Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleIntellectual Property Watch et al v. United States Trade Representative
DistrictSouthern District of New York
CityFoley Square
Case Number1:2013cv08955
Date Filed2013-12-18
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Edgardo Ramos
PlaintiffIntellectual Property Watch
PlaintiffWilliam New
Case DescriptionIntellectual Property Watch requested records concerning the United States' position on intellectual property rights during the negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. Intellectual Property Watch also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. After the Trade Representative asked the organization to narrow its request, it submitted an amended request. After more than a year, the agency indicated it would not search for records concerning the agreement because they were protected by Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). As to emails between the Trade Representative and members of Industry Trade Advisory Committees, the agency located 298 responsive records and disclosed 77 of them. The Trade Representative withheld personally identifying information under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and also withheld information under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). Intellectual Property Watch submitted an administrative appeal, but filed suit after the statutory time limit for responding had expired.
Complaint issues: adequacy of search, improper withholding, expedited disclosure of records, attorney's fees

DefendantAppellant
William J. Kirsch
DefendantAppellant
William J. Kirsch
TERMINATED: 08/27/2014
DefendantUnited States Trade Representative
AppealSecond Circuit 14-2255
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Opinion/Order [10]
Opinion/Order [13]
Opinion/Order [69]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the U.S. Trade Representative properly withheld records concerning the U.S. negotiating position during the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade agreement recently negotiated between 11 Asia-Pacific countries and the United States from Intellectual Property Watch under Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes), but that the agency has not supported its claims under Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). After rejecting most of Intellectual Property Watch's request, IPW agreed to narrow its request to the negotiating positions for the United States. Most of those records were either withheld or redacted under Exemption 1 and Exemption 3, citing the Trade Act of 1974. The negotiating countries agreed to abide by a New Zealand-originated confidentiality agreement that prohibited disclosure of negotiation-related materials until an agreement was reached without the permission of all the countries. Judge Edgardo Ramos explained that "such a requirement explicitly contemplates a foreign nation's objecting to the U.S.'s unilaterally release of U.S. proposals; the agreement takes aim at precisely this kind of negotiating in public. . .While violation of a confidentiality agreement does not per se satisfy the government's burden under Exemption 1, the existence of a specific confidentiality agreement in the context of specific negotiations is undoubtedly relevant." Ramos found the agency had made a sufficient case for its conclusion that disclosure of the records could harm national security. He noted that "it is both logical and plausible that unilateral disclosure of Draft Chapters, in explicit violation of the very first term of the TPP confidentiality agreement, would harm foreign relations, especially prior to consummation of the final agreement. . .[D]isclosure in this case might establish a precedent that all draft text in all future trade negotiations involving the U.S. would be subject to FOIA disclosure. Absent any such limiting principle, formal confidentiality agreements would be rendered futile, and the Court accepts as reasonable the government's argument that such agreements are critical preconditions to successful multilateral trade negotiations." IPW argued that 19 U.S.C. § 2155(g) of the Trade Act did not qualify as an Exemption 3 statute because its amended language did not prohibit public disclosure. But Ramos noted the provisions established "particular criteria for withholding" or referred "to particular types of matters to be withheld" as required under Exemption 3. Ramos observed that "it is commonsense that [the provisions]. . .instruct[] the agency to withhold confidential information and advice from the public, and permitting only limited disclosure to certain key Executive and Congressional officials involved in trade negotiations. Although these provisions do not explicitly direct USTR to withhold confidential matters from the public, such a directive is nonetheless the most reasonable reading and is consistent with the rest of the statute and its legislative history." The agency claimed that its ability to obtain confidential business information in the future would be impaired if certain confidential business information was disclosed. Ramos agreed with IPW that the agency had not shown that the records were treated as confidential. As a result, he ordered the agency to provide further support for its Exemption 4 claims, as wells as its § 2155(g) Exemption 3 claims pertaining the alleged confidential business information. The agency argued that some records qualified for protection under Exemption 5. But Ramos noted that the agency's claims were contrary to the Supreme Court's holding in Klamath because the parties clearly had adverse interests. Rejecting the agency's argument that the records fell within the consultant corollary, Ramos pointed out that "the upshot is that USTR asks this Court to apply an expansive interpretation of the consultant corollary that the U.S. Supreme Court has described as beyond 'typical' and the Second Circuit has never expressly adopted."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege
Opinion/Order [103]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has declined to reconsider its previous decision finding that the United States' original negotiating positions for the Trans Pacific Partnership treaty were confidential. Intellectual Property Watch argued that now the negotiations were complete disclosure would not impair the government's ability to get information from third parties in the future. Judge Edgardo Ramos disagreed, finding that Section 2155(g) of the Trade Act of 1974 protected "information or advice 'submitted in confidence'" and "to determine whether a document is properly withheld by asking whether the information or advice contained therein was submitted with the expectation that it would be treated confidentially," a test drawn from the Supreme Court's decision in Dept of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993), which dealt with assurances of confidentiality under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources). The U.S. Trade Representative told Ramos that the records were still protected by Exemption 1 (national security) because disclosure of negotiating positions could still cause harm to foreign relations. Intellectual Property Watch argued disclosure would not hamper future negotiations now that the full text of the agreement had been released. Ramos pointed out, however, that "the mere fact that the final agreement may constrain future U.S. positions does not preclude the possibility that disclosure of earlier positions may do so as well. To the contrary, USTR makes sufficiently logical representations that future trade negotiations may become more difficult if other countries know that all of the U.S.'s interim positions and proposals made during future negotiations will be disclosed to the public once a final agreement is locked in." Ramos rejected IPW's claim that disclosure of the final agreement waived Exemption 1. Instead, Ramos noted that "release of the final TPP agreement discloses only the fact that the final text was eventually agreed to by all twelve countries; it does not disclose which country or countries proposed which provisions, when those proposals were made, and evolving iterations of each proposal throughout the negotiations."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2013-12-181COMPLAINT against United States Trade Representative. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 1083684)Document filed by William New, Intellectual Property Watch.(laq) (laq). (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-18SUMMONS ISSUED as to United States Trade Representative. (laq) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-18Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn is so designated. (laq) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-18Case Designated ECF. (laq) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2014-01-022MOTION FOR JOINDER of plaintiff.Document filed by William J. Kirsch..(sc) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
2014-01-063ORDER denying 2 Motion for Joinder. On January 2, 2014, this Court received a submission from non-party William Kirsch seeking to be added as a Plaintiff in this action, and seeking the joinder of the Federal Communications Commission and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration as Defendants. (Docket No. 2). Because Kirsch cites no basis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 for either intervention as of right or permissive intervention, the request is hereby DENIED without prejudice. See, e.g., AT&T Corp. v. Sprint Corp., 407 F.3d 560, 561 (2d Cir. 2005) (noting the "broad discretion of the district court when considering permissive intervention"). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 2 and to mail a copy of this Order to William J. Kirsch at the address provided in his letter. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/6/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
2014-01-06Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk. Transmitted re: 3 Order on Motion for Joinder, to the Docket Assistant Clerk for case processing. (lmb) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
2014-01-07Mailed a copy of 3 Order on Motion for Joinder, to William J. Kirsch 1211 S. Eads Street Arlington, VA 22202. (ca) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
2014-01-084RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch.(Schulz, David) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
2014-01-095NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 3/4/2014 at 04:15 PM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/9/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 01/09/2014)
2014-01-226LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from Ellen Blain dated January 22, 2014. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
2014-01-227ORDER granting 6 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer filed by the United States Trade Representative. Answer due 1/30/2014. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Jesse M. Furman)(Text Only Order) (Furman, Jesse) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
2014-01-23NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Edgardo Ramos. Judge Jesse M. Furman is no longer assigned to the case. (pgu) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
2014-01-298MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT & FOR LEAVE OF THE COURT TO INTERVENE ON A PERMISSIVE BASIS. Document filed by William J. Kirsch.(sc) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
2014-01-309ANSWER to 1 Complaint. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
2014-01-3110OPINION AND ORDER 104012 re: 8 MOTION to Intervene; MOTION for Reconsideration. By order dated January 6, 2014, the Honorable Jesse M. Furman denied non-party William J. Kirsch's request to intervene in this action. Doc. 3. On January 23, 2014, the case was transferred to the undersigned and on January 29, 2014, Mr. Kirsch filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 6, 2014 order. The motion, Doc. 8, is DENIED. Mikol, 554 F. Supp. 2d at 500. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 8). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/31/2014)Copies Mailed by Chambers (mro) Modified on 2/6/2014 (mro). Modified on 3/3/2014 (nt). (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-1411ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan Manes dated 2/12/2014 re: Counsel requests that the Court hold an initial conference, be it on the originally-scheduled date of March 4, 2014, or another date. ENDORSEMENT: The application is granted. The initial conference will be held on March 4, 2014 at 11:45 am. (Initial Conference set for 3/4/2014 at 11:45 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/14/2014) (ft) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
2014-02-19Received returned mail re: 10 Memorandum & Opinion,,. Mail was addressed to William J. Kirsch at 1211 S. Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 and was returned for the following reason(s): RETURN TO SENDER, INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. UNABLE TO FORWARD. (cg) (Entered: 02/19/2014)
2014-02-2412MOTION TO AMEND THE PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION.Document filed by William J. Kirsch.(sc) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
2014-02-2813OPINION AND ORDER re: 12 MOTION to Amend/Correct. The Court DENIES the Motion to Amend as moot, in light of its previous Order. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 12). Chambers will mail copies of the instant decision, as well as the Court's previous Order, Doc. 10, to Mr. Kirsch at 1211 S. Eads Street, #211, Arlington, VA 22202, and P.O. Box 423364, Kissimmee, FL 34742-3364, the two addresses included in Mr. Kirsch's Motion to Amend (Doc. 12 at 7-8). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/28/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ja) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
2014-03-0414LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM by Jonathan Matthew Manes on behalf of Intellectual Property Watch, William New. Benjamin W. Graham, I certify that: I am duly enrolled in Yale Law School in accordance with part (c)(1) of the Student Practice Rule of the Southern District of New York. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/4/2014) (ja) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-0415LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM by Jonathan Matthew Manes on behalf of Intellectual Property Watch, William New. I certify that: I, Brianna van Kan, am duly enrolled in Yale Law School in accordance with part (c)(1) of the Student Practice Rule of the Southern District of New York. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/4/2014) (ja) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-0416LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM by Jonathan Matthew Manes on behalf of Intellectual Property Watch, William New. I certify that: I, Joshua S. Weinger, am duly enrolled in Yale Law School in accordance with part (c)(1) of the Student Practice Rule of the Southern District of New York. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/4/2014) (ja) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-04Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Edgardo Ramos: Initial conference held on 3/4/2014. Plaintiffs counsel Jonathan Manes, Brianna Van Kan, Joshua S. Weinger and Benjamin Graham present. Defendants counsel AUSA Ellen Blain present. Counsel are directed to make a joint submission to the Court regarding a briefing schedule by Friday, March 7, 2014. (cg) Modified on 3/7/2014 (cg). (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-1019JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER: On March 23, 2012, Plaintiffs Intellectual Property Watch and its Editor-in-Chief, William New (together, "IP-Watch"), submitted a request for documents to Defendant United States Trade Representative ("USTR") pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), seeking five categories of records concerning the United States' negotiation of a proposed trade agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP");... IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned counsel for the parties and subject to the approval of the Court, that: IP-Watch agrees to limit category 4 of the FOIA Request for documents regarding the schedule and location of official TPP negotiation rounds and TPP inter-sessional meetings; by April 7, 2014, to the extent not already provided, USTR will search for and process documents responsive to category 4 of the FOIA Request, as so limited... The following schedule will govern the Government's summary judgment motion based on the Sample Set: the Government will file its moving brief by August 28, 2014; IP-Watch will file its opposition brief by September 25, 2014; and the Government will file its reply brief by October 9, 2014. The parties agree to limit the summary judgment briefing regarding the FOIA request, including Vaughn indices and declarations, to the records of the Sample Set. The Court's ruling, subject to any appellate review, will be applied, as appropriate, to any further documents responsive to the FOIA Request. Plaintiffs do not waive their right subsequently to challenge the propriety of any withholdings or redactions, to the extent that those arguments are not resolved by the Court's order. The parties understand and agree that this Stipulation and Order contains the entire agreement between them, and that no statements, representations, promises, agreements, or negotiations, oral or otherwise, between the parties or their counsel that are not included herein shall be of any force or effect. SO ORDERED. (Motions due by 8/28/2014, Responses due by 9/25/2014, Replies due by 10/9/2014.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/10/2014) (ja) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
2014-04-2122MEMO ENDORSEMENT on Petition for a Writ of Manadamus. ENDORSEMENT: The parties are directed to respond to the Court by May 5, 2014 indicating whether they have a position on Mr. Kirsch's requests. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/21/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
2014-05-1225LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time and Status Report addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Ellen Blain dated May 12, 2014. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
2014-05-1226JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan Manes dated 05/12/2014 re: Parties' Position with Respect to Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
2014-05-1227ORDER granting 25 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The application is granted. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/12/2014) (js) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-1228MEMO ENDORSED on re: 26 Letter filed by William New, Intellectual Property Watch. ENDORSEMENT: Mr. Kirsh's Petition for Writ of Mandamus is denied. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/12/2014) (js) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-2132MOTION for relief from a judgment or order and request for reconsideration. Document filed by William J. Kirsch.(sac) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-05-2734ORDER denying 32 Motion for Reconsideration re 32 MOTION for Reconsideration... Whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the district court. Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires a party moving for reconsideration to set forth a concise statement of "the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the Court has overlooked." Local R. 6.3. "Where the movant fails to show that any controlling authority or facts have actually been overlooked, the motion for reconsideration must be denied." Mikol v. Barnhart, 554 F. Supp. 2d 498, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995)). In the instant case, Mr. Kirsch has neither provided any newly discovered evidence nor suggested that there has been any change in controlling law since the Court's denial of his Petition. As Local Rule 6.3 is "narrowly construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been considered fully by the Court," the motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED. Mikol, 554 F. Supp. 2d at 500. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate Mr. Kirsch's motion, Doc. 32. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 5/27/2014) (ja) Modified on 5/28/2014 (ja). (Entered: 05/28/2014)
2014-05-28Received returned mail document 28 Memo Endorsed Mail was addressed to William J. Kirsch at 1211 S. Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return To Sender. (rdz) Modified on 5/28/2014 (rdz). (Entered: 05/28/2014)
2014-06-2335NOTICE OF APPEAL from 28 Memo Endorsement. Document filed by William J. Kirsch. Form D-P is due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
2014-06-24Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 35 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
2014-06-24Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 35 Notice of Appeal filed by William J. Kirsch were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
2014-08-2636LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated August 26, 2014 re: Proposed Briefing Schedule. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
2014-08-2737MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 35 Notice of Appeal filed by William J. Kirsch. USCA Case Number 14-2255. Ordered that the appeal is DISMISSED. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 08/27/2014. (nd) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-08-2738MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 36 Letter filed by United States Trade Representative. The parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court endorse the following, proposed briefing schedule: the government's motion for summary judgment due by October 15, 2014; plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion due by November 12, 2014; the government's reply and opposition to cross-motion due by December 3, 2014; and plaintiffs' reply in support of the cross-motion due by December 17, 2014. ENDORSEMENT: The Application is Granted. ( Cross Motions due by 11/12/2014., Motions due by 10/15/2014., Responses due by 11/12/2014, Replies due by 12/17/2014.) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/27/2014) (ama) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-09-1139LETTER from William J. Kirsch dated 9/10/14 re: FURTHER MOTION FOR RELIEF; re: based on the 8/27/14 Mandate of the USCA for the Second Circuit in Docket No. 14-2255, the 9/9/14 speech of FCC Chairman Thomas Wheeler etc. Document filed by William J. Kirsch.(sc) (Entered: 09/12/2014)
2014-10-1340LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Briefing Schedule addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated October 13, 2014. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/13/2014)
2014-10-1441ORDER granting 40 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. By October 14, 2014, the Government shall complete processing documents that constitute the Sample Set, as defined in the Joint Stipulation and Order entered by this Court on March 10, 2014. The Government's motion for summary judgment shall be due by October 29, 2014. Plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion shall be due by November 26, 2014. The Government's reply and opposition cross-motion shall be due by December 17, 2014. Plaintiffs' reply in support of cross-motion shall be due by January 7, 2015. SO ORDERED. Motions due by 10/29/2014. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/14/2014) (ama) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-14Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 1/7/2015. Responses due by 11/26/2014 Replies due by 12/17/2014. (ama) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-2942MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set . Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-2943MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set . . Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-2944DECLARATION of Barbara Weisel in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-2945DECLARATION of Melissa Keppel in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-11-2346CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan M. Manes dated 11/23/2014. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Revised Scheduling Order)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/23/2014)
2014-11-2447REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Government's motion for summary judgment shall be due by December 5, 2014. The Government's opposition to the cross-motion and reply shall be due by January 13, 2015. Plaintiffs reply in support of the cross-motion shall be due by January 30, 2015. SO ORDERED.( Cross Motions due by 12/5/2014., Responses due by 1/13/2015, Replies due by 1/30/2015.), Motions terminated: 46 CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan M. Manes dated 11/23/2014. filed by William New, Intellectual Property Watch. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/24/2014) (ama) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
2014-12-0548CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-0549MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . and in Opposition to 42 Motion for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-0550DECLARATION of Margot E. Kaminski in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-0551DECLARATION of David S. Levine in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-0552DECLARATION of Jonathan Manes in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (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 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-09***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 54 Letter. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (rdz) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
2015-01-1355LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated January 13, 2015. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
2015-01-1556ORDER granting 55 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 55 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated January 13, 2015. The following schedule shall apply to the anticipated summary judgment motions to be filed by plaintiffs Intellectual Property Watch and William New ("Plaintiffs") and defendant the United States Trade Representative (the "Government"): 1. The Government's reply in support of its summary judgment motion and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by January 27, 2015. 2. Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by February 17, 2015. SO ORDERED. Responses due by 1/27/2015 Replies due by 2/17/2015. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/15/2015) (ama) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
2015-01-2857LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated January 28, 2015. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
2015-01-2858ORDER granting 57 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set , 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . The Government's reply in support of its summary judgment motion and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by February 17, 2015. Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by March 12, 2015. (Replies due by 2/17/2015), (Responses due by 2/17/2015, Replies due by 3/12/2015). (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/28/2015) (kko) Modified on 1/28/2015 (kko). (Entered: 01/28/2015)
2015-02-1759LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Summary Judgment Briefing addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated February 17, 2015. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-1860ORDER granting 59 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Summary Judgment Briefing. The Government's reply in support of its summary judgment motion and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by March 6, 2015. Plaintiffs' reply in support of Plaintiffs' cross-motion shall be due by April 3, 2015. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/18/2015) (kko) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
2015-02-18Set/Reset Deadlines as to 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set , 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . Replies due by 3/6/2015. Responses due by 3/6/2015, Replies due by 4/3/2015. (kko) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
2015-03-0661MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . And In Further Support of the Government's Motion for Summary Judgment . Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
2015-03-0662DECLARATION of Barbara Weisel in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
2015-03-0663DECLARATION of Melissa Keppel in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/06/2015)
2015-04-0164LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan Manes dated 4/1/2015. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
2015-04-0265ORDER: Mr. Kirsch relentlessly continues to file motions with this Court, including a "Second Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" received December 24, 2014, a "Motion to Permit Supplementation" received on March 6, 2015, and a "Motion for Summary Judgment" received March 31, 2015. However, Mr. Kirsch is not a party to this action. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is directed to return to Mr. Kirsch any future submissions that he may file in this case, attaching a copy of this order, without docketing them or transmitting them to the undersigned. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 4/02/2015) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (ama) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-0266ORDER granting 64 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-02***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted entry Transmission to Docket Assistants. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (ama) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-0367REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set . . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-04-0368REPLY AFFIRMATION of Brianna van Kan in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-09-2569OPINION AND ORDER #105920: re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set filed by William New, Intellectual Property Watch, 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set filed by United States Trade Representative. For the reasons stated above, the Court: GRANTS USTR's motion for summary judgment with respect to withholdings of Decision Memoranda (Category 1), ITAC Communications (Category 2), and Draft Chapters (Category 3) under Exemption 1; GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to withholdings of ITAC Communications under Exemption 5; DENIES both parties' motions for summary judgment with respect to withholdings of ITAC Communications under Exemptions 3 and 4; and ORDERS USTR to submit supplemental affidavits, declarations, and/or indices justifying in more detail its withholdings of ITAC Communications under Exemption 3 and Exemption 4 by November 6, 2015. The parties are directed to appear for a status conference on Friday, November 13, 2015, at 10:30 AM. The Clerk is respectfully directed to terminate the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, located at Doc. Nos. 42 and 48. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 9/25/2015) (ama) Modified on 10/6/2015 (ca). (Entered: 09/28/2015)
2015-09-25Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/13/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos. (ama) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
2015-09-2589INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 69 Memorandum & Opinion. (Attachments: # 1 internet citation) (fk) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
2015-11-0670LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated November 6, 2015 re: Court's September 25, 2015 Order. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-0671DECLARATION of Melissa Keppel in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-0672DECLARATION of Ingrid Mitchem in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-0673DECLARATION of Omar Kahn in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-0674DECLARATION of Douglas Nelson in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-0675DECLARATION of Greg S. Slater in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-1176LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference to a date in December, on behalf of both parties addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated November 11, 2015. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/11/2015)
2015-11-1277ORDER granting 76 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The application is granted. The status conference is adjourned to December 11, 2015, at 10:00 am. (Status Conference set for 12/11/2015 at 10:00 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
2015-11-18Received returned mail re: 65 Order. Mail was addressed to William J. Kirsch 1211 S. Eads Street, #211 Arlington, VA 22202 and was returned for the following reason(s): Unable to Forward - Return to Sender. (ca) (Entered: 11/18/2015)
2015-11-2778LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated November 27, 2015 re: Modification to One Vaughn Index. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Revised Vaughn Index)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/27/2015)
2015-11-3079LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 70 Letter addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from Jonathan M. Manes dated November 30, 2015. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
2015-11-3080ORDER granting 79 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The application is granted. Plaintiff's response is now due on December 4, 2015. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
2015-12-0481RESPONSE re: 70 Letter Providing Defendant's Supplemental Submissions . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
2015-12-0482DECLARATION of Jonathan Manes in Support re: 48 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Sample Set .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
2015-12-0883LETTER MOTION to Adjourn Conference by One Week, to Respond to Plaintiffs' Submission addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated December 8, 2015. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
2015-12-0884ORDER granting 83 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The application is granted. The status conference is adjourned to December 18, 2015 at 10:30 am. (Status Conference set for 12/18/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge Edgardo Ramos.) (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 12/08/2015)
2015-12-16Received returned mail re: 65 Order. Mail was addressed to William J. Kirsch 1211 S. Eads Street, #211 Arlington, VA 22202 and was returned for the following reason(s): Return To Sender - Unable To Forward. (ca) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-1685LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated December 16, 2015 re: Reply to Plaintiffs' December 4, 2015 submission. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-1686DECLARATION of Probir Mehta in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-1687LAW STUDENT INTERN APPEARANCE FORM: I authorize this student, Rebecca Wexler: (a) to appear in court or other proceedings on behalf of the above client, and (b) to prepare documents on behalf of the above client. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 12/16/2015) (mro) Modified on 12/29/2015 (mro). (Entered: 12/17/2015)
2015-12-1788DECLARATION of Ingrid Mitchem in Support re: 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment As to Sample Set .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
2016-02-1590MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
2016-02-1591MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
2016-02-1592DECLARATION of Jonathan Manes in Support re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) .. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/15/2016)
2016-03-0993LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiffs' Rule 60 Motion, On Consent addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated March 9, 2016. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
2016-03-1194ORDER granting 93 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . Responses due by 4/11/2016. Replies due by 4/25/2016. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 03/11/2016)
2016-04-0895LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply from April 11 to April 13, 2016 addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated April 8, 2016. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-04-1196ORDER granting 95 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . Responses due by 4/13/2016. Replies due by 4/27/2016. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
2016-04-1397MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . . Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
2016-04-1398DECLARATION of Barbara Weisel in Opposition re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
2016-04-1399DECLARATION of Jonathan McHale in Opposition re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
2016-04-13100DECLARATION of Victor Mroczka in Opposition re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
2016-04-13101DECLARATION of Probir Mehta in Opposition re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) .. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/13/2016)
2016-04-27102REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) . . Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Manes, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
2016-08-31103OPINION AND ORDER #106714 re: 90 MOTION for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule 60(b) filed by William New, Intellectual Property Watch. Both Plaintiffs' and USTR's motions for summary judgment are denied at this time, and will be revisited after USTR has the opportunity to make further submissions establishing that the information and advice contained in the withheld ITAC Communications were submitted in confidence. Once again, those additional submission are due on or before September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs' required response is due on or before October 31, 2016, and USTR's optional reply is due on or before November 14, 2016. Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) motion is denied in substantial part, with the small exception of the six documents withheld solely because they contained proposals made by ITAC members. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 90. It is SO ORDERED. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Brief due by 9/30/2016. Reply to Response to Brief due by 11/14/2016., Responses to Brief due by 10/31/2016) (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 8/31/2016) (kko) Modified on 9/14/2016 (ca). (Entered: 08/31/2016)
2016-09-26104NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Langford on behalf of Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Langford, John) (Entered: 09/26/2016)
2016-09-27105LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court's August 31, 2016 Order addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated September 27, 2016. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
2016-09-27106ORDER granting 105 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The Government's supplemental briefing is now due by October 31, 2016, and Plaintiffs' response thereto is due by November 30, 2016. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
2016-10-28107LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time by One-Week addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated October 28, 2016. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
2016-10-31108ORDER granting 107 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The Government's supplemental briefing is now due by November 7, 2016, and Plaintiffs' response thereto is due December 7, 2016. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
2016-11-07109LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated November 7, 2016 re: In Response to the Court's August 2016 Order. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-07110DECLARATION of Jay Taylor in Support re: 109 Letter. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-07111DECLARATION of Ingrid Mitchem in Support re: 109 Letter. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-07112DECLARATION of Janice Kaye in Support re: 109 Letter. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-22113LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Declaration of ITAC Member Previously Unavailable addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated November 22, 2016. Document filed by United States Trade Representative. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of ITAC Member)(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
2016-11-23114ORDER granting 113 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. The application is granted. Plaintiffs are directed to respond by December 23, 2016. Government's reply is due by January 6, 2017. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/23/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
2016-12-01115NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by John Langford on behalf of Intellectual Property Watch, William New. (Langford, John) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-23116LETTER addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from John T. Langford dated December 23, 2016 re: In Response to the Court's August 31, 2016, Opinion and Order and Defendant's November 7, 2016, Letter. Document filed by Intellectual Property Watch, William New.(Langford, John) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
2017-01-12117LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time addressed to Judge Edgardo Ramos from AUSA Ellen Blain dated January 12, 2017. Document filed by United States Trade Representative.(Blain, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
2017-01-17118ORDER granting 117 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. The government's reply is now due January 17, 2017. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Edgardo Ramos)(Text Only Order) (Ramos, Edgardo) (Entered: 01/17/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff