Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleNational Day Laborer Organizing Network et al v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency et al
DistrictSouthern District of New York
CityFoley Square
Case Number1:2010cv03488
Date Filed2010-04-27
Date Closed2011-10-25
JudgeJudge Shira A. Scheindlin
PlaintiffNational Day Laborer Organizing Network
PlaintiffCenter for Constitutional Rights
PlaintiffImmigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law
DefendantUnited States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency
DefendantUnited States Department of Homeland Security
DefendantExecutive Office For Immigration Review
DefendantFederal Bureau Of Investigation
DefendantOffice of Legal Counsel
AppealSecond Circuit 11-4804
AppealSecond Circuit 11-711
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [39]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal district court in New York has become the first federal court to recognize a right to metadata under FOIA. Judge Shira Scheindlin pointed out that the disclosability of metadata had already been recognized by several state courts. However, because of the practical implications of various forms of federal agency record-keeping, she admitted that she could not provide a detailed rule for when metadata must be disclosed. But, she explained that "the best way I can answer the question is that metadata maintained by the agency as part of an electronic record is presumptively producible under FOIA, unless the agency demonstrates that such metadata is not 'readily reproducible.'" Scheindlin indicated that, as more and more information was demanded in electronic formats, agencies at a minimum would be required to provide such records in a searchable format. She observed that "whether or not metadata has been specifically requested�"which it should be�"production of a collection of static images without any means of permitting the use of electronic search tools is an inappropriate downgrading of the [Electronically Stored Information]. That is why the Government's previous production�"namely, static images stripped of all metadata and lumped together without any indication of where a record begins and ends�"was not an acceptable form of production. The Government would not tolerate such a production when it is a receiving party, and it should not be permitted to make such a production when it is a producing party. Thus, it is no longer acceptable for any party, including the Government, to produce a significant collection of static images of ESI without accompanying load files." Scheindlin noted that a load file was a file that related to a set of scanned images of electronically processed files which identified how the files were organized and facilitated the transfer of accurate and usable images and data. Scheindlin's conclusion may have a significant impact on agencies because it severely undercuts the utility of PDF files, which are static images that were specifically at issue in this case. The case involved a request from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records concerning a collaborative program between ICE, the Justice Department and states and localities for enforcement of federal immigration law. After negotiating over the size the request, the parties agreed to production of records based on a five-page Rapid Production List. After ICE produced five PDF files containing less than 3,000 pages, the Network complained that it had asked for the records in an electronically searchable format and not as PDF files. Scheindlin noted that the parties had not discussed format except in an email sent by the Network's attorney, after the parties agreed to record production but before any records had been disclosed, inquiring about the format the agency planned to use, laying out the type of format the Network desired, and asking the agency to contact them concerning the format. The agency's first line of argument was that the Network had failed to specify the format in which it wanted the records. Calling this a "lame excuse," Scheindlin pointed out that the Network's email "explicitly placed Defendants on notice that spreadsheets were sought in native format�"not as a PDF screen shot�"and that each text record should be produced as a separate file." She added that the agency had not contacted the Network in response to its email. "Had the Government done as it was asked, any ambiguity as to the nature of the requested format would have been resolved." Next, the government claimed that since there was no precedent requiring the release of metadata in response to a FOIA request it had complied with its obligations under FOIA even if it would have been required to disclose metadata under the rules of discovery. Scheindlin observed that there was no conflict between FOIA and discovery. She pointed out that FOIA required "only that the record be provided in 'any form or format requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the agency in that form or format.'" She added that "there is no doubt in my mind that this language refers only to technical ability or, at most, reasonable accessibility. Defendants do not argue that they are unable to produce the records in the requested form�"namely native format for spreadsheets and single file format for text records�"but that reviewing all of the metadata would greatly increase the burden of search and production." Nevertheless, since the Network had not specifically asked for metadata, Scheindlin said she would not require the government to re-produce all of the records to include metadata. She indicated that "while native format is often the best form of production, it is easy to see why it is not feasible where a significant amount of information must be redacted. Therefore, Defendants are ordered to re-produce all text records in static image single file format together with their attachments. However, they must re-produce all spreadsheets in native format as request by Plaintiffs' email." Turning to future productions, she noted that "all future productions by Defendants must include load files that contain the following fields, which apply to all forms of ESI." These future productions would require, at a minimum, a unique identifier, file name, custodian, source device, source path, production path, modified date, modified time, and time offset value. As for emails, additional fields should include the addresses of the message, persons copied on the message, persons blind-copied, date sent, time sent, subject, date received, time received, and attachments. Scheindlin complained that many of the problems encountered in this case could have been avoided if the parties had cooperated. She observed that "all lawyers�"even highly respected private lawyers, Government lawyers, and professors of law�"need to make greater efforts to comply with the expectations that courts now demand of counsel with respect to expensive and time-consuming document production. Lawyers are all too ready to point the finger at the courts and the Rules for increasing the expense of litigation, but that expense could be greatly diminished if lawyers met their own obligations to ensure that document production is handled as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. This can only be achieved through cooperation and communication."
