Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleLong et al v. Office of Personnel Management
DistrictNorthern District of New York
CitySyracuse Syracuse
Case Number5:2005cv01522
Date Filed2005-12-05
Date Closed2013-08-26
JudgeJudge Norman A. Mordue
PlaintiffSusan B. Long
PlaintiffDavid Burnham
DefendantOffice of Personnel Management
AppealSecond Circuit 10-1600
AppealSecond Circuit 10-1618
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [25]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has largely upheld a developing policy at OPM to withhold information about federal employees working in "sensitive" positions under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). While Judge Norman Mordue did not accept every claim put forth by OPM, his rejection of some claims was largely due to the fact that OPM failed to provide sufficient evidence of sensitivity for some job categories. Based on his ultimate conclusion, however, there is little doubt that he would expand the coverage of the Exemption 6 claim if the agency provided better substantiation. The case embraces a policy that goes about as far as the U.S. has ever gone towards the concept of anonymous government, something that seems anathema to a democratic society. The case involved a request by Susan Long and David Burnham, who jointly run the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, for an OPM database known as the Central Personnel Data File, which contains information about the civilian federal workforce. After being put off for months by claims that OPM was revising its policy on disclosure of the workforce data, which had previously been public, the agency disclosed some of the records. The agency told Long and Burnham that the Defense Department had instructed it not to disclose any DOD workforce information and that the two would have to request that directly from Defense. Long and Burnham then filed another FOIA request for the Status and Dynamics files �" which includes the status of each employee at the end of the fiscal quarter and any personnel actions that took place during that quarter �" for June and September 2005. OPM responded to the request by again declining to provide any records from the Defense Department, and by withholding names of all IRS employees and duty station information on approximately 23,000 IRS employees, as well as name and duty station information on approximately 139,000 employees of other federal agencies. Such information was withheld for specific agencies �" the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Secret Service; and the U.S. Mint �" as well as information in any of 24 occupations OPM deemed "sensitive." The agency subsequently released DOD information, but withheld names, duty stations and bargaining units for all agency employees. Long and Burnham then filed suit. OPM explained to the court that after Sept. 11, 2001, the Defense Department issued a more restrictive policy on disclosure of information about agency personnel. In 2004, DOD told OPM to refer any requests for its personnel information to DOD. The concern about personnel information was exacerbated by a report in the Washington Post in June 2004 showing how easy it was to look up database information about government employees. This led to a revision of OPM policy resulting in withholding personnel data of all employees of certain agencies and data pertaining to individual employees in 24 sensitive occupations. OPM told the court that "occupations were deemed 'sensitive' if OPM determined that information about the identity and location of employees in those positions would be useful for selecting one or more specific targets and/or for planning and executing an attack on a potential target." The agency then went on to explain in detail the security risks of the various agencies that had been categorically withheld, stressing their law enforcement mission, or, in the case of the Mint, its role in producing and moving large amounts of currency. DOD provided a separate affidavit explaining its policy. Noting that protecting personnel data was just one element in its overall security policy, the agency pointed out that "the idea behind such security measures is that a layered response is most effective in dealing with threats that are as yet unknown. The policy to withhold the names of DOD personnel is not the 'silver bullet' that will by itself prevent an attack such as the one at the Pentagon; however, it is a part of a larger security system designed to enable DOD to prevent attacks directed at any and all DOD personnel." Mordue first indicated that OPM had adequately shown why four occupations related to border control and immigration were deemed sensitive. But he had concerns about the other occupations, all of which fell generally within law enforcement. He noted that "the record contains no specific explanation why employees in any of these occupations would be subject to a heightened risk of harassment or attack if identified by name and duty station. Thus, OPM has failed to raise an identifiable privacy interest with regard to the nondisclosure of the names and duty stations of employees in these 'sensitive' occupations." As to BATF, DEA, Secret Service, and the Mint, Mordue observed that OPM's affidavit "specifically addresses each agency and its mission and explains that the sensitive and dangerous nature of the work conducted by these agencies makes their employees targets for harassment or attack by foreign and domestic enemies of the United States as well as international and domestic criminal elements. Thus, OPM has demonstrated that these employees have more than a de minimis privacy interest in the nondisclosure of their names and duty stations." He also agreed that DOD employees should be protected. Long and Burnham argued that disclosure of the personnel data would shed light on government operations and activities. They pointed out that "TRAC received inquiries from reporters, organizations and citizens seeking information about the activities of federal officials seeking elected office, and that with the information it had from the CPDF files, TRAC could determine when that individual was employed and 'in what capacity.'" They added that the availability of duty station information was "extremely useful" because "the availability of federal staff determines what the federal government can accomplish. For example, 'over the years TRAC has published many studies examining how agency employees are deployed geographically and the impact that these levels of staff deployment have had on the government activity in various communities.'" But Mordue noted that the Second Circuit had previously held that disclosure of federal personnel data "that has no relationship to an agency's activities, on so attenuated a basis would inevitably result in the disclosure of virtually all personal information, thereby effectively eviscerating the protections of privacy provided by Exemption 6." He also pointed out that the Second Circuit, in Perlman v. Dept of Justice, 312 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2002), had developed a test for determining whether personnel information should be disclosed that focused on the employee's rank and whether there were credible allegations of wrongdoing. While Long and Burnham argued that personnel data could be used to uncover wrongdoing, Mordue observed that "the link between the disclosure of names and duty station of these federal employees �" which reveals nothing directly about an employee's job function or the agency he or she works for �" is too attenuated to weigh in favor of disclosure." Long and Burnham also raised an issue concerning redaction of electronic records stemming from the EFOIA amendments which has not yet been the subject of any court interpretation. Under the EFOIA provision, agencies are required to provide an explanation of how much data is redacted from an electronic record. In the personnel database there were entire fields that had been redacted with no reference to how much information might be contained in those fields. Because the practical consequences pertained to data that had been disclosed later in the dispute, Mordue asked for additional briefing on that issue before making a ruling.
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Segregability
Opinion/Order [35]
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2005-12-051COMPLAINT against Office of Personnel Management ( Filing fee $ 250 receipt number SYR5152) filed by Susan B. Long, David Burnham.(alh) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
2005-12-052G.O. 25 FILING ORDER ISSUED Initial Conference set for 4/6/2006 10:30 AM in Syracuse before Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles. Civil Case Management Plan due by 3/27/2006. (alh) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
2005-12-05Summons Issued as to Office of Personnel Management, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (alh) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
2006-01-113Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint by Office of Personnel Management.(Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
2006-01-234Consent MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Adina Rosenbaum Motion Hearing set for 2/22/2006 09:30 AM in Syracuse before Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles. Response to Motion due by 2/6/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 2/13/2006. by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Verified petition for admission# 2 Affidavit Affidavit of sponsor# 3 Exhibit(s) Certificate of good standing# 4 Exhibit(s) E-filing registration form# 5 Exhibit(s) Signed oath of admission# 6 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed order granting admission pro hac vice)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
2006-01-25TEXT ONLY NOTICE BY CLERK re: 4 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice of Adina Rosenbaum; Clerk advises that there is no personal appearance necessary for the 4 motion for pro hac vice; Once fee to appear PHV has been received and the motion is reviewed the Court will issue an order (kcl, ) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
2006-01-26Pro Hac Vice Filing fee paid for Adina Rosenbaum: $ 30.00, receipt number SYR5803 (alh) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
2006-01-265ORDER granting 4 Motion for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge David E. Peebles on 1/26/05. (kcl, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
2006-03-276CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Office of Personnel Management. (Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
2006-04-03At the request of the parties and the approval by Magistrate Judge Peebles the in-person Rule 16 conference scheduled for 4/6/06 at 10:30 am has been changed to a telephone conference. The parties were instructed to place the telephone call to(315) 234-8620. (cam, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
2006-04-06TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David E. Peebles : Initial Pretrial Conference held on 4/6/2006. Plaintiffs' counsel believes that this case is now ripe for a determination by the court and that they have exhausted all admininstrative remedies. Defendant's counsel states that a similar action was filed in the District of Columbia (04-CV-00301) and the U.S. Department of Justice recently prevailed in that case. Plaintiffs' counsel does not believe this case is likely to settle at this time. Parties agree that defendant's counsel will lead off in filing a motion for summary judgment that would explain why they have withheld documents, together w/ a privilege log. Judge will not issue a scheduling order in this case, but rather set a briefing schedule for the motions for summary judgment. Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment is due by 6/6/06, plaintiffs will oppose & file their cross-motion by 7/18/06, defendant's will respond and oppose plaintiffs' cross-motion by 8/18/06, and plaintiffs will reply w/ regard to their cross-motion by 9/18/06. Plaintiffs' counsel states that they will be filing a supplemental amended complaint. Judge advises counsel that they may either submit a stipulation to the court that he will "so order" or plaintiffs' counsel has permission to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. No new conference is scheduled. APP: Adina Rosenbaum, Esq. & Nicholas Patterson, Esq.. (sal, ) (Entered: 04/06/2006)
2006-04-127STIPULATION by Susan B. Long, David Burnham, Office of Personnel Management submitted to Judge Peebles. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amended Pleading Proposed amended complaint# 2 Proposed Amended Pleading Red-lined version of original complaint)(Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
2006-04-138STIPULATION & ORDER re 7 filed by David Burnham, Susan B. Long & Office of Personnel Management to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs shall file the attached amended complaint with the court. Defendants shall have 30 days to answer, move or otherwise respond to this amended complaint. Signed by Judge David E. Peebles on 4/13/06. (sal, ) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
2006-04-139AMENDED COMPLAINT against Office of Personnel Management filed by Susan B. Long, David Burnham.(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 04/13/2006)
2006-06-0610Unopposed Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting 35-day extension of the time period to file defendant's summary judgment motion submitted to Judge David E. Peebles. (Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
2006-06-0711ORDER re: 10 Letter Request, 35 day extension to file motion for summary judgment is granted . Signed by Judge David E. Peebles on 6/7/06. (kcl, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
2006-07-1112MOTION for Summary Judgment by Office of Personnel Management. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Memorandum of Law Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Exhibit(s) Memorandum of Law Exhibit 1# 4 Statement of Material Facts # 5 Proposed Order/Judgment Proposed Order# 6 Exhibit(s) Notification of the Consequences of Failing to Respond to a Summary Judgment Motion# 7 Affidavit Donley Declaration# 8 Exhibit(s) Donley Declaration Exhibit 1# 9 Exhibit(s) Donley Declaration Exhibit 2# 10 Exhibit(s) Donley Declaration - DoD Vaughn Index# 11 Affidavit Adams Declaration# 12 Exhibit(s) Adams Declaration - Exhibit A# 13 Exhibit(s) Adams Declaration - Exhibit B# 14 Exhibit(s) Adams Declaration - Exhibit C# 15 Affidavit Lukowski Declaration# 16 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit A# 17 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit B# 18 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit C# 19 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit D# 20 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit E# 21 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit F# 22 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit G# 23 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit H# 24 Errata Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit I# 25 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit J# 26 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit K# 27 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit L# 28 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit M# 29 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit N# 30 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit O# 31 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit P# 32 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit Q# 33 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit R# 34 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit S# 35 Exhibit(s) Lukowski Declaration - Exhibit T# 36 Exhibit(s) OPM Vaughn Index)(Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
2006-07-13TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion. Pursuant to Dkt. # 8 and per Chief Judge Mordue, the 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment is returnable on October 18, 2006 before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue and will be taken on submit. No appearances necessary. Response to Motion due by 8/22/2006; Reply to Response to Motion due by 9/21/2006. Although Local Rule 7.1(c) does not permit a Sur-reply, Judge Mordue will accept a Sur-Reply to be filed on or before October 17, 2006. Counsel is directed to submit a courtesy copy of the motion, cross-motion, and any response and reply papers to the chambers of Chief Judge Mordue. (jlr) (Entered: 07/13/2006)
2006-07-2113Unopposed Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting Permission to replace defendant Office of Personnel Management's Vaughn Index with an Amended Vaughn Index submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue. (Attachments: # 1 )(Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
2006-07-24TEXT ORDER granting the 13 Unopposed Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting Permission to replace defendant Office of Personnel Management's Vaughn Index with an Amended Vaughn Index. Endorsed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 7/24/06. (jlr) (Entered: 07/24/2006)
2006-08-1614Unopposed Letter Motion from Adina H. Rosenbaum for Susan B. Long, David Burnham requesting a 45-day extension to file a response to defendant's motion for summary judgment and a cross-motion for summary judgment submitted to Judge Norman A. Mordue. (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 08/16/2006)
2006-08-18TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment. At the request of counsel (Dkt. #14), the Court has changed the motion briefing schedule as follows: The pltf's Response/Cross Motion to the 12 Motion is due by 9/22/2006; Defendant's Reply to Response/Cross Motion is due by 10/10/2006. As the court has already allowed a further reply by Plaintiff's to the Cross Motion, that Reply shall be filed on or before 10/17/06 and the Motion Hearing has been set for 10/18/2006 on submit, with no appearances necessary, before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue. Counsel is directed to send a Courtesy copy of all paper relating to the motion and cross motion.(jlr) (Entered: 08/18/2006)
2006-09-2215CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion Hearing set for 10/18/2006 10:00 AM in Syracuse before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue. Response to Motion due by 10/2/2006 Reply to Response to Motion due by 10/10/2006. by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Memorandum of Law # 3 Statement of Material Facts # 4 Proposed Order/Judgment # 5 Declaration Declaration of Susan B. Long# 6 Exhibit(s) Long Declaration Exhibit A# 7 Exhibit(s) Long Declaration Exhibit B# 8 Exhibit(s) Long Declaration Exhibit C# 9 Exhibit(s) Long Declaration Exhibit D# 10 Affidavit Long Declaration Exhibit E# 11 Exhibit(s) Long Declaration Exhibit F# 12 Affidavit Declaration of James Neff# 13 Exhibit(s) Neff Declaration Exhibit A# 14 Exhibit(s) Neff Declaration Exhibit B# 15 Exhibit(s) Neff Declaration Exhibit C# 16 Exhibit(s) Neff Declaration Exhibit D# 17 Affidavit Declaration of J. Robert Port# 18 Exhibit(s) Port Declaration Exhibit A# 19 Affidavit Declaration of Jeff Ruch)(Rosenbaum, Adina) Modified on 9/25/2006 (jlr). (Entered: 09/22/2006)
2006-09-25CORRECTED TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on Motion on the 15 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment: In accordance with the 8/18/06 TEXT ORDER - Defendant's Reply to Response/Cross Motion is due by 10/10/2006. As the court has already allowed a further reply by Plaintiff's to the Cross Motion, that Reply shall be filed on or before 10/17/06 and the Motion Hearing has been set for 10/18/2006 on submit, with no appearances necessary, before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue. Counsel is directed to send a Courtesy copy of all paper relating to the motion and cross motion(jlr, ) (Entered: 09/25/2006)
2006-09-2816Unopposed Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting 38-Day Extension of Time to File Motions submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue. (Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 09/28/2006)
2006-10-03TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part the 16 Letter Request for extention of time to reply to the 15 Cross-Motion. Defendant's Reply/Response to the Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due on or before 11/1/06. Pltf's Sur-Reply as allowed previously is due on or before 11/13/06. The Motions are returnable on 11/15/06 and are still on submit. Counsel is directed to send a Courtesy copy of all paper relating to the motion and cross motion to Judge Mordue's chambers. Endorsed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 10/3/06. (jlr/am) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
2006-10-3117Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting Letter Request for 14-day Extension of Time to File Motions submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue. (Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
2006-10-3118RESPONSE to Motion re 17 Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting Letter Request for 14-day Extension of Time to File Motions submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue filed by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
2006-10-31TEXT ORDER granting in part and denying in part the 17 Letter Motion from Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting Letter Request for 14-day Extension of Time to File Motions submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue. The Defendant's Reply/Response to the Motion is due by 11/6/2006. The Plaintiff's Sur-Reply previous granted to be filed is due on or before 11/13/06. Endorsed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 10/31/06. No further extensions will be considered without good cause shown. (jlr/sr) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
2006-11-0619Letter Motion from AUSA William H. Pease o/b/o Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting an extension of time for defendant to file its opposition and reply submitted to Judge Norman A. Mordue. (Pease, William) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
2006-11-07TEXT ORDER granting the 19 Letter Motion from AUSA William H. Pease o/b/o Nicholas J. Patterson for Office of Personnel Management requesting a one day extension of time for defendant to file its opposition and reply. Response/Reply due 11/7/06. Endorsed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 11/6/06. (jlr/am) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
2006-11-0720RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant U.S. Office of Personnel Management's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Office of Personnel Management. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Second Lukowski Declaration# 2 Declaration Second Donley Declaration# 3 Declaration Second Adams Declaration# 4 Exhibit(s) 1# 5 Exhibit(s) 2 - Second Amended Vaughn Index)(Patterson, Nicholas) Modified on 11/8/2006 (amt, ). (Entered: 11/07/2006)
2006-11-08CLERK'S CORRECTION OF DOCKET ENTRY; Document 21 filed by Deft was deleted from the docket as it was a duplicate of Document 20 ; Text of document 20 was modified to reflect it was both a response to 15 motion and reply to 12 motion (amt, ) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
2006-11-0921NOTICE by Office of Personnel Management re 20 Response in Opposition to Motion,, Notice of Correction to Defendant Office of Personnel Management's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
2006-11-1322REPLY to Response to Motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Second Declaration of Susan B. Long)(Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
2006-11-14Set/Reset Deadlines as to 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 11/15/2006 before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue. (jlr) (Entered: 11/14/2006)
2006-12-0423NOTICE by Office of Personnel Management Notice of Recent Decisions (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 - Center for Public Integrity v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management Order# 2 Exhibit(s) 2 - Center for Public Integrity v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management Memorandum Opinion)(Patterson, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
2007-07-2624NOTICE by Office of Personnel Management Defendant's Notice of Substitution of Counsel (Schwartz, James) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
2007-09-3025ORDER granting in part and denying in part the defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying the plaintiffs' 15 Motion for Summary Judgment. Ordered that defendant submit supplemental Vaughn declarations in accordance with this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and that the parties submit additional briefs in accordance with this Memorandum-Decision and Order; and that United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles is directed to hold a conference to establish a scheduling order for the submission of the supplemental Vaughn declarations and additional briefs, and/or new motions for summary judgment Signed by Judge Norman A. Mordue on 9/30/2007. (jlr/sr) (Entered: 09/30/2007)
2007-10-04TEXT NOTICE of Hearing: A Status Telephone Conference is set for 10/15/2007 at 4:00 PM before Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles. Defendant's counsel is directed to initiate the call to all counsel and Chambers who can be reached at (315) 234-8620. (sal, ) (Entered: 10/04/2007)
2007-10-15TEXT Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge David E. Peebles : Status Conference held on 10/15/2007. Briefing schedule is set as follows per Judge Mordue's recent decision in this case: Defendant's Vaughn Declarations and Summary Judgment Briefing are due by 11/13/07, Plaintiff's will respond and cross-move by 12/10/07, defendant's reply and opposition to the cross-motion are due by 12/21/07, plaintiff's reply in connection w/ the cross-motion is due by 1/9/08. Judge directs the parties to stick to this schedule. Case is not likely to settle. No new conference is set. APP: Adina Rosenbaum, Esq., James Jules Schwartz, Esq., and Peter Leary, Esq.. (sal, ) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
2007-10-2426NOTICE of Appearance by Peter D. Leary on behalf of Office of Personnel Management (Leary, Peter) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
2007-11-1327MOTION for Summary Judgment by Office of Personnel Management. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Memorandum of Law # 3 Statement of Material Facts # 4 Third Declaration of OPM# 5 Third Declaration of IRS# 6 Proposed Order/Judgment) (Leary, Peter) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
2007-11-14TEXT NOTICE of Hearing on the 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff's Response and or cross-motion due by 12/10/2007; defendant's Reply and opposition to the cross-motion is due by 12/21/2007 and should be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7.1(c). Plaintiff's are permitted to reply in connection w/the cross-motion which is due by 1/9/08. The Motion Hearing is set for 1/16/2008 before Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue. The motion is on submit with no appearances necessary. Counsel is directed to send a courtesy copy of the motion papers to Chief Judge Mordue's chambers.(jlr) (Entered: 11/14/2007)
2007-12-1028Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Attachments: # 1 Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Memorandum of Law # 3 Statement of Material Facts # 4 Third Declaration of Susan B. Long# 5 Third Long Declaration Exhibit 1# 6 Third Long Declaration Exhibit 2# 7 Declaration of Henry S. Ruth# 8 Proposed Order/Judgment) (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
2007-12-2129RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 27 filed by Office of Personnel Management. (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts# 2 Declaration Fourth Declaration of Gary A. Lukowski)(Leary, Peter) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
2008-01-0930REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Susan B. Long, David Burnham. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Susan B. Long)(Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
2008-09-2431NOTICE by Susan B. Long, David Burnham Notice of Recent Decision (Attachments: # 1 Court of Appeals Decision ACLU v Department of Defense Opinion)(Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
2008-10-0332NOTICE by Office of Personnel Management re 31 Notice (Other) Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Recent Decision (Leary, Peter) (Entered: 10/03/2008)
2009-02-0333NOTICE by Susan B. Long, David Burnham Notice of Recent Decision (Attachments: # 1 Court of Appeals Decision Associated Press v. U.S. Dep't of Defense)(Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
2009-12-0334NOTICE by David Burnham, Susan B. Long re 31 Notice (Other) Notice Relating to Recent Decision (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
2010-02-2335MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Defendant's # 27 Motion for Summary Judgment is Denied with respect to the duty station and organizational component code information of employees in "sensitive" occupations; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs' # 28 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is Granted with respect to the duty station and organizational component code information of employees in "sensitive" occupations. It is further ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise Granted in its entirety; and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is otherwise Denied in its entirety. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 2/23/2010. (mae) (Entered: 02/23/2010)
2010-02-2436JUDGMENT in accordance with Chief Judge Mordue's 35 Memorandum-Decision and Order. (amt) (Entered: 02/24/2010)
2010-03-0537Letter Motion from Adina H. Rosenbaum and Peter D. Leary for David Burnham, Susan B. Long, Office of Personnel Management requesting Extension of time for plaintiffs to file motion for attorneys fees and costs submitted to Judge Chief Judge Mordue. (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
2010-03-0838ORDER granting 37 Letter Request for an extension of time to file a motion for attorney's fees. Signed by Chief Judge Norman A. Mordue on 3/8/2010. (amt) (Entered: 03/08/2010)
2010-04-2139NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 25 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, 35 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, 36 Judgment by David Burnham, Susan B. Long. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 0206-1550911. (Rosenbaum, Adina) (Entered: 04/21/2010)
2010-04-2240ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals re 39 Notice of Appeal (amt) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
2010-04-2241NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 35 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,, 36 Judgment by Office of Personnel Management. No fee paid. (Schwartz, James) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
2010-04-2242ELECTRONIC NOTICE AND CERTIFICATION sent to US Court of Appeals re 41 Notice of Appeal (amt) (Entered: 04/22/2010)
2010-05-10USCA Case Number is 10-1600-cv for 39 Appeal filed by David Burnham and Susan B. Long. (cbm ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
2010-05-10USCA Case Number is 10-1618-cv for 41 Appeal filed by Office of Personnel Management. (cbm ) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
2012-08-2743NOTICE of Appearance by James D. Todd on behalf of All Defendants (Todd, James) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
2013-01-1744MANDATE of USCA, issued 1/15/13, as to pltfs' 39 Appeal and OPM's 41 Appeal: the orders of the district court are affirmed in part and reversed in part, in accordance w/attached slip opinion. (Attachments: # 1 slip opinion)(cbm ) (Entered: 01/17/2013)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff