of [24] Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's [12] Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 10/30/2020. (lctjk1)

    • October 30, 2020: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/30/2020. (lcegs3)
  7. NV 2:2020cv01640Johnson v. Wilkie et al

    • October 26, 2020: CLARIFICATION ORDER re [2] Advisory Letter. To the extent aspects of the Clerk's notice is inconsistent with this order, the notice is VACATED and this order controls moving forward. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/26/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF – MR)
  8. NYS 1:2017cv06335Brennan Center for Justice et al v. U.S. Department of Justice et al

    • October 26, 2020: ORDER REGULATING PROCEEDINGS: Parties shall submit a joint letter on or before November 13, 2020, apprising the Court of the status of the proceeding. The parties are directed to appear for a status conference on December 4, 2020 at 10 a.m. The Court will notify the parties at a later date whether such conference will be held in-person or telephonically. SO ORDERED. ( Status Conference set for 12/4/2020 at 10:00 AM before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.) (Signed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein on 10/23/2020) (va)
  9. NYS 1:2020cv00689Informed Consent Action Network v. United States Food and Drug Administration

    • October 26, 2020: ORDER: On September 24, 2020 Magistrate Judge Aaron issued an order granting Defendant's motion to quash Plaintiff's unauthorized discovery requests. See Dkt 25. Plaintiff objected, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Proced ure Rule 72(a), which allows a party to "file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy," after which the "district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part o f the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). See Dkt. 28. Magistrate Judge Aaron's order is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Judge Aaron correctly interpreted the Court's June 3 , 2020 order as permitting Plaintiffs to seek discovery, not that Plaintiff had a right to any particular form of discovery. Dkt. 13. Moreover, because this case was filed under the FOIA, Plaintiff "cannot serve discovery demands before a holding by the Court that the plaintiff has shown agency bad faith or that the agency has not met its burden under FOIA." See Grand Cent. Pship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 489 (2d Cir. 1999). Judge Aaron did not err in determining that Plaintiff had not made the requisite showing here. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/26/2020) (ks)

From → Decisions, FOIA, PACER

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Note: XHTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

Skip to toolbar