Issues: Choice of format - Burdensome
Opinion/Order [41]
Opinion/Order [99]
FOIA Project Annotation: When Judge Shira Scheindlin withdrew her opinion finding that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was required to disclose metadata to the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, there was concern in the access community that the government had managed to avoid a ground-breaking ruling that could dramatically open up the amount of electronic information available under FOIA. But while that prospect has been temporarily put on hold, Scheindlin has released an opinion in the case dealing with several exemption claims that provides a far-reaching victory for requesters and suggests that the Second Circuit is becoming a far friendlier jurisdiction for FOIA requesters than the D.C. Circuit. The National Day Laborer Organizing Network requested a voluminous amount of information about ICE's Secure Communities program, which expanded the practice of local law enforcement agencies to send fingerprints of individuals arrested and booked into custody to the FBI to be checked against the national criminal history database to include sending fingerprints to the Department of Homeland Security to be checked against immigration records. At the crux of the organization's requests was an attempt to ascertain whether or not participation in the Secure Communities program was voluntary or mandatory. The program was established in 2008 and government officials initially contended that participation was voluntary. However, in October 2010, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated during a press conference that the agency considered participation mandatory. The Organizing Network claimed the agency had taken that position with localities since as early as March 2010. ICE produced over 14,000 pages concerning the opt-out nature of the program. The agency withheld information under Exemption 2, (internal practices and procedures) Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Scheindlin agreed to review a sampling of the documents in camera. For efficiency's sake, the Organizing Network agreed not to contest the Exemption 2 and 7(E) claims, although Scheindlin noted that any Exemption 2 claims would be rejected if they went beyond the Supreme Court's holding in Milner v. Dept of Navy. Scheindlin proceeded to set out some interpretive guidelines for Exemption 5 which went considerably beyond the kind of pro forma acceptance of any privilege claim whenever a document can be characterized as being predecisional and deliberative that has become common in FOIA litigation. From a requester's point of view, one of the most frustrating aspects of deliberative process privilege claims is their chameleon-like nature. Documents that appear to clearly have been made after an agency decision often morph into becoming part of a predecisional discussion of some later related decision. But Scheindlin was having nothing to do with this kind of amorphous approach. Instead, she noted that "many of the documents that defendants seek to withhold under the deliberative process privilege do not contain agency deliberations about what Secure Communities policies should be, but rather about what message should be delivered to the public about what Secure Communities policies are. Such 'messaging' is no more than an explanation of an existing policy, which is not protected by the deliberative process privilege. Deliberations about how to present an already decided policy to the public, or documents designed to explain that policy to�"or obscure it from�"the public, including in draft form, are at the heart of what should be released under FOIA. After all, what FOIA requesters are frequently asking is evidence of discrepancies between what their government is saying versus what it is doing, or what it is saying in public versus what it is saying behind closed doors. This is the type of concern that FOIA seeks to vindicate, and discussions about proper 'messaging' will often be quite revealing." She criticized the plaintiffs, noting that they "have a tendency in their brief to emphasize the 'critical' nature of the documents, but no matter how 'critical,' if privileged, they are properly exempt. Where I order the release of documents, it is because I find that they are not privileged, or that the privilege has been waived." But she added that the fact that "something is labeled a draft, or reflects discussions among agency personnel, is not enough to render it privileged. A draft may be protected by the privilege, to the extent that it 'reflects the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency.' Nevertheless, a draft is only privileged if it contains discussions that reflect the policy-making process. It is not privileged if it reflects only the personal opinions of a writer with respect to how to explain an existing policy or decision." Schendlin pointed out that the deliberative process privilege "is not concerned with chilling agency efforts to obfuscate, which are anathema to the operation of democratic government." Noting that "there is ample evidence that ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities," she concluded that any discussions of the voluntary nature of the program after January 27, 2010, when the agency stated publicly that the program was voluntary, and any discussions of the mandatory nature of the program after March 2010, when both ICE and the FBI discussed the mandatory nature of the program with Washington, D.C. police officials, were post-decisional and could not be protected under the deliberative process privilege. The agency had also claimed the attorney-client privilege on many documents. While noting that the privilege applied broadly to legal advice given by agency attorneys in response to requests for advice, she observed that the privilege was waived if the agency disclosed the advice to private individuals or non-federal agencies. She indicated the Organizing Network had provided substantial evidence that portions of the information being claimed as privileged had been disclosed to local and state law enforcement officials. Scheindlin refused to apply the privacy exemptions expansively. While acknowledging the scope of the Supreme Court's decision in Dept of State v. Washington Post broadening the reach of the 'similar files' language in Exemption 6, she pointed out that "I disagree with those courts that have interpreted Washington Post so broadly as to render the threshold inquiry meaningless." In this case, the government had applied the privacy exemptions to personal information about federal employees and third parties. Scheindlin noted that "it is not the case that any mention of a federal employee's name may be withheld. Such a blanket rule would fail both the threshold test�"as to the type of file or record or information in which such information is found �" and the balancing test of privacy versus public interests." She concluded that "the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interest as regards the names of agency heads or high-level subordinates in the documents at issue, and the titles and places of work of all federal employees and third parties. There is a substantial public interest in knowing whether the documents at issue reflect high-level agency policy, helping to inform the public as to 'what their government is up to.' The disclosure of the places of work and titles but not the names of subordinate staff will provide plaintiffs with a greater ability to ascertain the degree to which documents reflect the views of the agency versus those of individual agency employees, and will enable plaintiffs to test defendants' assertions of deliberative process to a greater degree, without exposing lower level federal employees to the risk of harassment or annoyance." Scheindlin then applied her guidelines on Exemption 5 to the sampling of documents she examined in camera. While finding many of the agency's exemption claims fell short, she also pointed out that without further context she was occasionally uncertain whether a privilege might legitimately apply. In those instances, she sent documents back to the agency for further explanation. However, she found that some of the claims were proper and sent the case back to the agency to disclose or further substantiate its claims for various documents.
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques
Opinion/Order [109]
Opinion/Order [140]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Shira Scheindlin has told Immigration and Customs Enforcement in no uncertain terms that its memo explaining the legal basis for its decision to make state participation in its Secure Communities program"which requires that local law enforcement agencies send fingerprints of individuals arrested to not only the FBI, but to Homeland Security as well"mandatory is not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Scheindlin had earlier found the memo was not protected by the deliberative process privilege, but had postponed ruling on the agency's claim of attorney-client privilege. Now she has rejected the agency's attorney-client privilege argument as well. In doing so, Scheindlin rejected out-of-hand the agency's contention that once it showed a logical connection between the memo and the privilege the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to show that the privilege did not apply. Scheindlin first took Homeland Security to task for what she saw as its disingenuous position on the Secure Communities program. What began as a voluntary program became mandatory on Oct. 6, 2010 when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that "DHS 'does not view [Secure Communities] as an opt-in, opt-out program." During the course of litigation brought by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 18 different versions of a memo that was finalized on Oct. 2, 2010 were uncovered and the plaintiffs argued that the Oct. 2 memo was the basis for Napolitano's Oct. 6 announcement. Scheindlin noted that "defendants derided this argument as mere speculation, but did not provide information about the role that the Memorandum did or did not play in the policy shift. In fact, DHS has failed to acknowledge that there has been any policy shift, instead, insisting that opt-out had never been an option, despite numerous public statements to the contrary." After previously finding that the memo was not protected by the deliberative process privilege, she told the agency to respond to the plaintiff's claim that the agency had waived the attorney-client privilege by its failure to keep the memo confidential. The Network argued that the memo did not provide legal advice because the memo was written after ICE had decided to make the Secure Communities program mandatory. Schleindlin rejected that claim. Instead, she pointed out that "a communication may still be considered 'legal advice' even if the agency has already taken some action related to the subject matter of the advice. . .[T]he fact that the agency may have already adopted a policy that Secure Communities was mandatory does not mean that a memorandum containing legal analysis of the Secure Communities mandate does not constitute legal advice." She found more persuasive the Network's argument that the agency had failed to maintain the confidentiality of the memo. She first noted that ICE was trying to shift the agency's burden to show that the record was exempt to the plaintiff by arguing that "once an agency has shown a logical connection between the withheld information and the claimed exemption, the burden shifts to the requester to prove waiver, adoption, or some other reason why the exemption should not apply." Schleindlin pointed out that "the defendants seek to radically expand the government's ability to resist FOIA requests by importing a low 'logical connection' standard"derived from what is known as the Glomar doctrine"that applies only in rare cases when the very act of confirming or denying the existence of records 'would cause harm cognizable under a FOIA exception.' This standard, which is primarily applicable in the national security context, is inappropriate here, where the government has already acknowledged the existence of the October 2 Memorandum and released parts of it." She continued: "The correct reading of the case law indicates that in some instances, court have assigned the initial burden of production (not the burden of proof) to plaintiffs who assert that a prior disclosure of attorney-client material has waived confidentiality. . .If such information exists, the agency must then meet its burden of proof to establish the exemption." Schleindlin indicated that the Network had shown a number of instances when agency officials explained the legal justification for making Secure Communities mandatory to elected officials and immigration advocates. She also pointed out that much of the legal advice had been disclosed in various documents released as part of the litigation. She explained that "nearly every component of the October 2 Memorandum appears in some public document or statement by the defendant. This includes nearly all of the factual background, specific references to and discussions of all of the statutes upon which the Memorandum relies, and even significant components of the legal discussion regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the agency's position. In short, plaintiffs have produced extensive specific evidence of waiver." As a result, she noted that the agency's affidavit affirming that the nominal author of the memo and its high-level recipient had not disseminated the memo outside the agency was inadequate to justify its privilege claim. Noting that emails she reviewed in camera indicated that other agency employees had access to the memo, Schleindlin pointed out that "if any one of the dozen individuals who received the document by email sent it"or the legal analysis contained in it"to an agent or employee who was not authorized to speak on behalf of ICE about the mandatory nature of Secure Communities, the document lost its privileged status. Defendants had the burden of showing that no such disclosure happened and this Court has given them ample opportunity to make such a showing." The Network also argued that, under National Council of La Raza v. Dept of Justice, 411 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005), the memo had been adopted by the agency as its working law. Schleindlin agreed and noted that "as in the context of waiver, the burden-shifting formula that courts have relied upon (with different degrees of clarity) is a reasonable approach. It places the ultimate burden on the agency to prove exemption, as clearly required by the text of FOIA, but requires that if plaintiffs are to defeat the agency's initial assertion of exemption, they must show some evidence of agency adoption." Schleindlin then pointed out that "on October 6, Secretary Napolitano made the first unequivocal public statement confirming the mandatory nature of Secure Communities. Beginning at that time and continuing through 2011, ICE officials have repeatedly explained to members of Congress, local law enforcement agencies, and the public, that participation in the program is mandatory and required by federal law." She added that "in this case, the evidence is unambiguous that ICE adopted the conclusions of the October 2 Memorandum"that there is sufficient legal support to make Secure Communities mandatory in 2013." She observed that "in the face of this significant evidence, the defendants fail to even assert the October 2 Memorandum was not adopted by the agency. Instead, they argue simply that plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proving adoption." She concluded that "in the face of significant direct and circumstantial evidence suggesting that ICE adopted the Memorandum as its policy, the defendants have chosen to submit no affidavits or documentary evidence showing otherwise. In order to withhold the Memorandum from disclosure, the defendants must meet their burden of persuasion on [both the issue of confidentiality and adoption]. They have done neither."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege
Opinion/Order [161]
Opinion/Order [197]
FOIA Project Annotation: In the most recent ruling in a case pertaining to the Department of Homeland Security's Secure Communities program, District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin has provided a detailed discussion of the problems agencies face when they search for electronic records. Even after finding that many components of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice involved in the search for records had either justified, or failed to justify, the adequacy of their searches, Scheindlin explained that the government generally had not shown that it understood how to conduct an electronic search that would maximize the likelihood of locating responsive records. She pointed out that "most custodians cannot be 'trusted' to run effective searches because designing legally sufficient electronic searches in the discovery or FOIA contexts is not part of their daily responsibilities. Searching for an answer on Google (or Westlaw or Lexis) is very different from searching for all responsive documents in the FOIA or e-discovery context. Simple keyword searching is often not enough. . ." Scheindlin prefaced her discussion of electronic searches by pointing out that "it is impossible to evaluate the adequacy of an electronic search without knowing what search terms have been used. In earlier times, custodians and searchers were responsible for familiarizing themselves with the scope of a request and then examining documents individually in order to determine if they were responsive. Things have changed. Now custodians can search their entire email archives, which likely constitute the vast majority of their written communications, with a few key strokes. The computer does the searching. But as a result, the precise instructions that custodians give their computers are crucial." The importance of constructing the search, Scheindlin noted, is key to how successful it will be. She indicated that "at the most elementary level are simple mistakes: a search for secure commmunities' (with three 'm's) may yield no results despite the presence of thousands of documents that contain the phrase 'secure communities.' Seemingly minor decisions�"whether intentional or not�"will have major consequences. Choosing 'subject field' rather than 'subject field and message body' during a search using Microsoft Outlook email client will dramatically change its scope and results. Boolean operators are also consequential: a search for 'secure communities opt-out' may yield no results while a search for 'secure communities' and 'opt-out' yields one hundred results and a search for 'secure communities' or 'opt-out' yields ten thousand. . . '[S]earch results will change dramatically depending on which logical connectives�"such as 'and,' 'or,' 'w/10,'�"are used. Thus, '[i]n order to determine adequacy, it is not enough to know the search terms. The method in which they are combined and deployed is central to the inquiry.'" Scheindlin compared the original paper record world with the current electronic one. "Describing searches with this level of detail was not necessary in the era when most searches took place 'by hand.' Then, as now, a court largely relied on the discretion of the searching parties to determine whether a document was responsive; but at least in that era, courts knew that the searching parties were actually looking at the documents with their eyes. With most electronic searches, custodians never actually look at the universe of documents they are searching. Instead, they rely on their search terms and the computer to produce a subset of potentially responsive records that they then examine for responsiveness." She pointed out that "yet the FBI, to take one example, has given the Court no specific information about the search that it conducted beyond explaining that much (but not all) of it was 'manual.' For the portions that were not manual, I do not know what search terms were used, let alone how they were combined. I do not even know if any search terms were recommended." She continued: "Defendants argue that I should grant the agencies' motion on the adequacy of the search even though I do not know what search terms�"let alone what Boolean operators, search fields, and time frames�"were used by a very large portion of the custodians." She noted that the agencies argued that they need not set out meticulous detail concerning the searches and that they should be trusted to run effective searches of their own records since they did such searches on a daily basis. Scheindlin responded by pointing out that "custodians cannot 'be trusted to run effective searches,' without providing a detailed description of those searches, because FOIA places the burden on defendants to establish that they have conducted adequate searches." She chided the government by noting that "somehow, DHS, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], and the FBI have not gotten the message. So it bears repetition: the government will not be able to establish the adequacy of FOIA searches if it does not record and report the search terms that it used, how it combined them, and whether it searched the full text of documents." She pointed out that "there are emerging best practices for dealing with these shortcomings," including closer cooperation between requesters and agencies concerning the proper keywords to be used in searches. She added that parties could also rely on "latent semantic indexing, statistical probability models, and machine learning tools to find responsive documents." Such techniques "allow humans to teach computers what documents are and are not responsive to a particular FOIA or discovery request and they can significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of searches. In short. . . a court cannot simply trust the defendant agencies' unsupported assertions that their lay custodians have designed and conducted a reasonable search." She wondered how courts could reliably evaluate such searches, noting that "even courts that have carefully considered defendants' search terms have generally not grappled with the research showing that, in many contexts, the use of keywords without testing and refinement (or more sophisticated techniques) will in fact not be reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive material." The plaintiffs had enlisted an e-discovery expert to analyze the agencies' searches and he had found them wanting. Scheindlin observed that while she accepted the expert's conclusions, "the question, however, is whether the shortcomings on the part of the agencies made their searches 'inadequate' under FOIA. Surely, the agencies have failed to establish the adequacy of the searches for which they have specified no search terms. But for those searches for which terms were specified, a determination is more difficult." She then indicated that "it is impossible for me to assess the adequacy of most of the keyword searches used by defendants. But it is also unnecessary for me to do so" because conducting further searches of the voluminous documents just to ensure the adequacy of the search would be a waste of resources. But she noted that "nevertheless, FOIA requires the government to respond adequately to requests from the public and defendants must learn to use twenty-first century technologies to effectuate congressional intent." She then told the agencies that "a sample of the custodians who conducted searches but failed to provide the Court with any details about those searches will also need to conduct new, fully-documented searches; so will a smaller sample of the custodians who listed the search terms that they used but provided no evidence about the efficacy of those terms. These repeat searches will permit the parties and the Court to efficiently evaluate whether the initial searches were adequate." She cautioned that "the parties will need to agree on search terms and protocols�"and, if necessary, testing to evaluate and refine those terms. If they wish to and are able to, then they may agree on predictive ending techniques and other innovative ways to search. Plaintiffs will need to be reasonable in their demands�"aware of the real cost that their massive FOIA request has imposed on the agencies�"and will be restricted to seeking records from only the most important custodians on only the most important issues."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2010-04-271COMPLAINT against United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, United States Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 901656)Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law.(ama) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
2010-04-27SUMMONS ISSUED as to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, United States Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel. (ama) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
2010-04-27CASE REFERRED TO Judge Shira A. Scheindlin as possibly Related to 1:10-cv-2705. (ama) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
2010-04-27Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
2010-04-272RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(ama) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
2010-05-04CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:10-cv-02705-SAS. Notice of Assignment to follow. (jnm) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-043NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Judge Unassigned is no longer assigned to the case. (jnm) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-04Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox is so designated. (jnm) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-044AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency served on 4/29/2010, answer due 6/28/2010; United States Department of Homeland Security served on 4/29/2010, answer due 6/28/2010; Executive Office For Immigration Review served on 4/29/2010, answer due 6/28/2010; Federal Bureau Of Investigation served on 4/29/2010, answer due 6/28/2010; Office of Legal Counsel served on 4/29/2010, answer due 6/28/2010. Service was accepted by Karen Brown, Legal Asst. SDNY US Atty Office. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network; Center for Constitutional Rights; Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law. (Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-045SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED. Service was accepted by Karen Brown, Legal Asst, SDNY US Atty Office. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law. (Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-246NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christopher Kendrick Connolly on behalf of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, United States Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
2010-05-257ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 5/24/10 re: Defendants request an additional 30 days in which to file an answer. ENDORSEMENT: Request. Defendants may have until July 1, 2010 to move or answer. No further extensions will be granted. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency answer due 7/1/2010; United States Department of Homeland Security answer due 7/1/2010; Executive Office For Immigration Review answer due 7/1/2010; Federal Bureau Of Investigation answer due 7/1/2010; Office of Legal Counsel answer due 7/1/2010. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/25/10) (djc) Modified on 5/27/2010 (djc). (Entered: 05/26/2010)
2010-07-018ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, United States Department of Homeland Security, Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel.(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 07/01/2010)
2010-10-279NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Bridget Phillips Kessler on behalf of Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (Kessler, Bridget) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
2010-10-2810MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(Kessler, Bridget) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
2010-10-2811MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Kessler, Bridget) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
2010-10-2812DECLARATION of Bridget P. Kessler in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - G, # 2 Exhibit H - K, # 3 Exhibit L - O, # 4 Exhibit P - S, # 5 Exhibit T - V)(Kessler, Bridget) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
2010-10-2913NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joseph Nicholas Cordaro on behalf of Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 10/29/2010)
2010-11-1214MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
2010-11-1215DECLARATION of Christopher Connolly in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B1, # 3 Exhibit B2, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G)(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
2010-11-1816ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Bridget P. Kessler dated 11/16/10 re: Request to submit one additional affidavit on Friday, 11/19/10, with plaintiffs' reply to Defendants' opposition to plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs' request to submit an additional affidavit is hereby granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/18/10) (cd) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
2010-11-1917LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: Consent of the Judge: I authorize Hannah J. Weinstein: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/18/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-11-1918LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: Consent of the Judge: I authorize James F. Horton: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/18/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-11-1919LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: Consent of the Judge: I authorize Phillip Startweather: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/18/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-11-1920NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Anthony J. Diana on behalf of National Day Laborer Organizing Network (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-11-1921REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-11-1922DECLARATION of Bridget Kessler in Support re: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - K, # 2 Exhibit L - S)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
2010-12-0823ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE. Attorney Jeremy D Schildcrout for National Day Laborer Organizing Network admitted Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 128/10) (cd) (Entered: 12/10/2010)
2010-12-1624ORDER: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction [Docket No. 10 ], made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a). The motion was resolved in a proceeding held on the record on December 9, 2010. The transcript is not yet available on ECF. The parties are directed to order the transcript and file it forthwith. Motions terminated: 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/15/2010) (lnl) (Entered: 12/16/2010)
2010-12-1725ORDER: 1. Defendants, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Office of Legal Counsel. (OLC) and Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) (collectively, "Defendants") shall search, process and produce to Plaintiffs, by January 17, 2011, records relating to the ability of states or localities to decline or limit participation in Secure Communities, including documents, memoranda, manuals, and communications referencing the technological capacity of ICE an the FBI to honor requests to opt-out, opt-in or limit participation in Secure Communities ("Opt-Opt Production"). (a) On January 17, 2011, Defendants shall also serve and file a partial summary judgment motion together with a Vaughn index or declaration explaining an defending any claimed exemptions in the Opt-Out Production. (b) Plaintiffs shall submit opposition papers to the Defendants' partial summary judgment motion no later than January 31, 2011. (c) Defendants shall submit any reply to Plaintiffs' opposition papers no later than February 7, 201l. (See ORDER as set forth) (Motions due by 1/17/2011. Responses due by 1/31/2011, Replies due by 2/7/2011) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/17/2010) (lnl) (Entered: 12/17/2010)
2011-01-0426TRANSCRIPT of proceedings (conference) held on 12/9/2010 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ja) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
2011-01-0427TRANSCRIPT of proceedings (Conference) held on 12/9/2010 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. DUPLICATE ORIGINAL (ja) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
2011-01-19CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 23 Order Admitting Attorney Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 01/04/2011, Receipt Number 924928. (jd) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
2011-01-2628MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. Responses due by 2/9/2011(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
2011-01-2629DECLARATION of David M. Hardy in Support re: 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Part 1), # 2 Exhibit A (Part 2), # 3 Exhibit B)(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
2011-01-2630DECLARATION of Catrina Pavlik-Keenan in Support re: 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
2011-01-2631MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 01/26/2011)
2011-01-2832MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-01-2833MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-01-2834DECLARATION of David M. Hardy in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Vaughn Index))(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-01-2835DECLARATION of Catrina Pavlik-Keenan in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Vaughn Index))(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-01-2836DECLARATION of Donna A. Lewis in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Vaughn Index)(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-01-2837DECLARATION of Crystal Rene Souza in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Vaughn Index)(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-02-0238TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on January 12, 2011 4:30 p.m. before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ajc) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
2011-02-0339OPINION AND ORDER #99903 Once again, this Court is required to rule on an e-discovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to "meet and confer," "cooperate" and generally make every effort to "communicate" as to the form in which ESI would be produced, and as further set forth in this document, see document. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/3/11) (cd) Modified on 2/4/2011 (ajc). (Entered: 02/03/2011)
2011-02-0440ORDER: On February 3,2011, this Court issued an Opinion and Order in this matter [Docket No. 39]. This Opinion and Order is hereby withdrawn, effective immediately. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/4/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
2011-02-0741OPINION AND ORDER: #99918 Once again, this Court is required to rule on an e-discovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to "meet and confer," "cooperate" and generally make every effort to "communicate" as to the form in which ESI would be produced. The quoted words are found in opinion after opinion and yet lawyers fail to take the necessary steps to fulfill their obligations to each other and to the court. While certainly not rising to the level of a breach of an ethical obligation, such conduct certainly shows that all lawyers even highly respected private lawyers, Government lawyers, and professors of law need to make greater efforts to comply with the expectations that courts now demand of counsel with respect to expensive and time-consuming document production. Lawyers are all too ready to point the finger at the courts and the Rules for increasing the expense of litigation, but that expense could be greatly diminished if lawyers met their own obligations to ensure that document production is handled as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. This can only be achieved through cooperation and communication. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/7/2011) (lnl) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/7/2011: # 1 Exhibit A) (lnl). Modified on 2/9/2011 (ajc). (Entered: 02/07/2011)
2011-02-0742ORDER The conference is adjourned. The conference will be rescheduled for February 14, 2011 at 3:15 pm. SO ORDERED.( Status Conference set for 2/14/2011 at 03:15 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/7/2011) (jmi) (Entered: 02/08/2011)
2011-02-0943CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
2011-02-0944DECLARATION of Sarahi Uribe in Support re: 43 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
2011-02-0945DECLARATION of Lisa R. Plush in Support re: 43 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
2011-02-0946MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 43 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment . Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
2011-02-1147CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
2011-02-1148DECLARATION of James Horton in Support re: 47 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit A Doc 1, # 3 Exhibit A Doc 2, # 4 Exhibit A Doc 3, # 5 Exhibit A Doc 4, # 6 Exhibit A Doc 5, # 7 Exhibit A Doc 6, # 8 Exhibit A Doc 7, # 9 Exhibit A Doc 8, # 10 Exhibit A Doc 9, # 11 Exhibit B, # 12 Exhibit B Doc 1, # 13 Exhibit B Doc 2, # 14 Exhibit C, # 15 Exhibit D, # 16 Exhibit E, # 17 Exhibit F, # 18 Exhibit G, # 19 Exhibit H, # 20 Exhibit I)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
2011-02-1149MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 47 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment . Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 02/11/2011)
2011-02-1550SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER, that on February 7, 2011, this Court issued an Opinion and Order (docket no. 41) in this case requiring, inter alia, that all electronically stored information ("ESI") be produced in a specific format. On pages 20-23, I ordered Defendants to include certain metadata fields in the load files accompanying all future static image productions. This Order clarifies that the absence of "Full Text" from the list of required "metadata fields" was an oversight. Like the nine metadata fields listed on pages 20-21, "Full Text" - i.e., the body text of a document, attachment, or email message, extracted directly from the electronic source or derived by optical character recognition of scanned paper documents - should also accompany any production of a significant collection of static image ESI. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/14/11) (pl) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
2011-02-1551MEMO ENDORSEMENT re: letter from counsel for defendants (collectively, the "Government") in this Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") action. The Government respectfully requests authorization to submit declarations in connection with a motion for reconsideration of the February 7 Order. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk is directed to docket this letter. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/14/11) (pl) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
2011-02-1752TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on January 20, 2011 4:14 p.m. before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ajc) (Entered: 02/17/2011)
2011-02-1853NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christopher Blake Harwood on behalf of Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
2011-02-1854REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. and in opposition to cross-motion for summary judgment . Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
2011-02-1855REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. and in opposition to cross-motion for summary judgment . Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
2011-02-2156MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay . Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2157DECLARATION of Joseph N. Cordaro in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2158DECLARATION of Catrina Pavlik-Keenan in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2159DECLARATION of Donna A. Lewis in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2160DECLARATION of Crystal Rene Souza in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2161DECLARATION of David M. Hardy in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2162MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 02/21/2011)
2011-02-2163NOTICE OF APPEAL [Filed in Night Deposit box on a holiday] from 41 Opinion and Order, 50 Supplemental Order. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (nd) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
2011-02-23Transmission of Notice of Appeal to the District Judge re: 63 Notice of Appeal,. (nd) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
2011-02-23Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 63 Notice of Appeal,. (nd) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
2011-02-23Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 21 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 15 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 60 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 32 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 6 Notice of Appearance, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 45 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 44 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 34 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 37 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 8 Answer to Complaint, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 36 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 12 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 25 Order, Set Deadlines,,,,,,,,,, 3 Notice of Case Assignment/Reassignment, 7 Endorsed Letter, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,, 58 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay . filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 18 Order, 33 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 62 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 55 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 35 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 49 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 5 Summons Returned Executed as to USA, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 46 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 42 Order, Set Hearings,, 29 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 48 Declaration in Support of Motion,, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 51 Memo Endorsement, 20 Notice of Appearance filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 40 Order, 17 Order, 30 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 19 Order, 47 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 54 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 23 Order Admitting Attorney Pro Hac Vice, 57 Declaration in Support of Motion,, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, 14 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 1 Complaint, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 22 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 4 Affidavit of Service as to USA,, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 59 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 61 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 53 Notice of Appearance, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 31 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 11 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 16 Endorsed Letter, 9 Notice of Appearance filed by Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 24 Order, Terminate Motions,,,, 39 Memorandum & Opinion, 28 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, 63 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 13 Notice of Appearance, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security, 10 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 43 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, 41 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,, 50 Order,,, were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (nd) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
2011-02-2364LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: Consent of the Judge: I authorize this student: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/22/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 02/23/2011)
2011-03-0465ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Joseph N. Cordaro dated 3/2/2011 re: Requesting that the Court file this letter on the electronic docket of this case. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this letter. A conference will be held on March 8th at 2:30 pm to address the issues raised therein. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/4/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
2011-03-0766First Supplemental ROA Sent to USCA (Index). Notice that the Supplemental Index to the record on Appeal for 63 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security USCA Case Number 11-0711, 3 Copies of the index, Certified Supplemental Clerk Certificate and Certified Docket Sheet were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (nd). (Entered: 03/08/2011)
2011-03-0767TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/14/11, 3:30 p.m. before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (rjm) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
2011-03-1873TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/23/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ab) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
2011-03-1874TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/23/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ab) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
2011-03-2368DECLARATION of Ryan Law in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
2011-03-2369DECLARATION of David M. Hardy in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
2011-03-2370DECLARATION of William H. Holzerland in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
2011-03-2371DECLARATION of Maria Roat in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
2011-03-2472DECLARATION of Crystal Rene Souza in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
2011-03-2483TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 3/8/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (lnl) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
2011-03-2575ORDER: Defendant Executive Office of Immigration Review ("EOIR") has requested a nunc pro tunc extension of the deadline to file its supplemental declaration in support of defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal from March 23, 2011 to March 24, 2011, at 2:57 a.m., the time that the declaration actually was filed (Docket # 72 ). Plaintiffs do not object to this application. EOIR's application is granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/25/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
2011-03-2976STIPULATED AND ORDER GRANTING PAGE LIMIT EXTENSIONS FOR PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND DEFENDANTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW RELATING TO MOTION TO STAY: 1. The page limit for Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law accompanying the Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay is extended ten (l0) pages for a total of thirty-five (35) pages. 2. The page limit for Defendants' Memorandum of Law accompanying the Reply to Defendants' Motion to Stay is extended ten (10) pages for a total of twenty (20) pages. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/29/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-3077DECLARATION of Patrick Garbe in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-3078DECLARATION of Renee Feltz in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-3079DECLARATION of Sarahi Uribe in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-3080DECLARATION of Bridget Kessler in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-3081DECLARATION of Jason A. Novak in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-3082MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-04-0884STIPULATION AND ORDER; that, plaintiffs agree that their request for "Individual Records," which appears at Section C(3) of the FOIA Request and at Section C(3) of the Second Revised FOIA Request, is satisfied in its entirety with respect to all Defendants, with the sole exception of any records necessary for calculating the number of individuals identified through Secure Communities who have been identified as potentially posing a terrorist or national security threat, in exchange for Defendants ICE's and EOIR's agreement to the following terms and conditions as set forth in this Stipulation and Order. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/8/11) (pl) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
2011-04-1185REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
2011-04-1186DECLARATION of Ryan Law in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
2011-04-1187DECLARATION of Joseph N. Cordaro in Support re: 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal of Opinion and Order Dated February 7, 2011, and Supplemental Order Dated February 14, 2011, and for Interim Stay .. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Cordaro, Joseph) (Entered: 04/11/2011)
2011-04-2088ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly, dated 4/18/2011, re: This Office represents defendants in this matter. We are in receipt of plaintiffs' letter dated April 15, 2011, attached hereto as Exhibit A, in which plaintiffs again request an evidentiary hearing in connection with defendants' motion for a stay pending appeal of the Court's Orders dated February 7, 2011, and February 14, 2011. They do so based on statements by the United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") contained in a December 10, 2010 Privacy Impact Assessment ("DHS PIA") concerning an Electronic Discovery Software System ("EDSS"), and statements by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") concerning its electronic reading room. Plaintiffs' letter is yet another attempt to obtain an evidentiary hearing where one is not warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request should be denied. ENDORSEMENT: In view of defendants' representation that David Hardy of the FBI is not available to appear on April 21, 2011, the Court declines to order an evidentiary hearing at this time. The possibility of holding an evidentiary hearing at a later date will be discussed at the oral argument scheduled for April 21, 2011 at 11 a.m. SO ORDERED. (Oral Argument set for 4/21/2011 at 11:00 AM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/19/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 04/21/2011)
2011-04-2789TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conferece held on 03/31/11 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Ganley, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/23/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/3/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/29/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
2011-04-2790NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 03/31/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 04/27/2011)
2011-05-0291TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 4/21/11 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karen Gorlaski, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 5/26/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/6/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/4/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
2011-05-0292NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 4/21/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
2011-05-10Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 5/10/2011. (cd) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
2011-05-2393ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Anthony J. Diana, dated 5/19/2011, re: We represent the National Day Laborer Organizing Network ("NDLON"), a Plaintiffs in the referenced action. One of our associates, Norman Rocco Cerullo, is leaving the firm. We therefore write pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.4 to request that the Court relieve Mr. Cerullo as an attorney of record for NDLON and direct the Clerk to terminate his ECF noticing in the action. My colleagues and I from Mayer Brown, along with co-counsel, will continue to represent NDLON, and Mr. Cerullo's withdrawal will have no effect on the future conduct of this litigation. ENDORSEMENT: Norman Rocco Cerullo is hereby relieved as attorney of record for NDLON and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate his ECF noticing in this action. SO ORDERED. Attorney Norman Rocco Cerullo terminated. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/20/2011) (lnl) (Entered: 05/24/2011)
2011-05-2694ORDER: Defendants produce for in camera review the following documents, as identified in the Declaration of James Horton: (see order). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/26/2011) (jar) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
2011-05-27Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 5/27/2011. (mbe) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
2011-06-0695ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Bridget P. Kessler dated 6/2/2011 re: Counsel writes to respond to the Defendants' May 27th letter regarding the material withheld under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") High 2 exemption. In addition, counsel writes to update the Court of relevant developments since the parties briefed our respective cross-motions for summary judgment on the application of FOIA exemptions to the "Opt-Out Production." Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court order the defendants to re-process and produce any improperly withheld documents no later than 6/10. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants are hereby order to make any re-designations and production of documents improperly withheld in view of Milner v. De'pt of the Navy by June 17, 2011. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/3/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
2011-06-1696ORDER, the Court's June 3, 2011 Memorandum Order is hereby withdrawn. The parties are instructed to submit letter briefs addressing the impact of Milner v. Department of the Navy on the Freedom Of Information Act ("FOIA") exemptions claimed by defendants in the instant matter. Defendants are ordered to submit their letter brief to the Court by July 8, 2011, indicating the information that is set forth in this Order. Plaintiffs' opposition to defendants' letter brief is due by July 22, 2011. There will be no reply brief. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/16/11) (pl) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
2011-06-1797STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding resolution of dispute for the form and format in which records will be produced by defendants. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/17/2011) (jar) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
2011-06-1798ORDER: In the interests of justice, this Court now believes that it would be prudent to withdraw the opinion it issued on February 7,2011 (Docket # 41). By withdrawing the decision, it is the intent of this Court that the decision shall have no precedential value in this lawsuit or in any other lawsuit. The Court also withdraws its Supplemental Order dated February 14, 2011 (Docket # 50). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/17/2011) (jar) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
2011-07-1199OPINION AND ORDER: #100518 Summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as to each party. As detailed above, defendants are required to submit revised Vaughn indexes containing further justifications for certain of their withholdings including representations regarding the confidentiality of attorney-client communications and to produce certain documents, or portions thereof, that have previously been withheld. They are required to do so by August 1, 2011. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these motions [Docket Nos. 32 and 47]. A conference is scheduled for August 11, 2011 at 5 p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/11/11) (rjm) Modified on 7/12/2011 (jab). (Entered: 07/11/2011)
2011-07-11Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/11/2011 at 05:00 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (rjm) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
2011-07-12100STIPULATION AND ORDER; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between ICE, DHS, FBI and EOIR (the "FPL Defendants") and Plaintiffs as follows: Plaintiffs, ICE, and the FBI agree to withdraw the pending Search Cut-Off Date Motion and Search Cut-Off Date Cross-Motion. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the pending motions [Docket nos. 28 and 43].(Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/12/11) (djc) (Entered: 07/13/2011)
2011-07-22Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 7/22/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
2011-07-25101MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 63 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, Office of Legal Counsel, Executive Office For Immigration Review, United States Department of Homeland Security USCA Case Number 11-711....that the appeal is hereby WITHDRAWN pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 07/25/2011. (nd) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-25102MOTION for Reconsideration re; 99 Memorandum & Opinion,,. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-25103MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 102 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 99 Memorandum & Opinion,,.. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Diana, Anthony) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-27Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 7/27/2011. (lmb) (Entered: 08/05/2011)
2011-07-29104ORDER: (1) DHS shall produce responsive FPL Records in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Initial production no later than July 29, 2011; (b) 1,500 pages no later than August 12th; (c) 1,500 pages no later than August 26th; (d) All remaining pages no later than September 19th. (2) FBI shall produce responsive FPL Records in accordance with the following schedule: (a) Initial production no later than July 29th; (b) 5,000 pages no later than August 12th; (c) 5,000 pages no later than August 26th; (d) 5,000 pages no later than September 9th; (e) All remaining pages no later than September 12th. (3) ICE shall produce 5,000 pages of responsive FPL Records no later than August 15th. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/29/2011) (ab) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
2011-07-29105ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Anthony J. Diana dated 7/29/2011 re: Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court extend plaintiff's deadline to submit their responses to defendants' 7/8/11 letter brief to 8/15/11, with the understanding that plaintiffs will only submit the response if the parties are unable to finalize the stipulation before 8/12. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Plaintiffs' time to respond to Defendants' letter brief is extended until August 12, except that no response will be required on the event that the parties are able to finalize the Stipulation. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 7/29/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 08/01/2011)
2011-08-03106MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 102 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 99 Memorandum & Opinion,,.. Document filed by Executive Office For Immigration Review, Federal Bureau Of Investigation, United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-03107ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 8/2/11 re: Request for a one week extension to comply with disclosure obligations per 7/11/11 opinion and order. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Defendants' time to disclose all or parts of certain documents, as required by the 7/11 Order is hereby extended to 8/15/11. Defendants' supplemental Vaughn Index remains due on 8/8/11. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/3/11) (cd) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
2011-08-04108ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A Scheindlin from Bridget Kessler dated 8/3/11 re: Plaintiff's propose the following briefing schedule for defendant's motion for a stay pending appeal. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Defendants have already been ordered to produce the specified records or portions of records by 8/15th. In the event that Defendants decide to appeal portions of this Court's 7/11 order and move to stay, the parties must follow this expedited briefing schedule: Defendants' motion due 8/15/11; Plaintiffs' opposition due 8/19/11; Defendants' reply, if any, due 8/23/11 ( Motion due by 8/15/2011. Response due by 8/19/2011, Reply due by 8/23/2011.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/4/11) (cd) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
2011-08-08109MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: #100635 102 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 99 Memorandum & Opinion filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. Defendants are ordered to make any additional productions and/or to justify further withholdings consistent with this Order by August 29, 2011. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion [Docket No. 102]. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/8/2011) (jar) Modified on 8/9/2011 (jab). (Entered: 08/08/2011)
2011-08-10110TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 7/22/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Toni Stanley, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/5/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/15/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/11/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
2011-08-10111NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 7/22/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
2011-08-11Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 8/11/2011. (ft) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
2011-08-12112ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Anthony J. Dianna dated 8/12/2011 re: Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court set a new deadline during the August 18, 2011 hearing for Plaintiffs to submit their response in the event that the parties are unable to finalize the stipulation by August 18. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Plaintiffs' deadline to submit their reply to defendants' July 8 letter is extended sine die. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/15/2011) (rdz) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
2011-08-16113TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 8/11/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/9/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/19/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/17/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
2011-08-16114NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 8/11/2011 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
2011-08-16115ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 8/16/11 re: We write respectfully to request a brief extension of time for defendants to respond to plaintiffs' August 11, 2011 letter regarding ICE's supplemental Vaughn indexes (the "August 11 Letter"), from the close of business today until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Defendants' reply letter must be submitted by 2pm on August 17, 2011. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/16/11) (rjm) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
2011-08-18Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 8/18/2011. (mro) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
2011-08-22116ORDER: This Court's August 18, 2011 oral Order compelling production of the October 2, 2010 Memorandum is hereby rescinded. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/22/2011) (jfe) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
2011-08-23117NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sonia Ruth Lin on behalf of Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network (Lin, Sonia) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
2011-08-23118NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Sonia Ruth Lin on behalf of Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. New Address: Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, 55 Fifth Avenue, Room 1109, New York, New York, United States 10003, (212) 790-0256. (Lin, Sonia) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
2011-08-24119TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Argument held on 7/27/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karen Gorlaski, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/19/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/29/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/25/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
2011-08-24120NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Argument proceeding held on 7/27/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
2011-08-24Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Status Conference held on 8/24/2011. (mro) (Entered: 09/01/2011)
2011-08-25121ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Peter L. Markowitz dated 8/24/11 re: counsel for plaintiff writes pursuant to Local Rule 1.4 to respectfully request that the Court relieve Ms. Kessler as an attorney of record for NDLON and the Clinic. In addition, we request that the Court direct the Clerk to terminate Ms. Kessler's ECF noticing. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Bridget Kessler is hereby relieved as an attorney of record for NDLON and the Clinic. The Clerk of the court is directed to terminate Ms. Kesslers ECF noticing in this matter. Attorney Bridget Phillips Kessler terminated. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/25/11) (pl) (Entered: 08/25/2011)
2011-08-30122TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 8/18/2011 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Richards, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/23/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/3/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/1/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
2011-08-30123NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 8/18/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 08/30/2011)
2011-09-02124ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly, Joseph N. Cordaro & Christopher B. Harwood dated 9/1/2011 re: This Office represents defendants in the above-captioned Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") matter. We write respectfully to provide the Court with information concerning the Final Production List ("FPL") production released to plaintiffs on August 30,2011, by defendant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). The information provided herein may also be helpful in facilitating the upcoming discussions among the parties and the Friend of the Court. We thank the Court for its consideration of this letter and respectfully request that it be docketed as part of the record. ENDORSEMENT: At defendants' request, the Clerk of the Court is directed to docket this letter. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/2/2011) (lmb) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
2011-09-02125MOTION for Summary Judgment on Withholdings Pursuant to Exemption (b)(5) and the Attorney-Client Privilege . Document filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
2011-09-02126MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Withholdings Pursuant to Exemption (b)(5) and the Attorney-Client Privilege .. Document filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
2011-09-02127DECLARATION of Christopher Connolly in Support re: 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Withholdings Pursuant to Exemption (b)(5) and the Attorney-Client Privilege .. Document filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F-1, # 7 Exhibit F-2, # 8 Exhibit F-3, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I)(Connolly, Christopher) (Entered: 09/02/2011)
2011-09-12128CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum . Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network.(Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-12129DECLARATION of Sonia R. Lin in Support re: 128 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lin Decl. Ex. A-Q, # 2 Exhibit Lin Decl. Ex. R-Z, # 3 Exhibit Lin Decl. Ex. AA-HH)(Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-12130DECLARATION of Sarahi Uribe in Support re: 128 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Uribe Ex. A-D)(Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-12131DECLARATION of Sunita Patel in Support re: 128 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-12132DECLARATION of Sarang Seckhavat in Support re: 128 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-12133MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 128 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment for Disclosure of the Oct. 2 Memorandum .. Document filed by Center for Constitutional Rights, Immigration Justice Clinic of The Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law, National Day Laborer Organizing Network. (Markowitz, Peter) (Entered: 09/12/2011)
2011-09-14134ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira S. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 9/12/2011 re: We write respectfully on behalf of the FBI to request a one-day extension of the FBI's deadline to complete its Final Production List productions. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. The FBI's time to complete its September 12 production is extended to September 13, 2011. ( Request for Production of Documents due by 9/13/2011.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/13/2011) (laq) (Entered: 09/14/2011)
2011-09-15135ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 9/14/2011 re: counsel for defendants writes that ICE's reply/opposition to their renewed motion for summary judgment is presently due this Friday, September 16, 2011. We write respectfully to request that ICE's filing deadline be extended to next Thursday, September 22, 2011. ENDORSEMENT: Request denied in part and granted in part The Government's response must be filed by close of business on September 20, 2011. ( Replies due by 9/20/2011.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/15/2011) (pl) (Entered: 09/15/2011)
2011-09-15136ORDER: All communications between the parties, the Friends of the Court, and the Court during and in connection with the Friends of the Court meeting shall be confidential and protected from disclosure, shall not constitute a waiver of any existing privileges and immunities, may not be disclosed outside of the parties, Friends of the Court, and the Court, and may be used only for purposes of negotiating or otherwise establishing a reasonable schedule for ICE's FPL production. The Friends of the Court shall not have the authority to issue binding rulings or findings with respect to the parties or any matter before the Court. The Friends of the Court shall not serve as witnesses for any party, or present third-party testimony concerning their communications with the parties. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/15/2011) (rdz) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
2011-09-20137REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 125 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Withholdings Pursuant to Exemption (b)(5) and the Attorney-Client Privilege . and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment . Document filed by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. (Harwood, Christopher) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
2011-09-22138ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Christopher Connolly dated 9/22/2011 re: We write to respectfully request a one-week extension of defendants' time to respond to plaintiffs' August 8, 2011 letter regarding the adequacy of defendants' past searches, until Friday, September 30, 2011. ENDORSEMENT: Request denied. Defendants have had more than 6 weeks - from Aug. 8 until Sept. 23 - to respond to plaintiffs' letter, which is already an extraordinary length of time to respond to a letter. Defendants' response remains due on September 23, 2011. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/22/2011) (lmb) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
2011-10-03139STIPULATION AND ORDER: It is hereby Stipulated and Agreed, by and between ICE, DHS and FBI, and plaintiffs as follows: Plaintiffs will not seek the release of the bare High 2s contained in those records identified and incorporated by reference in the attached Exhibit A. High 2 defendants now re-designate the bare High 2s contained in the records listed on Exhibit A as exempt under the FOIA exemptions indicated on Exhibit A. Plaintiffs agree that High 2 defendants do not need to reproduce to plaintiffs the records listed on Exhibit A for purposes of indicating the new exemptions being applied to those records. High 2 defendants shall release to plaintiffs, by October 1, 2011, the bare High 2s contained in those records identified and incorporated by reference in the attached Exhibit B; as further set forth in this Stipulation and Order. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/30/2011) (mro) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
2011-10-24140OPINION AND ORDER:#100946 Defendants motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close these motions [Docket Nos. 125 and 128]. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/24/2011) (ft) Modified on 10/27/2011 (jab). (Entered: 10/24/2011)
2011-10-24Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 140 Memorandum & Opinion to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (ft) (Entered: 10/24/2011)
2011-10-25141CLERK'S JUDGMENT That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2011, defendants motion for summary judgment is denied and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is granted. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 10/25/11) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) (Entered: 10/25/2011)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar