Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the FBI cannot use either Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) or Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) to withhold processing documents associated with dozens of FOIA requests. In response to requests from National Security Counselors, journalists Jeffrey Stein and Jason Leopold, and researcher Ryan Shapiro for processing records for requests filed by themselves and others, the agency categorically refused to disclose any processing documents generated for FOIA requests submitted in the last 25 years for material contained in investigative files�"which the agency withheld under Exemption 7(E)�"or any case evaluation forms�"which track and evaluate the performance of FBI employees processing FOIA requests�"under Exemption 2. The plaintiffs specifically requested search slips and FDPS case processing notes, documenting the efforts of FOIA analysts to search for files in response to FOIA requests, and case evaluation forms, which are kept in the personnel files of FOIA analysts for purposes of tracking and evaluating employee performance. Moss first explored the roots of the FBI's Exemption 7(E) non-disclosure policy. "The search slips and notes, the FBI explains, may refer to files on individuals that would be exempt from withholding under a specific FOIA exemption, and that in fact were withheld from the original requester. But more importantly, they may also contain references to files that are excludable under [one of the three exclusions contained in Section (c)]�"that is, files whose very existence the FBI is permitted to deny. Indeed, the FBI points out, the search slips may contain references to files that were excluded from its response to the original requester�"that is, files that the FBI told the requester did not exist. Requests for search slips therefore put the FBI in a difficult position. The FBI cannot plausibly deny that the search slip exists�"because search slips are created as a matter of course in responding to FOIA requests�"but it argues that it also cannot release the search slip, as the search slip would reveal the existence of the file that the FBI told the requester did not exist. And, for similar reasons, the FBI cannot release a redacted version of the search slip, even if the redaction would tell the requester nothing about the underlying file, the FBI argues, [because] the existence of the redaction would 'tip off' the requester that some file existed, contradicting the FBI's prior assertion that no responsive records existed. Likewise, the FBI argues that it cannot withhold the entire search slip under one of the exemptions because the withholding itself would 'tip off' the requester that the search slip must refer to a file that he or she had previously been told did not exist." The FBI's dilemma, Moss indicated, led the agency to argue that "the only option available to it is to withhold all search slips and processing notes that it has created in responding to FOIA requests for investigative files in the last 25 years." Moss did not deny that the FBI's problem was serious, but he noted that "the question before the Court, however, is not the existence or gravity of the problem facing the FBI, but whether the solution the FBI has adopted is consistent with FOIA. Although the question is a difficult one, the Court concludes that the FBI's proposed reading of the statute cannot be squared with its text or the governing precedent." He pointed out that the three exclusions in Section (c) "relate to sensitive matters of law enforcement and national security. They have nothing to do with the day-to-day administration of FOIA itself." He continued: "To be sure, a particular search slip might, on a rare occasion, replicate excludable records and thus also fall within one of the FOIA exclusions, in full or in part. But the overwhelming majority of FBI processing documents are not excludable under any reasonable construction of Section 552(c). . .In the most recent fiscal year, the Justice Department invoked an exclusion only 145 times�"or in 0.23% of the over 60,000 requests that it processed. The FBI's sweeping policy of withholding all search slips for investigative records, as a result, cannot be justified on the plain terms of Section 552(c)." Having found no support for the FBI's withholding policy in Section (c), Moss pointed out that Exemption 7(E), upon which the agency was basing its categorical exemption claim, "does not authorize the policy either." He explained that "the search slips are not themselves 'records. . .compiled for law enforcement purposes;' they are records compiled for the purpose of responding to FOIA requests. . . [T]he FBI is not seeking to withhold specific law enforcement information compiled in the search slips on the basis of Exemption 7(E); it is seeking to withhold all of the search slips in their entirety on the basis of Exemption 7(E)." He observed that "in the absence of a showing that all of the withheld search slips in their entirety constitute records 'compiled for law enforcement purposes,' the FBI's categorical reliance on Exemption 7 fails at the threshold." Moss pointed out that the search slips did not qualify as the kind of "techniques" or "procedures" to which Exemption 7(E) referred. He noted that "the purpose of Exemption 7(E) is to prevent the public from learning about the existence of confidential law enforcement techniques, not to prevent it from learning about the use of already-disclosed law enforcement techniques. It is thus implausible that the disclosure of the FBI's use of Section 552(c) exclusions�"although in some instances harmful�"would be harmful in a way that would bring the search slips within Exemption 7(E)'s grant of authority." The agency argued that Moss should recognize a judicial gloss for these records akin to the Glomar doctrine, allowing an agency to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records, or the mosaic theory, allowing a court to consider that disclosure of certain non-exempt information might allow a requester to infer the nature of related exempt information. Moss declined the agency's invitation, noting that "the FBI is not making a 'mosaic' claim, nor could it. It is only arguing that by withholding all search slips, even those not protected by FOIA, it can amass a haystack in which to hide the search slips that are protected." He pointed out that "although the Glomar doctrine may constitute a gloss on FOIA's text, it does not lead to results fundamentally at odds with the statute. The FBI's present policy does." He observed that "there may be compelling reasons to authorize the FBI to withhold search slips and similar processing records. But FOIA itself does not do so, and the FBI cannot act on the basis of an exemption or exclusion that Congress has not provided." The agency's other categorical claim was that evaluations forms for FOIA analysts assessing their performance were completely protected under Exemption 2 since they qualified as personnel records. But Moss noted that while the Supreme Court in Milner v. Dept of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011), held that Exemption 2 focused on personnel-related records, its prior ruling in Dept of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (1976), explained that even personnel records could be disclosed if there was a significant public interest. Moss indicated that "Milner does nothing to overrule or undermine that holding" and added that "unless overruled by the Supreme Court or by Congress, the Supreme Court's holding in Rose continues to bind this Court. . .The test articulated in Rose thus remains the law, and it excludes 'matters [that are] subject to a genuine and significant public interest' from the reach of Exemption 2." Agreeing with the plaintiffs that the evaluation forms reflected on the agency's operations, Moss pointed out that "the fact that the FBI uses the forms solely for the purpose of evaluating individual employees does not mean that the forms 'relate solely' to employee management. To the contrary, the forms reflect information regarding how the FBI goes about fulfilling its obligations under FOIA and, thus, at least in that sense 'relate' to far more than issues of internal management. Viewed from this perspective, the forms 'relate'�"at least in part�"to how the FBI performs one of its statutory obligations."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 2 - Personnel practices

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the restrictions on the government to offer new exemption claims during litigation, first expressed by the D.C. Circuit in Maydak v. Dept of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000), still has considerable vitality. The Maydak decision put an end to a common practice of law enforcement agencies to claim that records were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding), but then withdraw the 7(A) claim during litigation because the investigation had been closed. Agencies then would start reviewing the records for application of other exemptions, which would become the basis for their claims in court. The decision in Maydak made it clear that agencies were required to claim all exemptions they intended to assert at the beginning of litigation and not sometime later during the litigation, subject to two exceptions�"where the failure to invoke an exemption was the result of human error and disclosure could compromise national security or privacy, and where there substantial was change in either the facts of the case or an interim development in applicable law. Moss' ruling came in a case involving multiple requests made by researcher Ryan Sharpiro, reporter Jeffrey Stein, National Security Counselors, and Truthout to the Justice Department. Several requests sought FBI search slips and processing notes for FOIA requests. The FBI told the requesters that such records were categorically exempt. In his earlier opinion, Moss disagreed, finding the agency was required to process the records. This time, the FBI told Moss that it had abandoned its previous policy and had adopted a policy whereby it would deny requests for search slips and processing notes only where the agency issued a no record response or a Glomar response to the underlying FOIA request. The agency asked Moss to rule on whether or not the agency could apply its new policy to the requests involved in this case. Moss considered whether the FBI's request fell within one of the exceptions to Maydak. He noted that "the FBI does not contend that some change in law or fact has required it to reevaluate its policy with respect to requests for search slips or processing records. Indeed, it represents that it changed its policy in May 2015, eight months before the Court issued its opinion in this matter. The FBI does not point to any 'interim development,' at least not to one outside its control; it only represents that it has developed a new policy that it would like to apply to the plaintiffs' requests." Instead, Moss noted, the agency would have to proceed under the exception for a failure to claim an exemption as the result of "pure human error" where disclosure might endanger national security or privacy interests. He concluded that "the FBI cannot satisfy this standard." He indicated that "its request to apply its new policy to the plaintiffs' long-pending FOIA requests bears more resemblance to 'an attempt to gain a tactical advantage over the FOIA requester' than it does to a simple mistake. The FBI represents that it adopted its new policy in May 2015, after briefing in this case was complete but well before the court heard oral argument and issued its decision. But the FBI did not inform the Court about the existence of its new policy at any point between May 2015, when the new policy was adopted, and February 26, 2016, when the Court held a status conference to discuss the implementation of its December 2015 opinion. The FBI has not lacked for opportunities to inform the Court or the plaintiffs that it had adopted a new policy regarding search slips." He observed that "in light of the FBI's inability to establish that its failure to invoke the new policy in a timely manner was the result of a simple mistake, the Court will decline to permit it to rely on that policy at this stage in the proceeding." He added, however, that he would permit the FBI to show if disclosure of any records might harm national security or privacy interests. He cautioned that "this is not an opportunity for the FBI to advance its new policy regarding search slips. The FBI is free to apply that policy to future FOIA requests (and future FOIA requesters are, in turn, free to challenge it). But this is not the forum for such a proceeding." The FBI proposed an alternative argument in its attempt to get its new policy into court. The agency claimed that it had erred in not providing specific document-by-document exemption claims for the search slips and processing notes but that it had alluded to the fact in its affidavit that other exemptions might apply to such records. The FBI asked Moss to permit it to now review the records for such claims. Moss rejected this claim as well. He noted that "to the extent that the FBI argues either that it adequately preserved the exemptions that it now seeks to assert or that it would have been too burdensome to do so, Maydak disposes of both arguments. As in Maydak, the FBI here did not adequately preserve any document-by-document exemptions, stating only that additional records 'may be exempt.' And, as in Maydak, it would not have been burdensome for the FBI to have asserted both categorical and document-by-document exemptions at the same time�"indeed, this is precisely what it did in response to [one of the plaintiff's] second request." Moss pointed out that the FBI's request did not qualify under the "pure human error" exception to Maydak. He noted that "although it is conceivable that the FBI's failure to assert any document-by-document exemptions with respect to the plaintiffs' requests resulted from 'pure human error,' that seems unlikely given the FBI's assertion of those same exemptions in response to [one of the plaintiff's] second request. Furthermore, although some of the records the FBI requests permission to withhold at this stage might implicate the disclosure of 'national security or sensitive, personal, private information,' it is clear that not all of them will." He observed that "the Court will�"in its discretion�"permit the FBI to assert untimely exemptions to the extent that it can show that the disclosure of such records will 'compromise national security or sensitive, personal, private information.'"
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim

FOIA Project Annotation: Clarifying his previous holding, Judge Randolph Moss has ruled that the FBI may assert claims made under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), as well as claims of attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product privilege under Exemption 5 (privileges), but has waived its ability to claim that the deliberative process privilege applies to other records. Dealing with a number of requests from researcher Ryan Shapiro, reporter Jeffrey Stein, National Security Counselors, and Truthout for records pertaining to the agency's processing of FOIA requests, Moss previously ruled the agency could not claim such records were categorically exempt under Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) or Exemption 7(E). When the FBI asked Moss if it could make other claims, he next ruled that Maydak v. Dept of Jusice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and August v. FBI, 328 F.3d 697 (D.C. Cir. 2003), prevented agencies from bringing up exemptions not claimed originally unless the failure to do so was clearly a matter of human error. Moss found that was not the case here, but, in line with Maydak and August allowed the agency to make additional exemption claims where they pertained to matters of national security or privacy. The FBI asked for reconsideration, arguing this time that Maydak and August only applied where an agency asserted a new claim at the appellate level, not at the district court level. Moss indicated that "the Court agrees with both parties that the D.C. Circuit has not explicitly addressed the principles that should govern a district court's consideration of such an untimely assertion�"that is, an assertion of a FOIA exemption that is made after the parties have filed comprehensive cross-motions for summary judgment and the district judge has adjudicated those cross-motions." Finding recent case law suggested that district court judges should retain discretion in deciding whether to accept new exemption claims, Moss observed that "basic principles of fairness, efficiency, and finality, moreover�"principles inherent in the rules of civil procedure that apply with extra force in the context of FOIA litigation�"counsel in favor of requiring the government to make some threshold showing of good cause to avoid a finding of forfeiture. Such a showing need not be an onerous requirement." But, he noted, "what the government cannot argue is that it is permitted to assert additional FOIA exemptions absent any showing of good cause whatsoever. That rule would sweep too broadly." He added that "to the extent that the FBI argues that the D.C. Circuit's caselaw permits it to advance a FOIA exemption now that it did not advance previously absent a showing of good cause, it is wrong." Clarifying his earlier ruling, Moss permitted the FBI to assert exemption claims under Exemption 7, indicating that "such documents may implicate both national security and privacy issues. . .In any event, the FBI has represented that the records at issue here could, if revealed, jeopardize ongoing FBI investigations." By contrast, Moss pointed out that the agency's Exemption 5 claims did not implicate national security or privacy issues. However, he permitted the agency to assert attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product privilege to a handful of records there were sufficiently similar to other disputed records the agency had claimed were privileged. But Moss rejected the agency's attempt to assert the deliberative process privilege. He explained that "to the extent the FBI's present argument is not a categorical one, but instead turns on a case-by-case application of the deliberative-process privilege to the records it now seeks to withhold, such an argument presents a substantial risk of expanding the scope and duration of the present litigation. The FBI appears to have asserted the deliberative process privilege to protect information contained in over 450 pages of records. . .[which] significantly increases the likelihood that the present litigation will be prolonged." The FBI had requested a stay until a final judgment, but, while agreeing with the need for a stay, Moss sided with the plaintiffs in giving the agency a 60-day stay.
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim

FOIA Project Annotation: In a recent decision pertaining to multiple requests filed by researcher Ryan Shapiro and others for records concerning the way in which the FBI processes FOIA requests, Judge Randolph Moss has discovered that his initial ruling that search slips are not protected by Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) is considerably more complicated than he may have at first imagined. This time around, Moss agreed with the agency's refined position invoking the mosaic theory. In his first decision in the case, Moss ruled that the FBI could not categorically withhold case evaluation forms used to track and evaluate the performance of FBI FOIA analysts in processing FOIA and Privacy Act requests. The FBI asked Moss to reconsider his ruling, explaining that it no longer claimed that case evaluation forms could be categorially withheld, but only to FOIA requests that had resulted in a "no records" response or a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records. While Moss found that Maydak v. Dept of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000), in which the D.C Circuit held that agencies were required to make all their exemption claims at the beginning of litigation, he agreed that ordering disclosure of the records might compromise sensitive national security or privacy information and allowed the agency to brief the matter further. Moss began by explaining that the exclusions under subsection (c) allowed the FBI to claim that it had no records in response to a request where "the explicit assertion of a FOIA exemption might permit a FOIA requester or other member of the public to infer the precise information that the FOIA exclusion is intended to secure." Moss explained that "plaintiffs' practice of filing FOIA requests for records generated in responding to prior FOIA requests, however, puts this practice to the test. Because the FBI inevitably generates records, such as search slips and processing notes, when it receives any FOIA request, the FBI faces a conundrum," because disclosure might reveal information protected by an exclusion. The FBI, however, had initially asserted a categorical exemption for such records, which Moss had rejected. But at this point in the litigation, the FBI was asserting a more targeted claim that Exemption 7(E) protected 42 "no records" responses to 58 of Shapiro's requests for records pertaining to the processing of previous FOIA requests. The FBI contended that "at least in the current context, which involves an array of FOIA requests relating to domestic terrorism investigations, the implicit disclosure of the existence or nonexistence of the use of the FOIA exclusion poses a risk of circumvention of the law." Moss agreed with the refinements the FBI had made to its claim. He pointed out that "to be sure, those search records were not themselves compiled for law enforcement purposes; rather, they were compiled to comply with FOIA. But to the extent they replicate information that was compiled for law enforcement purposes, that distinction is immaterial. Nor does it make a difference whether any underlying records exist or not. Exemption 7 protects 'information compiled for law enforcement purposes,' and the absence of a record can reflect 'information' compiled by the agency just as much as the existence of a record." Having found that the records qualified as law enforcement records under Exemption 7, Moss considered the FBI's claim that the search slips were protected by Exemption 7(E). He noted that "the fact that the FBI is permitted to issue 'No Records' responses based on the §552(c) exclusion is not a confidential 'technique' or 'procedure'â€"rather, that fact is embodied in the statute and judicial precedent. Although the FBI has now further elaborated on its arguments, it is safe to say that it still has not identified a relevant law enforcement 'technique' or 'procedure' with crystal clarity." Having said that, Moss concluded the FBI had shown why such records could reveal investigative techniques or procedures. He pointed out that "there is little meaningful difference between records compiled for law enforcement purposes and information relating to the search of those records. In both cases, knowledge of the existence or non-existence of an investigation, for example, might assist those seeking to evade detection." The FBI relied on the mosaic theoryâ€"that even pieces of mundane information might disclose protected information when put together with other such informationâ€"arguing that disclosure of the search slips when put in context with other information could reveal protected information. Noting that there was little case law concerning when to apply the mosaic theory, Moss observed, that "the search slips at issue are part of a complex mosaic relating to on-going FBI operations, involving one of the FBI's domestic terrorism priorities, which has been the subject of a staggering number of FOIA requests seeking information about many specific individuals and organizations. In this context, the Court concludes that the FBI has met its modest burden of showing 'logically how the release of [the processing records] might create a risk of circumvention of the law.'" Beyond the search slips, the FBI also contended that disclosure of file numbers would implicate the mosaic theory. Shapiro argued that file numbers were created for administrative purposes, not law enforcement purposes. Moss disagreed. He noted that "although Plaintiffs are correct that files numbers serve an administrative purposeâ€"permitting the FBI to track and organize documentsâ€"they ignore the fact that the tracking system is based on information collected for law enforcement purposes. The relevant file numbers are not generated at random, but, rather, incorporate information compiled in the course of enforcing the criminal laws. . . As relevant here, moreover, a collection or 'mosaic' of FBI file numbers might showâ€"or at least suggestâ€"whether the FBI devotes a small amount of attention, or a great deal of attention, to animal rights extremism in each relevant region of the country. That information is, as a matter of ordinary usage, 'compiled' in the FBI filing systemâ€"that is, it is 'collected and assembled from various sources or other documents.' It is not difficult to conclude, moreover, that a 'rational nexus' exists between the compilation of this information and 'one of the agency's law enforcement duties.'" Moss added that "moreover, as the FBI observes, although a single file number may be unilluminating, Plaintiffs' requests must be construed as part of a larger mosaic. Understood in that manner, aggregate information about the numbers of files or document that bear a designation for domestic terrorism/animal rights extremism may shed considerable light on the overall resources that a particular office of the FBI has devoted, or is devoting, to investigating related crimes. The conclusion that the disclosure of FBI filed numbers canâ€"in theoryâ€"reveal sensitive law enforcement techniques, however, does not answer the question whether disclosure of the file numbers at issue here would, in fact do so." Shapiro argued that the fact that the agency had not invoked Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding) for any of the records implied that they did not concern ongoing investigations. Moss indicated, however, that "the Court is not convinced that the mere fact that an investigation is closed severs the 'logical' link between release of the information and the risk of circumvention; knowing that the FBI has historically focused its enforcement efforts in a particular region, for example, might aid a criminal in circumventing the law." He explained that because Shapiro now argued that the agency had waived its right to withhold some file numbers due to official acknowledgment, he would give the FBI a chance to respond to that claim. He revealed, however, that the records did confirm that the FBI had closed its investigation into the unsolved murder of Hyram Kitchen more than 25 years ago and told the agency that it could no longer claim those records were protected under Exemption 7(A). Moss agreed with Shapiro that there was still a dispute over whether the agency had properly segregated non-exempt information from declarations filed in previous litigation. He noted that "in light of Plaintiffs' colorable contention that the declarations submitted in prior litigation revealed significant details about the searches and that the FBI has waived any right to object to disclosure of that information and given the potential value to Plaintiffs and the public of an ability to look behind the types of agency declarations that typically dominate FOIA litigation, the Court will require the FBI to file copies of the search slips from one randomly selected FOIA request, from which only the non-public information has been redacted."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Litigation - Segregability analysis

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2013-04-24	1	COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0090-3294012) filed by TRUTHOUT, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit - LCvR 7.1 certificate (NSC), # 3 Exhibit - LCvR 7.1 certificate (Truthout), # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-24		Case Assigned to Judge Richard W. Roberts. (kb) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-24	2	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (3) Issued as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Consent Form, # 4 Notice of Consent)(kb) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-24	3	NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey Louis Light on behalf of RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-24	4	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - LCvR 7.1 certificate)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-30	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 4/29/2013, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 04/29/2013., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 4/29/2013. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/29/2013.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)((McClanahan, Kelly) . Modified on 5/2/2013 to reinstate docket entry (jf, ). (Entered: 04/30/2013)
2013-05-29	6	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
2013-06-05	7	ANSWER to Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/05/2013)
2013-06-12		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the defendant's motion 6 for an extension of time to file a response to the plaintiffs' complaint be, and hereby is, GRANTED nunc pro tunc. Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 6/12/13. (lcrwr2) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-12	8	DISCHARGED PER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FILED 9/19/2013.....ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Plaintiffs shall show cause in writing by June 24, 2013 why Counts 1 to 4 of their complaint should not be severed from Count 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or dismissed. Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 6/12/13. (lcrwr2) Modified on 9/20/2013 (zmm, ). (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response to Show Cause due by 6/24/2013. (hs) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
2013-06-24	9	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - O'Neill-McClanahan email)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-07-01		MINUTE ORDER: On June 24, 2013, the plaintiffs responded to the June 12, 2013 Order to Show Cause why Counts 1 to 4 of their complaint should not be severed from Count 5 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 or dismissed. In their response, the plaintiffs argued that their individual Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests arise out of the same transaction or occurrence because search slips responsive to the plaintiffs' FOIA requests were withheld because of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ("FBI") blanket policy to withhold all search slips that are less than 25 years old. However, the plaintiffs' complaint claims that the defendant wrongfully withheld numerous responsive records including, but not limited to, FBI search slips, and seeks disclosure of all responsive records. To clarify the scope of the plaintiffs' complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiffs file a supplement to their response by July 8, 2013 explaining whether they are narrowing their claims to include only withheld FBI search slips. Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 7/1/13. (lcrwr2) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
2013-07-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Memorandum due by 7/8/2013. (hs) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
2013-07-08	10	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT re Order,,,, . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - FBI letter)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
2013-08-09	11	MOTION for Leave to File to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Orders to Show Cause by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/09/2013)
2013-08-29	12	Case reassigned by consent to Judge Paul L. Friedman. Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
2013-08-29	13	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 11 MOTION for Leave to File to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Orders to Show Cause (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
2013-08-29	14	Memorandum in opposition to re 11 MOTION for Leave to File to File a Response to Plaintiffs' Response to the Court's Orders to Show Cause filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
2013-08-30		MINUTE ORDER granting 13 plaintiffs' nunc pro tunc motion for brief extension of time up to and including August 29, 2013 to file their opposition to defendant's motion for leave to file defendant's response to plaintiff's response to court's orders to show cause. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on August 30, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
2013-09-03		MINUTE ORDER granting 11 defendant's motion for leave to file a response to plaintiff's response to the Court's orders to show cause. The Clerk shall file defendant's response on the docket of this case. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 3, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
2013-09-03	15	RESPONSE re 10 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (jf, ) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-04		MINUTE ORDER: There will be a status conference on September 16, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. before Judge Paul L. Friedman in Courtroom 29A. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 4, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-16		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul L. Friedman: Status Conference held on 9/16/2013. (Court Reporter Cathryn Jones.) (ztg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
2013-09-19	16	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER discharging [#8] order to show cause issued by Chief Judge Roberts; the parties shall meet and confer, and shall file a joint report containing a proposed briefing schedule on or before October 3, 2013. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on September 19, 2013. (MA) Modified on 9/20/2013 (zmm, ). (Entered: 09/19/2013)
2013-09-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Report due by 10/3/2013. (zmm, ) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
2013-10-03	17	Consent MOTION to Stay re 16 Memorandum & Opinion, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
2013-10-04		MINUTE ORDER granting 17 plaintiffs unopposed motion to stay the deadline for the parties joint status report. The previous deadline of October 3, 2013, is hereby vacated. The parties shall file their joint status report no later than three business days following congressional appropriation of funds to the Department of Justice. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on October 4, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 10/04/2013)
2013-11-27	18	STATUS REPORT JOINT by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
2013-12-24	19	ORDER that defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before February 4, 2014; plaintiffs' opposition or cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before March 4, 2014; defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion or reply to plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed on or before March 25, 2014; and plaintiffs' reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed on or before April 8, 2014. No further extensions of time will be granted except for extraordinarily good cause. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on December 24, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 12/24/2013)
2013-12-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 2/4/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment due 3/4/2014. Reply to Summary Judgment Motion and Response to Cross Motion due by 3/25/2014. Cross Motion Reply due 4/8/2014.(zmm, ) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
2014-02-04	20	First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Dispositive Motion by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
2014-02-05		MINUTE ORDER granting 20 defendant's consent Motion for Extension of Time up to and including February 6, 2014 to file defendant's dispositive motion. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on Febraury 5, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
2014-02-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motion due by 2/6/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
2014-02-06	21	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit A-Z, # 5 Exhibit AA-RR)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
2014-03-04	22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
2014-03-05		MINUTE ORDER granting 22 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to file their opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed on or before March 11, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 5, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/11/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-11	23	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
2014-03-12		MINUTE ORDER granting 23 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to file their opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' opposition shall be filed on or before March 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 12, 2013. (MA) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2014-03-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/17/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
2014-03-17	24	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/17/2014)
2014-03-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 24 plaintiffs' consent motion for an extension of time in which to file their opposition to defendant's summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs' opposition is due March 19, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 18, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
2014-03-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/19/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 03/18/2014)
2014-03-19	25	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
2014-03-20		MINUTE ORDER granting 25 plaintiffs' motion for extension of time up to and including March 20, 2014 to file their opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on March 20, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2014-03-20	26	MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2014-03-20	27	Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Adebonojo email, # 2 Exhibit B - FDPS Operations Guide, # 3 Exhibit C - Example Hitlist, # 4 Exhibit D - Example History, # 5 Exhibit E - Example Notes, # 6 Exhibit F - Example Case Evaluation Form, # 7 Exhibit G - Negley Hardy Declarations, # 8 Exhibit H - Hodge Hardy Declaration, # 9 Exhibit I - Marshall Hardy Declaration, # 10 Exhibit J - Rimmer Hardy Declaration, # 11 Exhibit K - Davis Hardy Declaration, # 12 Exhibit L - Calle Hardy Declaration, # 13 Exhibit M - Example Search Slips, # 14 Exhibit N - Memo 28, # 15 Exhibit O - Original NSC Requests, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2014-03-20	28	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (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, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
2014-03-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/20/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
2014-04-08	29	First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Opposition/Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition/Cross Motion to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
2014-04-09		MINUTE ORDER granting 29 defendant's Motion for Extension of Time up to and including May 9, 2014 to file opposition to plaintiffs' cross motion and/or reply to plaintiffs' opposition. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 9, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
2014-04-09		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Cross Motion and/or Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition due by 5/9/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
2014-04-29		MINUTE ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 26 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file nine additional pages beyond the 45-page limit imposed by the local civil rules. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on April 29, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
2014-05-08	30	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Opposition/Reply to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion/Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
2014-05-09		MINUTE ORDER granting 30 defendant's Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall file their opposition to plaintiffs' cross motion and/or reply to plaintiffs' opposition on or before May 19, 2014; and plaintiffs' response pleading will be due on or before June 17, 2014. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on May 9, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Cross Motion due by 5/19/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/19/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/17/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
2014-05-19	31	REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 & 2)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
2014-05-19	32	Memorandum in opposition to re 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
2014-05-19	33	MOTION for Leave to File First In Camera, Ex Parte and Third Overall Declaration of David M. Hardy by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
2014-06-05	34	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION for Leave to File First In Camera, Ex Parte and Third Overall Declaration of David M. Hardy by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
2014-06-06		MINUTE ORDER granting 34 plantiffs' consent Motion for Extension of Time up to and including June 17, 2014 to file their opposition to defendant's motion for leave to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration; defendant shall have up to and including July 25, 2014 to file its reply. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 6, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
2014-06-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion for leave to submit ex parte, in camera declaration due by 6/17/2014. Reply due by 7/25/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
2014-06-17	35	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 MOTION for Leave to File First In Camera, Ex Parte and Third Overall Declaration of David M. Hardy , 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
2014-06-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 35 plaintiffs' consent Motion for Extension of Time up to and including June 19, 2014 to file their reply in support of their cross motion for partial summary judgment and their opposition to defendant's motion for leave to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on June 18, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
2014-06-19	36	Memorandum in opposition to re 33 MOTION for Leave to File First In Camera, Ex Parte and Third Overall Declaration of David M. Hardy filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
2014-06-19	37	REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
2014-06-19	38	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Sur-reply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
2014-06-30	39	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Surreply by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
2014-07-01		MINUTE ORDER granting 39 defendant's Motion for Extension of Time up to and including July 25, 2014 to file its opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 1, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
2014-07-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to motion for leave to file surreply due by 7/25/2014. (zmm, ) (Entered: 07/02/2014)
2014-07-25	40	ORDER granting 33 the government's motion for leave to submit an ex parte, in camera declaration. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on July 25, 2014. (MA) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-10-07		MINUTE ORDER granting 38 plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply, to which no opposition was filed. Signed by Judge Paul L. Friedman on October 7, 2014. (lcplf3) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
2014-10-08	41	SURREPLY to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (td, ) (Entered: 10/08/2014)
2014-11-18		Case randomly reassigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. Judge Paul L. Friedman no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
2015-11-18		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for oral argument on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment 21 , 27 on December 7, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 21. If the parties wish to submit supplemental briefing addressing any intervening caselaw since the filing of their cross-motions for summary judgment, they may submit supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages in length, on or before December 4, 2015, at 5:00 p.m. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/18/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
2015-11-19		Set/Reset Deadline/Hearing: Supplemental briefs of no more than 10 pages in length, due on or before 12/4/2015. A Motion Hearing is set for 12/7/2015, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
2015-11-23		MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ordered to confer and to submit to the Court the Bates-numbered documents produced to the plaintiffs in response to FOIPA Request No. 1182250-000, see Dkt. 21-3 at 29, on or before December 1, 2015. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/23/2015. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
2015-11-23		Set/Reset Deadline: The parties are to confer and to submit to the Court the Bates-numbered documents produced to the plaintiffs in response to FOIPA Request No. 1182250-000, see Dkt. 21-3 at 29, on or before 12/1/2015. (kt) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
2015-12-01	42	NOTICE of Filing of Bates-Numbered Response to Plaintiff's FOIA Request by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
2015-12-04	43	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
2015-12-07		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 12/7/2015 re: 28 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by TRUTHOUT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Matter taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
2015-12-08	44	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by JEFFREY STEIN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P - OGIS letter, # 2 Exhibit Q - OIP letter)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
2015-12-08	45	NOTICE of Clarification by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT re Motion Hearing, (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
2015-12-11	46	RESPONSE re 44 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 12/11/2015)
2015-12-14	47	REPLY re 44 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by JEFFREY STEIN. (McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 12/15/2015 to correct linkage(zrdj). (Entered: 12/14/2015)
2016-01-22	48	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: The FBI's motion for summary judgment 21 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment 28 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. A separate Order will issue following the status conference in this matter. See Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/22/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-22		MINUTE ORDER: The parties shall appear for a status conference in this matter on February 3, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 21. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the remaining issues identified in the Court's Memorandum Opinion 48 . A separate Order will issue following the status conference. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 1/22/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-27		Set/Reset Hearing: A Status Conference is set for 2/3/2016, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
2016-02-01	49	MOTION to Continue Status Conference Scheduled for February 3, 2016 at 2 p.m. by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
2016-02-02		MINUTE ORDER: Defendant's motion to continue the status conference currently scheduled for February 3, 2016, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The status conference is hereby VACATED and RESCHEDULED for February 26, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/2/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
2016-02-02		Set/Reset Hearing: The Status Conference set for 2/3/2016 is VACATED and RESCHEDULED for 2/26/2016, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
2016-02-26		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 2/26/2016. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2016-02-26	50	ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall (1) meet and confer, on or before March 4, 2016, with respect to the issues raised by the Court's Memorandum Opinion 48 and any additional issues raised at the February 26, 2016 status conference; and (2) submit a joint status report to the Court setting out their positions with respect to the issues raised in the Court's Opinion and the attached Order on or before March 11, 2016. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/26/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2016-02-26		Set/Reset Deadlines: The parties shall meet and confer, on or before 3/4/2016, and submit a joint status report to the Court on or before 3/11/2016. (kt) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2016-03-11	51	Joint STATUS REPORT by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Hardy (Fourth))(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
2016-03-29	52	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Randolph D. Moss held on December 7, 2015; Page Numbers 1 - 104; Date of Issuance: March 28, 2016; Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jeff Hook; Telephone number: 202-354-3373. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form. For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 4/19/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/27/2016.(Hook, Jeff) (Entered: 03/29/2016)
2016-04-08	53	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Upon consideration of the joint report 51 , the Court hereby ORDERS that (1) on or before May 10, 2016, the FBI shall produce all responsive records in this case except (a) those records the Court determined were properly withheld in its January 22, 2016 opinion, (b) those records about which the Court previously directed further briefing, and (c) those records that the FBI believes would, if released, compromise national security or sensitive, personal, private information; (2) on or before May 10, 2016, the FBI shall submit a renewed motion for summary judgment, supplemented by further evidentiary submissions, regarding those records that it intends to withhold consistent with the Court's January 22, 2016 opinion and this Order; (3) the plaintiffs may file a renewed cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the FBI's renewed motion for summary judgment, limited to the issues described above and the propriety of declaratory and injunctive relief, on or before June 7, 2016; (4) the FBI may file a reply in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on or before July 5, 2016; (5) the plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before July 19, 2016; and (6) if the FBI seeks to stay any of the production obligations outlined in this Order, it shall file a motion to that effect on or before April 29, 2016. See Memorandum Opinion and Order for more details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/8/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Main Document 53 replaced on 4/11/2016) (kt). (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-04-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: On or before 5/10/2016, the FBI shall produce all responsive records in this case; On or before 5/10/2016, the FBI shall submit a renewed motion for summary judgment; Plaintiffs may file a renewed cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the FBI's renewed motion for summary judgment, limited to the issues described above and the propriety of declaratory and injunctive relief, on or before 6/7/2016; The FBI may file a reply in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 7/5/2016; The plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 7/19/2016; The FBI seeks to stay any of the production obligations outlined in this Order, it shall file a motion to that effect on or before 4/29/2016. (kt) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-04-08	54	MOTION to Modify 1/22/16 Memorandum Opinion by JEFFREY STEIN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Release letter, # 2 Exhibit B - Adebonojo-McClanahan email, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-04-09		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs have advised the Court that there remains a live dispute as to the extent of Plaintiff Stein's entitlement, if any, to records responsive to his third request under the relevant regulations. If the parties wish to brief this issue, they may do so in their renewed motions for summary judgment, according to the schedule set out in the Court's April 8, 2016 Opinion and Order 53 , and the Court will adjudicate it at the appropriate time. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 4/9/2016. (lcrdm2, ) Modified on 4/11/2016 to correct linked document number(kt). (Entered: 04/09/2016)
2016-05-06	55	MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,, , MOTION to Stay (Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and for a Stay following Final Judgment) by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
2016-05-09		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the FBI's motion for reconsideration 55 , the Court hereby ORDERS that: (1) The May 10, 2016 deadline for the production of documents set out in the Court's April 8, 2016 Opinion is temporarily stayed with respect to those documents that would be impacted by the pending motion for reconsideration. All documents not impacted by the pending motion shall be produced on schedule. (2) The plaintiffs may file an opposition to the FBI's motion for reconsideration on or before May 13, 2016. (3) The FBI may file a reply in support of its motion for reconsideration on or before May 17, 2016. (4) The parties shall appear for a hearing on the motion for reconsideration on May 19, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/9/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
2016-05-09		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: The plaintiffs may file an opposition to the FBI's motion for reconsideration on or before 5/13/2016; The FBI may file a reply in support of its motion for reconsideration on or before 5/17/2016. A Motion Hearing is set for 5/19/2016, at 2:00 PM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
2016-05-10	56	MOTION for Leave to File (Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit an Ex Parte, In Camera Declaration and Memorandum in Support Thereof) by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10	57	MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, ECF No. 54 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of David M. Hardy, Esq., # 4 Exhibit A to Declaration of David M. Hardy, Esq.)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10	58	MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Partial Stay or Motion to Enlarge Nunc Pro Tunc by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Motion for Partial Stay))(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10	59	Memorandum in opposition to re 54 MOTION to Modify 1/22/16 Memorandum Opinion filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (See Docket Entry 57 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
2016-05-11		MINUTE ORDER: The FBI's motion for leave to file a motion for a partial stay 58 is hereby GRANTED. The FBI's motion for a partial stay [58-1] is deemed FILED. The plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the motion for a partial stay on or before May 17, 2016, and the parties shall be prepared to discuss the pending motion at the May 19, 2016 motion hearing. The production obligations discussed in the motion for a partial stay are hereby temporarily stayed pending further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/11/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
2016-05-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: The plaintiffs shall file any opposition to the motion for a partial stay on or before 5/17/2016. (kt) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
2016-05-11	60	MOTION partial Stay by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (zrdj) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
2016-05-13	61	Memorandum in opposition to re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,, MOTION to Stay (Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and for a Stay following Final Judgment) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
2016-05-13	62	Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION to Stay filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
2016-05-17	63	REPLY to opposition to motion re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 53 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,, MOTION to Stay (Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration and for a Stay following Final Judgment) filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
2016-05-19		MINUTE ORDER: For the reasons stated on the record during the May 19, 2016 motion hearing, the FBI's motion for leave to file an ex parte, in camera declaration 56 is hereby GRANTED. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/19/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
2016-05-19		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Motion Hearing held on 5/19/2016 re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration, 56 MOTION for Leave to File Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit an Ex Parte, In Camera Declaration and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, and 60 MOTION to Stay filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 56 MOTION for Leave to File Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit an Ex Parte, In Camera Declaration and Memorandum in Support Thereof filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE is hereby GRANTED. Motions 55 and 60 are taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Bryan Wayne.) (zsm) Modified on 5/20/2016 (zsm). (Entered: 05/20/2016)
2016-05-20	64	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
2016-05-25	65	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion, the Court hereby ORDERS that: (1) The FBI's motion for reconsideration 55 is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. (2) The FBI's motion for a partial stay 60 is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The FBI's obligation to produce the case evaluation forms to the plaintiffs is hereby STAYED through and until July 25, 2016, or, if the FBI files a notice of appeal by that date, pending appeal. (3) If the FBI does not file a notice of appeal by July 25, 2016, it shall produce the case evaluation forms to the plaintiffs on or before that date. (4) The FBI shall produce the records to plaintiff Shapiro that would otherwise only be impacted by the FBI's late assertion of the Exemption 5 deliberative-process privilege on or before July 25, 2016. If the FBI files a notice of appeal as to this specific production obligation, the order set out in this paragraph is stayed pending appeal. (5) The briefing schedule entered on April 8, 2016, remains in place. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 5/25/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
2016-06-06	66	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, ECF No. 54 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
2016-06-06		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time 66 is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the FBI's renewed motion for summary judgment and their renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before July 15, 2016. The FBI shall file its reply in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs' renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before August 12, 2016. Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before August 26, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/6/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
2016-06-07		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to the FBI's renewed motion for summary judgment and their renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 7/15/2016; The FBI shall file its reply in support of its renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs' renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 8/12/2016; Plaintiffs shall file any reply in support of their renewed cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 8/26/2016. (kt) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
2016-07-15	67	Memorandum in opposition to re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, ECF No. 54 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit 1-9, # 4 Exhibit 10, # 5 Declaration Ryan Noah Shapiro)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-07-16	68	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1-9, # 4 Exhibit 10, # 5 Declaration Ryan Noah Shapiro)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 07/16/2016)
2016-07-22	69	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 53 Memorandum & Opinion,,,,,, 65 Memorandum & Opinion,,,, 48 Memorandum & Opinion, by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
2016-07-25	70	Transmission 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 69 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/25/2016)
2016-08-03		USCA Case Number 16-5226 for 69 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (zrdj) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
2016-08-11	71	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
2016-08-12		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of defendant's consent motion for an extension of time 71 , the motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that defendant shall file its opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before September 13, 2016, and that plaintiffs may file their responsive pleading on or before September 30, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/12/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
2016-08-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on or before 9/13/2016, and that plaintiffs may file their responsive pleading on or before 9/30/2016. (kt) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
2016-09-12	72	Final MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
2016-09-13		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the defendant's motion for an extension of time 72 , the motion is GRANTED, and defendant may file its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before September 20, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/13/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-09-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant may file its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before 9/20/2016. (kt) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-09-20	73	MOTION for Extension of Time to (FOR ONE DAY) File a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
2016-09-21		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the defendant's motion for an extension of time 73 , the motion is GRANTED, and defendant may file its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before September 21, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/20/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
2016-09-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant may file its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and reply to plaintiff's opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment on or before 9/21/2016. (kt) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
2016-09-21	74	Memorandum in opposition to re 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts (counter), # 2 Declaration Exhibit A)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
2016-09-21	75	MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
2016-09-22	76	REPLY to opposition to motion re 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
2016-09-30	77	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
2016-10-03		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of plaintiffs' consent motion for an extension of time, the motion is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that plaintiffs may file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before October 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/3/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
2016-10-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs may file their reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 10/10/2016. (kt) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
2016-10-11	78	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
2016-10-11	79	Memorandum in opposition to re 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-12	80	Cross MOTION to Strike 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, ECF No. 54 or Make Public Portions of the Third, Sixth, and Eighth Hardy Declarations by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-12		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of plaintiff's motion for an extension of time 78 , the motion is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before October 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/12/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-12		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike 80 , the motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with the meet and confer requirement set forth in LCvR 7(m). Plaintiffs assert that opposing counsel could not be reached to obtain a position and that they assume that counsel for the Department of Justice will oppose the motion. They fail to explain, however. what efforts they made to attempt to contact opposing counsel. Efforts to contact opposing counsel on the day of a filing, for example, are not sufficient except in extraordinary circumstances. Nor is it sufficient for Plaintiffs' to speculate that opposing counsel will categorically oppose the relief requested. The point of the rule is require that the moving party make a good faith effort at resolving or narrowing issues before bringing them to the Court. After doing so, Plaintiffs may renew their motion. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/12/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 10/18/2016. (kt) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-12	81	Cross MOTION to Strike 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Amend, ECF No. 54 or Make Public Portions of the 3rd, 6th, and 8th Hardy Declarations by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-18	82	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
2016-10-21		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time, the motion is GRANTED, and plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before October 25, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/21/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for summary judgment on or before 10/25/2016. (kt) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	83	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to File in Camera and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross Motion to Strike by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-25		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the consent motion for an extension of time, the motion is GRANTED, and defendants may file their opposition and reply on or before November 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/25/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
2016-10-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants may file their opposition and reply on or before 11/15/2016. (kt) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
2016-10-25	84	REPLY to opposition to motion re 68 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Inconsistent withholding of case numbers, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Discontinuation of 266A-G, # 3 Exhibit 3 - SHAC prior case number disclosures, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Parme prior case number disclosures, # 5 Appendix A - List of previously disclosed case numbers, # 6 Appendix B - List of inconsistently withheld case numbers)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
2016-10-26	85	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT 84 Reply to opposition to Motion,, filed by TRUTHOUT, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, JEFFREY STEIN, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Parme prior case number disclosures)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
2016-11-15	86	Memorandum in opposition to re 81 Cross MOTION to Strike 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Mo filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
2016-11-16	87	REPLY to opposition to motion re 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
2016-11-28	88	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 81 Cross MOTION to Strike 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Mo by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-11-28		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the consent motion for an extension of time 88 , the motion is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for partial summary judgment on or before November 30, 2016. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 11/28/2016. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-11-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs may file a reply in support of their cross-motion for partial summary judgment on or before 11/30/2016. (kt) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
2016-11-30	89	REPLY to opposition to motion re 81 Cross MOTION to Strike 31 Reply to opposition to Motion, 75 MOTION for Leave to File to File Ex Parte In Camera Eighth Declaration of David M. Hardy , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Mo filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO, JEFFREY STEIN, TRUTHOUT. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/30/2016)
2016-12-02	90	NOTICE re 56 of Filing of Inadvertently Omitted Exhibit A to ECF No. 56 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Adebonojo, Kenneth) Modified to add link on 12/5/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 12/02/2016)
2016-12-21	91	ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the motion to hold in abeyance be granted and thatthis case be held in abeyance pending further order of the court. USCA Case Number 16-5226. (zrdj) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
2017-03-06	92	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The FBI's motion for leave to file Hardy's eighth declaration ex parte and in camera 75 is hereby GRANTED; Plaintiffs' motion to strike the eighth Hardy declaration and to make public portions of the third and sixth Hardy declarations 81 is hereby DENIED. The FBI's motion for summary judgment 57 is hereby GRANTED as to the application of Exemption 7(E) to the search processing records relating to the forty-two parent FOIA requests for which Shapiro received No Records responses; as to the application of FOIA Exemption 1; and as to the application of Exemption 5 to the McGehee litigation documents, and to the Zubaydah documents to the extent that they reflect deliberations about the FBI's litigation strategy and defense; and the motion is otherwise DENIED. Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment 68 is hereby GRANTED as to the application of Exemption 7(A) to records relating to the murder of Dr. Hyram Kitchen, and the motion is otherwise DENIED. See attached document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/6/2017. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-06		MINUTE ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to appear for a status conference at 10:00 a.m. on April 5, 2017, in Courtroom 21. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/6/2017. (lcrdm2, ) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-07		Set/Reset Hearings: A Status Conference is set for 4/5/2017, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 21, before Judge Randolph D. Moss. (kt) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
2017-04-05		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Randolph D. Moss: Status Conference held on 4/5/2017. Order forthcoming. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook). (kt) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
2017-05-05	93	NOTICE of Submission of Document (File No. 1146761) for In Camera Review by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Adebonojo, Kenneth) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
Hide Docket Events