Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleAssociated Press v. United States Department of Defense
DistrictSouthern District of New York
CityFoley Square
Case Number1:2005cv03941
Date Filed2005-04-19
Date Closed2006-02-23
JudgeJudge Jed S. Rakoff
PlaintiffAssociated Press
DefendantUnited States Department of Defense
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [22]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the Defense Department must prepare a one-page questionnaire to be distributed to detainees at Guantanamo Bay to ascertain if they are willing to have the transcripts of their tribunal hearings disclosed to the Associated Press. The Associated Press had requested copies of the transcripts, which have been held to determine the status of detainees at Guantanamo. So far, 520 had been classified as enemy combatants and 38 had been exonerated. The Defense Department claimed the transcripts were protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), telling the court that if "terrorist groups or other individuals abroad are displeased by something the detainee said to the Tribunal, [the Department of Defense] believes that this could put his family at serious risk of reprisals " including death or serious harm " at home. This risk also translates to the detainee himself when he is released from detention." The court noted that "the Government, in other words, seeks to act as a surrogate for the detainees and safeguard their identities for what it believes is their own good and the good of their families." The court then observed that "one might well wonder whether the detainees share the view that keeping their identities secret is in their own best interests. But " given that the detainees are in custody and therefore readily available " it is really not difficult to find out. Such information is, moreover, critical to an informed evaluation of the instant motion, which requires the Court to balance the perceived harm to the detainees' privacy interest against the public's right to know." The court indicated that "in order that the Court may be in an informed position to decide the pending motion, the Court directs the Department of Defense to ask the detainees in question whether they wish the redacted information relating to their identities to be released to the Associated Press or not." In a footnote, the court addressed the agency's concern about using this process in Exemption 6 cases generally. The court pointed out that "while the Government also expresses concern that utilizing such a procedure in ordinary Exemption 6 cases would be costly and difficult, that is precisely because such cases, unlike here, do not provide ready access to a captive audience. Where, as here, unusual circumstances permit ready determination of the views of the very persons whose privacy is sought to be protected, courts have utilized procedures not unlike the one here directed."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records
Opinion/Order [33]
Opinion/Order [41]
Opinion/Order [45]
FOIA Project Annotation: Several recent court decisions have resulted in serious setbacks for the government's claims that records pertaining to detainees can be withheld under the Freedom of Information Act. Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled recently that the government must disclose prisoner abuse photos taken at Abu Ghraib. Now, Judge Jed Rakoff has taken the wind out of the sails of the government's privacy claims for detainees at Guantanamo and has essentially told the Defense Department that it has utterly failed to justify withholding names of detainees who came before a military tribunal under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The litigation before Rakoff was brought by the Associated Press after the Defense Department failed to respond to its November 2004 request for transcripts from the proceedings of the military tribunal at Guantanamo. The agency produced copies of the transcripts from which all names and identifying information had been redacted. The Defense Department indicated that identification of any of the detainees could cause them potential harm. In one of his earlier decisions in the case, Rakoff, skeptical of the agency's privacy claims, told the Defense Department to survey the detainees and find out if they objected to disclosure of personally identifying information. In a ruling dated January 4, Rakoff noted that the agency had polled 317 detainees. Of that number, 63 indicated they did not mind disclosure of their information, 17 objected, 35 returned the form without making a choice, and 202 declined to return the form at all. Reviewing these statistics, Rakoff pointed out that "the Department of Defense has failed to carry its burden. The only privacy interest it purports to assert under Exemption 6 is that of the detainees; but of the 317 detainees in issue, only 17 have asserted a desire to have their identifying information kept confidential. Moreover, so far as the record here discloses, none of the detainees �" not even these 17 �" had a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to the identifying information they provided. Most of the information was provided by them in formal legal proceedings before a tribunal, and nothing in the record before the Court suggests that they were informed that the proceedings would remain confidential in any respect." The Defense Department argued that the detainees might face retaliation if their identities were revealed. Calling this a "derivative" harm, Rakoff indicated that "the Defense Department has failed to come forward on this motion with anything but thin and conclusory speculation to support its claims of possible retaliation. Even under the relaxed evidentiary standards that might arguably apply in these unusual circumstances, such a meager and unparticularized showing is inadequate to meet the standards of. . .FOIA." Rakoff elaborated further in a January 23 opinion responding to the Defense Department's request for reconsideration. In requesting reconsideration, the agency told Rakoff that he had "overlooked the alleged privacy interests of, and risks to, the detainees' families, friends, and associates." But Rakoff rejected the agency's request, pointing out that "a motion for reconsideration allows a party to bring to the Court's attention an argument the party had previously raised and the Court has overlooked; but it does not allow a party to use the guise of 'reconsideration' to raise what is effectively a new argument or one never meaningfully developed previously." While the agency did not contest that Rakoff had considered the fears detainees might have for the safety of their families and friends, it contended that "the Court overlooked its further argument that these third parties have themselves an important privacy interest in having the detainees' identifying information kept confidential." Rakoff noted that the only reference to third party privacy was in a footnote in the agency's memorandum in support of summary judgment which was too oblique to qualify as having argued separately for third party privacy. Procedural matters aside, Rakoff then indicated that the third party privacy claim would fail anyway because it "lacks substantive merit. If, as the Court held in its January 4 decision, the detainees had no reasonable expectation that the information they disclosed during the tribunal proceedings would be kept confidential, the third parties had even less of an expectation that the information disclosed by the detainees during the tribunal proceedings would be kept confidential." Rakoff then explored the reasons why there was no expectation of privacy under these circumstances. Saying that it was unfortunate that privacy was so ill-defined, he observed that "privacy is in effect defined, obliquely but usefully, as a zone (whether spatial, informational, or whatever) into which a reasonable person neither wishes nor expects outsiders to intrude. What is certain, however, is that, at least in the Fourth Amendment context, the zone of protectable privacy does not extend beyond situations in which a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy." He then pointed out that "the Government has failed to adduce any competent evidence that the detainees, when they provided the identifying information at issue, had any reasonable expectation that the information would be kept confidential. Most of the information was given in sworn testimony at quasi-judicial hearings that were visibly being recorded by the equivalent of a court reporter. While the proceedings were closed to the general public, the press was present. . .Before each detainee testified, the 'Tribunal President' explained to the detainee the process, without suggesting in any way that any promise of confidentiality was being made with respect to the detainee's testimony. . .The notion, therefore, that the detainees, in voluntarily providing sworn recorded testimony to a quasi-judicial tribunal, nonetheless retained a reasonable expectation that their identifying information would remain confidential, is entirely without evidentiary support on this record. . ." Poking holes in the agency's argument, Rakoff explained that "the argument now advanced is, in effect, that even if the detainees themselves did not have a protectable privacy interest in the identifying information they voluntarily provided to the tribunals, their family, friends, and associates who were directly or indirectly implicated in such testimony did have such an interest. But any reasonable expectation of these third parties that the identifying information provided by the detainees would remain private is even more conjectural than that of the detainees themselves. It is theoretically possible, of course, that the family of a detainee may not want his, or their, names and whereabouts revealed because of fears of embarrassment or retaliation; but how can this be said to be a privacy interest, when they never had any reasonable expectation that the detainee and/or his captors would not reveal his and their names?" Rakoff added that, while the agency's claims "might be entitled to some deference if they dealt with issues of national security, their claims as to what embarrassment or fear of retaliation might be felt by the families and friends of detainees, and what those third parties' reasonable expectations of privacy might be, is not entitled to special deference, but, rather must be supported by at least a modicum of competent evidence."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2005-04-191COMPLAINT against United States Department of Defense. (Filing Fee $ 250.00, Receipt Number 541163)Document filed by Associated Press.(gf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-192RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Document filed by Associated Press.(gf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-19SUMMONS ISSUED as to United States Department of Defense. (gf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-19Case Designated ECF. (gf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-19Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is so designated. (gf, ) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-213SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. Document filed by Associated Press. United States Department of Defense served on 4/19/2005, answer due 6/20/2005. Service was accepted by intake clerk. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 04/21/2005)
2005-04-27Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Telephone Conference held on 4/27/2005. (pl, ) (Entered: 04/29/2005)
2005-04-29Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Status Conference held on 4/29/2005. (jco, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
2005-05-054THIS ENTRY WAS MADE IN ERROR. (Signed by Judge Thomas P. Griesa on 5/05/04) (pl, ) Modified on 5/10/2005 (pl, ). (Entered: 05/06/2005)
2005-05-105TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 4/29/05 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. (lma, ) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
2005-05-196ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by United States Department of Defense.(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
2005-05-197CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Answer served on David A. Schulz, Esq. on 5/19/2005. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
2005-05-19Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Telephone Conference held on 5/19/2005. (jco, ) (Entered: 05/23/2005)
2005-05-258TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 04/29/05 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. (es, ) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
2005-06-03Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Telephone Conference held on 6/3/2005. (kw, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
2005-06-06Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Telephone Conference held on 6/6/2005. (jco, ) (Entered: 06/08/2005)
2005-06-13Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Status Conference held on 6/13/2005. (ae, ) (Entered: 06/17/2005)
2005-06-309NOTICE of Motion. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3010MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. Responses due by 7/13/2005 Return Date set for 7/29/2005 02:00 PM. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3011DECLARATION of Teresa A. McPalmer in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3012DECLARATION of Karen L. Hecker in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (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)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3013DECLARATION of Elizabeth Wolstein in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3014MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-06-3015CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Law, Declaration of Karen L. Hecker, Declaration of Teresa A. McPalmer, Declaration of Elizabeth Wolstein served on David A. Schulz on 6/30/05. Service was made by Federal Express. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
2005-07-1316MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Associated Press. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
2005-07-1317DECLARATION of Paisley Dodds in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Associated Press. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-J# 2 Exhibit K-M)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 07/13/2005)
2005-07-2518REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
2005-07-2519DECLARATION of Karen L. Hecker in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
2005-07-2520CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Brief and Declaration served on David A. Schulz, Esq. on 7/25/05. Service was made by Federal Express. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
2005-07-29Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Oral Argument held on 7/29/2005 on dfts summary judgment motion. The court reserves decision on the motion. (pl, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
2005-08-1221RESPONSE in Opposition re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Summary Judgment . Document filed by Associated Press. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
2005-08-2922MEMORANDUM ORDER re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by United States Department of Defense,. Therefore, in order that the Court may be in an informed position to decide the pending motion, the Court directs theDepartment of Justice to ask the detainees in question whether theywish the redacted information relating to their identities to bereleased to the Associated Press or not. See Rule 56(f), Fed. R.Civ. P.; see also, Rules 43(e) and 83(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.Specifically, the Court directs the Department of Defense to submitto the Court, by no later than September 2, 2005, a proposed writtenform of no more than one page that explains the situation (inlanguage sufficiently simple that, even after being translated intoeach detainee's native tongue, it can be easily understood) and askseach detainee to check "yes" or "no" as to whether he wishes therelevant identifying information to be disclosed to the AssociatedPress. The Associated Press will then have until September 8, 2005,to suggest any alternative wordings, after which the Court, by nolater than September 12, 2005, will approve a final form that, inturn, can be given to each of the detainees. Based on the responses(a summary of which should be submitted by the Government to theCourt, in affidavit form, by no later than October 7, 2005), the Court will then be in a position to further address the pending motion (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/29/05) (yv, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
2005-08-2923ERRATUM. On line 24, page 3 of the 8/29/05 Order, the words "Department of Defense" should be substituted for the words "Department of Justice." (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/29/05) (yv, ) (Entered: 08/29/2005)
2005-09-0224ORDER;.. confirmig rulings from joint telephone conference....;...the Court set a schedule for the reconsideration motion but, with one qualification, denied the stay. As to the motion for reconsideration, the court adopts the schedule proposed by the parties, i.e., moving papers to be filed by 09/09/05, answering papers by 09/15/05 and reply papers by 09/16/05....;... the Court will undertake, however, to decide the motion for reconsideration by no later than 09/20/05, and, if it denies the motion, to then approve a final form of the questionaire by no later than 09/23/05. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/1/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
2005-09-0925FILING ERROR - WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. Return Date set for 9/16/2005 05:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) Modified on 9/13/2005 (kg). (Entered: 09/09/2005)
2005-09-0926FILING ERROR - WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - NOTICE of Motion. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) Modified on 9/13/2005 (kg). (Entered: 09/09/2005)
2005-09-0927CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Motion, Memorandum of Law served on David Schulz, Esq. on 9/9/05. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/09/2005)
2005-09-13***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Elizabeth Wolstein to RE-FILE Document 25 MOTION for Reconsideration. Use the document type Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion found under the document list Responses and Replies. (kg) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
2005-09-13***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE-FILE DOCUMENT - DOCUMENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Elizabeth Wolstein to RE-FILE Document 26 Notice (Other). Use the document type Motion for reconsideration found under the document list motions. (kg) (Entered: 09/13/2005)
2005-09-1528MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 25 MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by Associated Press. (Schulz, David) (Entered: 09/15/2005)
2005-09-1629REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Normand, Sarah) (Entered: 09/16/2005)
2005-09-1930MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
2005-09-1931MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
2005-09-2632TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 7/29/2005 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. (jar, ) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
2005-09-2633ORDER re: denying 30 MOTION for Reconsideration. filed by United States Department of Defense; The Dept. is ordered to submit to each detainee the appended questionnaire, duly translated as necessary, by no later than 10/14/05, and to submit to the Court, by no later than 10/28/05 an affidavit (if necessary, under seal) summarizing the responses, thereby putting the court in a position to meaningfully resolve the underlying FOIA request. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 9/26/05) (djc, ) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
2005-10-2834DECLARATION of Dale T. Vitale. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
2005-10-2835CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Declaration served on David Schulz, Esq. on 10/28/05. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
2005-11-1036BRIEF. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/10/2005)
2005-11-1537BRIEF. Document filed by United States Department of Defense.(Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
2005-11-1538DECLARATION of Karen L. Hecker. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
2005-12-1939DECLARATION of Dale T. Vitale in Support re: 30 MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
2005-12-1940DECLARATION of Dale T. Vitale Supplemental . Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
2006-01-0441OPINION and ORDER 92573 re: 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Defendant's summary judgment motion is denied. Counsel for the parties are directed to jointly call Chambers this Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 12:30 p.m. to scheduled further proceeidngs co nsistent with this Opinion and Order. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/4/06) (djc, ) Modified on 1/6/2006 (ns, ). (Entered: 01/04/2006)
2006-01-05Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Telephone Conference held on 1/5/2006. (sac, ) (Entered: 01/06/2006)
2006-01-13Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jed S. Rakoff : Oral Argument held on 1/13/2006 re: 30 MOTION for Reconsideration. filed by United States Department of Defense,. (jmi, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
2006-01-1942MOTION for Reconsideration. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. Return Date set for 1/13/2006 10:30 AM. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
2006-01-1943MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 42 MOTION for Reconsideration.. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
2006-01-1944CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE served on David A. Schulz. Esq on 1/12/06. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by United States Department of Defense. (Wolstein, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
2006-01-2345MEMORANDUM AND OPINION that for the reasons set forth in this opinion, the government's motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. The clerk is directed to enter final judgment in favor of the Associated Press, and the Department is directed to provide the Associated Press with unredacted copies of the applicable transcripts and documents by no later than 1/30/06. If the Department wishes to seek a stay of this order pending appeal, it should, together with counsel for the Associated Press, jointly call Chambers by no later than 5p.m. on 1/25/06 to discuss such an application. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/23/06) (dle, ) (Entered: 01/24/2006)
2006-01-23Transmission to Judgments and Orders Clerk. Transmitted re: 45 Memorandum & Opinion,,, to the Judgments and Orders Clerk. (dle, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
2006-01-2646ORDER that the protion of the Court's Opinion, dated 1/23/06 that requires the deft to furnish plntf with unredacted transcripts and related documents is hereby stayed until 2/23/06 as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/25/06) (cd, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
2006-02-1347NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sarah Sheive Normand on behalf of United States Department of Defense (Normand, Sarah) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
2006-02-2250LETTER addressed to Judge Rakoff from Sarah S. Normand dated 2/22/06 re: counsel advises the Court that the Solicitor General of the United States has determined not to authorize an appeal of the Court's January 4 and January 23, 2006. Document filed by United States Department of Defense.(djc, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
2006-02-2348ORDER: By order dated January 25, 2006, the Court stayed until February 23, 2006 the portion of it's January 23, 2006 opinion and order requiring the defendant to furnish plaintiff with unredacted transcripts and related documents. The defendant having now advised the Court that it will not seek to appeal the final judgment entered pursuant to the aforesaid Opinion and Order, see letter from Sarah S. Normand, AUSA, to Hon. Jed S. Rakoff (Feb. 22, 2006), the stay is hereby vacated and defendant is ordered to produce to plaintiff the unredacted transcripts and related documents by no later than March 3, 2006. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 2/22/06) (js, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
2006-02-2349CLERK'S JUDGMENT That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated January 23, 2006, the Government?s motion for reconsideration is denied and final judgment is entered in favor of the Associated Press, and the Department is directed to provide the Associated Press with unredacted copies of the applicable transcripts and documents by no later than January 30, 2006 and if the Department wishes to seek a stay of the Order dated January 23, 2006 pending appeal, it should, together with counsel for the Associated Press, jointly call Chambers no later than 5 p.m. on January 25, 2006 to discuss such an application. (Signed by J. Michael McMahon, clerk on 2/23/06) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(ml, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
2006-03-0151TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 1/13/06 before Judge Jed S. Rakoff. (jbe, ) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
2007-11-0952STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL: the United States shall pay to the "Associated Press" the sum of $110,000.00 in attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pursuant to 5 USC 552(a)(4)(E), which sum AP and its counsel, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP agree to accept as full payment of any attorneys' fees and costs AP has incurred or will incur in this action for services performed up to the date of this stipulation and order. This action is dismissed with prejudice, provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issues that may arise relating to this stipulation and order. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 11/8/07) (kco) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff