Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleSHAPIRO et al v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2012cv01883
Date Filed2012-11-20
Date Closed2014-03-11
JudgeJudge Beryl A. Howell
PlaintiffRYAN NOAH SHAPIRO
PlaintiffJEFFREY STEIN
PlaintiffNATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS
PlaintiffTRUTHOUT
DefendantDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AppealD.C. Circuit 13-5345
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Opinion/Order [29]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that a Freedom of Information and Privacy Brief Bank database compiled by an EOUSA attorney and available only on the Justice Department's intranet is not protected by Exemption 5 (privileges) and must be disclosed. In a response to a September 2011 request for the database, EOUSA claimed it was maintained on DOJ's intranet, was only accessible to DOJ personnel, and was created by an EOUSA attorney for use in anticipated FOIA litigation. The database was described as containing selected filings in federal court in FOIA lawsuits; case caption information; a summary of the issues; key issues as identified by the EOUSA attorney; the author of the brief, the date on which it was filed, and the DOJ component in which the author of the brief worked; and, for some cases, supporting declarations that formed the factual foundation of the brief. The agency initially denied the database in its entirety under Exemption 5, Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques); however, in court the agency relied solely on the attorney work-product privilege. Howell seemed bothered by the lack of substantive arguments by either party. She noted that "neither party addresses fully the application of the prerequisites for the invocation of Exemption 5 to the requested records, or the extent to which the attorney work product doctrine applies to attorney compilations of records, such as the Brief Bank, as a general aid and not in response to any specific claim." Howell started with whether the Brief Bank even qualified under the threshold for Exemption 5 coverage. She observed that "briefs filed in federal courts, which are not 'agencies,' are, by definition, communicated outside the agency and, thus, do not meet the first condition of being either inter- or intra-agency memoranda." She noted that "the defendant glosses over this issue and relies on the fact that the Brief Bank 'is only accessible by DOJ personnel as it is maintained on an intranet website' in an effort to shoehorn the Brief Bank into the definition of an 'intra-agency memorandum.' This begs the question of whether the contents of the Brief Bank, no matter where those contents are stored, meet the first condition of Exemption 5." But she pointed out that "before addressing the specific categories of documents that make up the Brief Bank, the Court must first determine if whether the act, by a government attorney, of compiling the Brief Bank is sufficient to protect the entire contents under the work product doctrine and make the defendant's withholding under Exemption 5 proper." Rejecting the agency's claim, Howell noted that "just as every document prepared by an attorney is not entitled to work product protection, not every compilation by an attorney is protected either." She explained that "when the act of culling, selecting or ordering documents reflects the attorney's opinion as to their relative significance in the preparation of a case or the attorney's legal strategy, then the work product doctrine may appropriately shield their disclosure. On the other hand, compilations that merely reflect information, which is already or may be available to an adversary, or has no implication for the adversary process, are not entitled to protection." She focused on the level of selectivity employed by the government attorney in compiling the Brief Bank, indicating that "the Court is hindered by the paucity of information provided by the defendant about the level of selectivity." However, she concluded that "what little information that can be gleaned from the defendant's filings indicates that the Brief Bank is a 'resource' for the attorneys at EOUSA." She explained that "a highly selective Brief Bank with few briefs contained in it could hardly function as a 'resource' for the EOUSA FOIA and Privacy Act staff. Rather, to be as useful 'a tool to aide others in' litigating FOIA cases and serve as an effective resource, the Brief Bank would presumably contain briefs in cases from every federal circuit or district and be as comprehensive as possible. At the same time, the larger the collection of cases in the Brief Bank and the more voluminous the number of briefs, the more difficult it would be to show that disclosure of this compilation would reveal any effective information about any legal thought processes or strategies on the part of the defendant." She pointed out that "even if the Brief Bank contained only a few, highly selective briefs, coverage by the work product doctrine would still be a stretch. . .The Brief Bank is a resource to be used to craft pleadings that will be filed in FOIA litigation around the country. . .[T]he briefs and cases in the Brief Bank are, by definition, materials that have already been revealed in the course of FOIA litigation. . ." Howell noted that "the defendant does not argue that the Brief Bank was compiled for any specific claim or case but [only] that [it] was compiled 'in anticipation of future FOIA litigation.'" She observed that "the 'prospect of litigation' cannot be read over-broadly to be so divorced from any specific legal claim such that it renders this fundamental criterion for invocation of the work product doctrine meaningless." She added that "the mere inevitability of the defendant's involvement in FOIA litigation, for which the Brief Bank may be a useful tool, does not convert the Brief Bank into protected attorney work-product. The nature of the contents of the Brief Bank, consisting of publicly-filed cases and briefs addressing the myriad issues that have arisen in FOIA litigation, is necessarily general in order to serve as a resource to agency lawyers litigating FOIA cases. This very generalness not only defeats a finding that disclosure would reveal the thought processes of the attorney compiling the Brief Bank, but also defeats a finding that the compilation is sufficiently tethered to any anticipated litigation." Having found the entire database did not qualify as attorney work product, Howell examined its components, which consisted of court documents and summary documents. Noting that court documents did not qualify as either inter- or intra-agency memoranda, she then focused on the summary documents. She pointed out that "as the defendant describes the summary documents, they merely summarize briefs or cases and key issues identified in them. This description does not suggest that the summary documents reveal any legal strategy or other case-specific legal considerations that might have implications for future litigation if revealed to adversaries." She observed that "the summary documents do not contain 'arguments'"those are presumably contained in the briefs which are already publicly filed. Simply put, the Brief Bank is merely a catalog of publicly available documents with some neutral descriptions of its contents. . ."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege, Exemption 5 - Inter- or intra-agency record
User-contributed Documents
 Declaration of Sean J. Vanek
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2012-11-201COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0090-3137635) filed by TRUTHOUT, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-202LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-203NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by All Plaintiffs. Case related to Case No. 12-313. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-20Case Assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. 11/20/2012 (mmh, ) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-204NOTICE (Summonses) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT re 1 Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-215NOTICE (Corrected summonses) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT re 1 Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2012-11-216ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (3) Issued as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 consent form, # 2 notice of consent to trial)(rdj) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2012-11-21NOTICE OF ERROR re 5 Notice (Other); emailed to kel@nationalsecuritylaw.org, cc'd 1 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Counsel is reminded to SAVE forms as PDF so as NOT to upload fillable forms. NO action required (zrdj, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2012-11-267STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 26, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
2012-11-308RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 11/26/2012, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 11/26/2012., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 11/26/2012. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/26/2012.) (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
2012-11-309NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Louis Light on behalf of RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
2012-12-2110First MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/21/2012)
2012-12-2311Memorandum in opposition to re 10 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/23/2012)
2012-12-28MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 10 First Motion to Enlarge Time to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint, over the plaintiffs' partial objection. The defendant shall, by January 25, 2013, answer or otherwise respond to the 1 Complaint. The parties are also hereby directed to paragraph 3 of the Court's 7 Standing Order, which requires the parties to file a Joint Meet and Confer Report, including a proposed scheduling order, within fourteen days after any defendant files an answer. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 28, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
2012-12-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer to the Complaint due by 1/25/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/02/2013)
2013-01-2512MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
2013-01-2513MOTION to Sever by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
2013-01-30MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying without prejudice 13 Defendant's Motion to Sever for failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(m). Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 30, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
2013-01-3014MOTION to Sever by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 01/30/2013)
2013-02-1115Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION to Sever , 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
2013-02-11MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 15 Plaintiff's Consent Motion to Enlarge Time to File Responses to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Sever and to Set Briefing Schedule. The plaintiffs shall file, by February 26, 2013, any opposition to 12 Defendant's Motion for Summary judgment, any opposition to 14 Defendant's Motion to Sever, and any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendant shall file, by March 22, 2013, any reply in further support of its 12 Motion for Summary Judgment, any reply in further support of its 14 Motion to Sever, and any opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs shall file, by April 8, 2013, any reply in further support of any cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 11, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
2013-02-11Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Oppositions to motions due by 2/26/2013; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Replies in support of motions due by 3/22/2013; Reply in support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/8/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
2013-02-2616Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
2013-02-2617Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION to Sever filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Sack v. CIA memo, # 2 Exhibit B - Sack v, CIA reply, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/26/2013)
2013-02-27MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 16 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion to Enlarge Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Although the 16 Consent Motion does not specifically request an extension of time for the plaintiffs to file a cross-motion for summary judgment, the Court construes the 16 Consent Motion to seek such an extension. Accordingly, the plaintiffs shall file, by March 4, 2013, any opposition to 12 Defendant Component, EOUSA's, Motion for Summary Judgment and any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendant shall file, by March 29, 2013, any reply in further support of its 12 Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs shall file, by April 15, 2013, any reply in further support of any cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 27, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
2013-02-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and filing of Cross-Motion due by 3/4/2013; Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Cross-Motion due by 3/29/2013; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 4/15/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
2013-03-0418Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Schlefer I opinion, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-0419AFFIDAVIT FOR DEFAULT re 18 Memorandum in Opposition, (Cross-Motion) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-0820REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Sever filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
2013-03-1321ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT 19 Affidavit for Default filed by TRUTHOUT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/13/2013)
2013-03-2722Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's (EOUSA) Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
2013-03-28MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting in part and denying in part 22 Motion to Enlarge Time. The defendant shall file, by April 5, 2013, any opposition to the 21 Cross-Motion for Entry of Default. Any reply to the 18 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant Component EOUSA's Motion for Summary Judgment was due by March 17, 2013. See LCvR 7(d). Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 28, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
2013-03-29Set/Reset Deadline: The defendant shall file, by 4/05/2013, any opposition to the 21 Cross-Motion for Entry of Default. (ad) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
2013-03-29AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 22 Motion to Enlarge Time. The defendant shall file, by April 5, 2013, any reply in further support of its 12 Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition to the 21 Cross-Motion for Entry of Default. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 29, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/29/2013)
2013-04-01Set/Reset Deadlines: The defendant shall file, by 4/05/2013, any reply in further support of its 12 Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition to the 2 1 Cross-Motion for Entry of Default. (ad) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
2013-04-0523REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-0524RESPONSE re 19 Affidavit for Default, 21 Errata, filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-0525MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Answer or Other Response Nunc Pro Tunc to Plaintiffs' Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-0526REPLY re 19 Affidavit for Default, 21 Errata, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-0527Memorandum in opposition to re 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Answer or Other Response Nunc Pro Tunc to Plaintiffs' Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-1728MEMORANDUM & ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Motion to Sever; denying 19 Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Entry of Default; and granting 25 Motion to Enlarge Time Nunc Pro Tunc to File an Answer or Otherwise Respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Counts 1-12 of the 1 Complaint are hereby SEVERED from Count 13 and will be dismissed unless, by May 17, 2013, they are refiled in appropriate separate actions. Separate filing fees must be paid, but the claims of timely refiled suits will relate back to the date on which the instant case was filed. See Memorandum & Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 17, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
2013-09-1829MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding the defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 18, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-1830ORDER denying the defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. The parties shall, by October 18, 2013, file a Joint Status Report with the Court. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 18, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-19Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/18/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
2013-10-0131MOTION to Stay Proceedings During Lapse in Appropriations by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-01MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 31 Consent Motion For a Stay. The Court stays this matter until such time as funding is restored to the Department of Justice. The parties shall, within seven days of funding being restored, jointly file any appropriate motion to amend the schedule set forth in this Court's 30 Order of September 18, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 1, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-01Case Stayed (tg, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-2432Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Order on Motion to Stay, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
2013-10-2433ERRATA Regarding Joint Motion to Amend Schedule by JEFFREY STEIN 32 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Order on Motion to Stay, filed by TRUTHOUT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
2013-10-25MINUTE ORDER (paperless) LIFTING the stay in this matter. Upon consideration of the parties' 32 Joint Motion to Amend the Briefing Schedule, the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties shall, by November 4, 2013, file a proposed schedule to address the timeframe for making the requested records available to the plaintiff and any anticipated further proceedings in this case. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 25, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
2013-10-25Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed schedule due by 11/4/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
2013-11-0434STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
2013-11-0435ERRATA and Objection by JEFFREY STEIN 34 Status Report filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
2013-11-0536ERRATA (2d) by JEFFREY STEIN 35 Errata filed by JEFFREY STEIN. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
2013-11-05MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ORDERING the parties to, by December 4, 2013, jointly file a Status Report setting forth a schedule for release of the disputed records to the plaintiff, unless the defendant has elected to take an appeal. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 5, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
2013-11-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/4/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/05/2013)
2013-11-1837NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 30 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 29 Memorandum & Opinion by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
2013-11-1938Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the fee was an Appeal by the Government re 37 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (rdj) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
2013-11-27USCA Case Number 13-5345 for 37 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (rdj) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
2014-02-26MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ORDERING the parties to comply, by March 10, 2014, with the Court's 30 Order of September 18, 2013, in light of the D.C. Circuit's dismissal of the defendant's appeal on this date. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 26, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
2014-02-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Compliance with order of 9/18/2014 due by 3/10/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
2014-03-0739ORDER of USCA (certified copy) as to 37 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ; ORDERED that the motion be granted, and this case is hereby dismissed. USCA Case Number 13-5345. (md, ) (Entered: 03/08/2014)
2014-03-11VACATED pursuant to Minute Order entered on 3/18/2014.....MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the clerk to close this case, pursuant to the 39 Order of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 11, 2014. (lcbah1) Modified on 3/19/2014 (tg, ). (Entered: 03/11/2014)
2014-03-1440MOTION to Stay re Order by JEFFREY STEIN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
2014-03-18MINUTE ORDER (paperless) VACATING this Court's Minute Order of March 11, 2014; REOPENING this matter; and GRANTING the plaintiff's 40 Motion to Stay the Court's 11 March 2014 Order insofar as that motion requests an extension, nunc pro tunc , of the deadline set forth in the Court's Minute Order of February 26, 2014. The parties are ORDERED to provide the joint status report required by the Court's Order of September 18, 2013, by 5:00 p.m. on March 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 18, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
2014-03-18Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5:00 PM on 3/19/2014 (tg, ) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
2014-03-1941NOTICE (Joint Status Report) by JEFFREY STEIN (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
2014-03-1942RESPONSE re 41 Notice (Other) filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
2014-03-2043ERRATA by JEFFREY STEIN 41 Notice (Other) filed by JEFFREY STEIN. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2014-03-24MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this matter, in light of the continuing dispute over the production of allegedly responsive records to the plaintiff's FOIA request, as detailed in the parties' 41 and 42 status reports: the defendant shall, by March 31, 2014, file a Vaughn index and motion for summary judgment regarding the remaining records in dispute. The plaintiff shall, by April 4, 2014, file any opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendant shall, by April 11, 2014, file any reply/opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion. The plaintiff shall, by April 18, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 24, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
2014-03-24Set/Reset Deadlines: Vaughn Index due by 3/31/2014. Summary Judgment motion due by 3/31/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/4/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/11/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 4/18/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
2014-03-2844First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's (Second) Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-28MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 44 First Motion to Enlarge Time to File Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall, by May 1, 2014, file any motion for summary judgment relating to the remaining records at issue. The plaintiff shall, by May 15, 2014, file any opposition. The defendant shall, by May 22, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Any Summary Judgment motion due by 5/1/2014; Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/15/2014; Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/22/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff