Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: The public interest organization TRAC, housed at Syracuse University, has been dealt a severe blow in its attempts to access large quantities of agency data that it, in turn, uses to analyze government operations, by a ruling by Judge Amit Mehta finding that disclosure of several databases at the Department of Homeland Security would be too burdensome for the agency. The case explores agencies' obligations under FOIA to provide such massive amounts of data when to do so would cause serious disruptions in the agency's normal FOIA processes, either by requiring the agency to manipulate its databases in ways that it does not usually do or by presenting practically insurmountable problems in redacting data that is legitimately exempt. The case involved seven requests submitted by TRAC. Two requests asked for documentation related to several databases used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement�"the Enforcement Integrated Database, which includes information related to the investigation, arrest, booking, detention, and removal of individuals, and the Integrated Decision Support Database, a subset of the EID database that provides a continuously updated snapshot of certain EID data. In response to those two requests, ICE produced 97 pages and withheld the remaining responsive documents. The other five requests were for snapshots of data from the EID database. Two requests were sent to ICE. One request asked for information about actual snapshots of data extracted from the EID database, including how those snapshots were prepared and who was responsible for preparing the snapshots. The second request asked for a snapshot of the ENFORCE, which allows the agency to create, modify and access data stored in the EID database. TRAC next sent a request to Customs and Border Protection for a snapshot of EID data prepared for that agency. TRAC's final requests to ICE asked for a snapshot of the EID database prepared for the EARM Data Mart. The other request went to both ICE and CBP and asked for a snapshot of the EID data prepared for EID Data Mart. Both the EARM Datamart and the EID Datamart are subsets of data from the EID database pertaining to individuals involved in removal proceedings. In response to TRAC's request about how snapshots from the EID database were prepared, the agency disclosed nine pages redacted under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The agency did not respond to the requests for actual snapshots of data. By the time the case got to court, the agency asserted information related to the databases was protected by Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) and Exemption 7(E). The agency also told Mehta that "the snapshots Plaintiff requested were not retained for the date ranges of the subject FOIA requests,. . .the requested information could not be produced with the technology currently in the Agency's possession and. . . even if the information could be produced, Defendants were not capable of redacting the information." The agency primarily relied on Exemption 7(E) for withholding the records about the structure of the database. TRAC argued the databases were not created for law enforcement purposes, a proposition Mehta quickly rejected. He noted that "plaintiffs concede that Defendants use the EID and IIDS databases for law enforcement purposes�"to assist ICE and CBP with deporting people unlawfully in the United States, to arrest those who violate federal immigration laws, and to track investigations and court proceedings of those apprehended. Thus, records concerning how these databases are constructed and how they operate�"like the data itself�"clearly have a rational 'nexus' to Defendants' law enforcement duties." He added that "these are not the kind of records compiled for generalized snooping of individuals' lives, but were prepared to effectuate the agencies' law enforcement responsibilities." Mehta then explained that the D.C. Circuit's decision in Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011), finding that methods of data collection could be protected under Exemption 7(E), meant that the DHS databases qualified for the exemption as well. He observed that "Blackwell [and similar district court rulings] teach that internal database codes, fields, and other types of identifiers used by law enforcement agencies to conduct, organize, and manage investigations and prosecutions qualify, at least, as law enforcement guidelines, if not also law enforcement methods and techniques." Mehta found TRAC offered its strongest argument as to why Exemption 7(E) did not apply when it came to the agency's claim that disclosure of database information could risk circumvention of law by allowing hackers to get into the databases. TRAC argued that "an unlawful cyber-attack cannot serve as a basis for withholding EID and IIDS metadata and database schema because such information, if disclosed, does not risk circumvention of the laws enforced by Defendants." But Mehta found that interpretation too narrow, noting that 'Congress did not qualify or modify 'the law' in any way to circumscribe the types of laws that might be violated in the event of disclosure for Exemption 7(E) to apply. Thus, a plain reading of the statute does not support Plaintiff's interpretation." However, Mehta was more convinced by TRAC's argument that a cyber-attack was not a credible threat because such an attack would require a publicly accessible interface with the EID or IIDS systems and such an outside interface did not exist. The agency pointed to an attack on Home Depot's database, but TRAC responded that attack was accomplished by gaining access through a point-of-sale machine, a scenario that did not exist here. Mehta indicated that the agency's burden for showing a risk of circumvention was quite low and observed that "judges are not cyber specialists and it would be the height of judicial irresponsibility for a court to blithely disregard such a claimed risk." Nevertheless, Mehta found the agency had not yet met the low bar for showing a risk of circumvention. He pointed out that "the court is left unconvinced, at this juncture, that the sole risk of circumvention of the law claimed by Defendants�"SQL injection attack�"would be increased if the requested metadata and database schema were disclosed." He ordered the agency to supplement the record on the issue. Alternatively, the agency claimed the database information was protected by the Federal Information Security Management Act. Unfortunately for the agency, Mehta observed that statute was repealed entirely on December 18, 2014 while the litigation was pending and was replaced by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, which, Mehta noted, did not qualify as an Exemption 3 statute because it did not cite to FOIA as required by the OPEN FOIA Act and because it did not alter agencies' FOIA obligations. Turning to TRAC's requests for snapshots, Mehta agreed with the agency that it did not have the technological ability to comply with the requests. Mehta observed that "Defendants have demonstrated that producing and redacting the requested snapshots would be unduly burdensome. The agency argued that the kind of snapshots requested by TRAC did not exist and that to create them would require programming that might run into the millions of dollars. Further, "even if Defendants could replicate the snapshot for production, they would face tremendous challenges in redacting sensitive personal and law enforcement material, which even Plaintiffs concede are subject to valid FOIA exemptions. The tables available in the EID consist of more than 6.7 billion rows of data, with the total amount of information contained within the EID exceeding five terabytes." TRAC submitted an affidavit from its own software engineer who indicated that commercial software provided significant ability to extract data and that the agency's cost estimate appeared overblown. But Mehta noted that "although [TRAC's declaration] raises some questions about whether the snapshots are indeed readily reproducible and redactable, the court ultimately finds those questions insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact that would preclude summary judgment in Defendants' favor. FOIA requires courts to 'accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency's determination as to technical feasibility. . .Plaintiff's declarant, though an expert in the field of database systems and management, has not offered any evidence that specifically rebuts [the agency's] assertions about the agencies' present technological capabilities as to the EID database and associated datamarts or regarding the burden that reproduction and redaction of the snapshots would impose on them. . .But once, as here, an agency has proffered a declaration as to the technical feasibility and reproducibility of a records request�"which, by statute, must be accorded substantial weight�"a plaintiff must offer more than generalities about technical capabilities of generic systems to overcome or raise questions about that declaration." TRAC's last argument was that disclosing the snapshots could not be that complex because ICE had provided similar snapshots to TRAC in response to previous requests. The agency argued that TRAC's current requests "are meaningfully different in scope and scale. Whereas Plaintiffs' previous, fulfilled requests sought specific information contained in the snapshots, the present requests seek the snapshots in their entirety." Mehta agreed, noting that "a request for a snapshot of the entire database is 'vastly different' from Plaintiffs' previous requests and, as a consequence, the manner in which ICE responded to the prior requests is 'wholly inadequate for responding to a request for all the data replicated at unspecified points in time into other datamarts.'. . .Plaintiffs have not offered any evidence specific to the databases at issue here that rebuts those contentions."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Prosecutorial guidelines - Risk of circumvention, Choice of format - Burdensome, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 3 - Provision must cite to FOIA

FOIA Project Annotation: To settle a dispute between TRAC and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as to whether disclosing metadata and database schema for its Enforcement Integration Database and its Integrated Decision Support Database, used to manage cases pertaining to the detention of undocumented immigrants, could lead to a risk of circumvention of the law as to qualify for protection under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), Judge Amit Mehta has set the case for trial. Since FOIA cases are almost always settled based on the parties' briefs, the need to hold an actual trial with witnesses is nearly unheard of. Making this case even rarer, the handful of cases that do go to trial almost always concern Exemption 4 (confidential business information), not Exemption 7(E). Nevertheless, sometimes a trial is the only way to ultimately settle a disputed issue. TRAC was forced to file suit after ICE decided to no longer disclose the data sometime after 2010, even though the agency had provided essentially the same data before that time. Previously, TRAC had regularly submitted FOIA requests covering current timeframes and the agency had released data that satisfied TRAC's requests. TRAC's lawsuit covered seven separate FOIA requests, only three of which were still in dispute. The agency withheld the metadata and database schema under Exemption 7(E), claiming that disclosure of the data from either database would risk a Structured Query Language (SQL) injection attack. TRAC argued that disclosure of the data could not result in an SQL injection attack because that type of attack requires a direct connection to a database and neither the EID nor the IIDS are publicly accessible. In his previous ruling, Mehta had agreed that the data qualified under the threshold requirement for Exemption 7 â€" that the information was created or compiled for law enforcement purposes â€" but found that the agency had not shown that disclosure could reasonably risk circumvention of the law and, in light of TRAC's contention that such an attack was not possible, ordered the agency to provide a more detailed explanation of its claim. This time, the agency argued that disclosure would risk circumvention of law "because disclosing that information would make it easier for hackers to create convincing e-mails that lull unsuspecting, authorized users to click on nefarious links or attachments, also known as phishing, or spear phishing attacks, and inadvertently allow hackers to access the system and/or steal users' credentials." Acknowledging that the D.C. Circuit's caselaw on Exemption 7(E) set a low bar for claiming the exemption, Mehta pointed out that "nonetheless, the Government cannot simply cite Exemption 7(E) and expect the court to rubber stamp its withholdings. At a minimum, the Government must show that its stated expectation of risk is reasonable." Rather than focus on the SQL injection attack that had been at the heart of its argument previously, the agency now focused on how a phishing attack might allow a hacker to gain entry. The agency told Mehta that "the information Plaintiffs requested would undermine its 'defense in depth' security strategy, in which it buries information about the system to prevent attackers from having the information that allows them to mount successful phishing and spear-phishing attacks. Additionally, release of this information would place other agencies' systems at risk, because once one system suffers a successful hack, any other connected system also can be breached." The agency also insisted that any prior disclosure of this information had been entirely "inadvertent." TRAC responded that "hackers do not need the metadata and database schema to launch an e-mail-based attack, but even if that information was disclosed, any risk of circumvention of law still depends on Defendant's system having some external access point, such as a web-based interface or internet connection, that would allow the hacker to remotely access or control the system â€" which the Defendant's system does not have." TRAC also pointed out that the agency had provided the data on at least 100 occasions and was still disclosing it currently. TRAC concluded that "any expected risk of circumvention of law is not 'reasonable,' given the agency's consistent and fulsome release of this information for roughly the last ten years, including throughout the length of this litigation." Faced with these contrary positions, Mehta observed that "summary judgment is inappropriate because Defendant's affidavits do not state in any level of detail how a hacker could access a system with no external access point, and Plaintiffs have introduced specific facts that contradict Defendant's statements that all prior releases of this information were inadvertent. These uncertainties on the record create a triable issue of fact as to the reasonableness of Defendant's expectation of risk of circumvention of the law." Mehta was puzzled as to whether or not such an attack could possibly be successful if there was no way for hackers to gain external access. He pointed out that "these questions are material because Defendant's argument centers on the fact that a circumvention of law only occurs when the hacker accesses the database. If there is no means of accessing the database, then Defendant's expectation that disclosure of the EID and IIDS metadata and database schema will risk circumvention of the law is not reasonable. Although Defendant continuously repeats that access to the EID is possible even in the absence of an external access point, Defendant has offered no explanation for how that would occur. At most, Defendant indicates that disclosure of the withheld materials would allow a hacker to study the database. But what then? The court could infer from Defendant's submissions that the EID is connected to another government database that has an external access point and that interconnection makes the EID vulnerable, but that is impermissible speculation on the court's part. Defendant has not identified any database that is connected to the EID, has an external access point, and is vulnerable to attack." Mehta was also concerned about the agency's insistence that any disclosures were inadvertent, while TRAC provided evidence that the same data had been disclosed for the past ten years. He noted that "Plaintiff's representations that Defendant not only has disclosed large amounts of functionally indistinguishable information to that being currently withheld, but also has done so for nearly ten years â€" with the most recent disclosure occurring in February 2017 â€" directly contravenes Defendant's statement that the disclosures of the EID and IIDS metadata and database schema was entirely 'inadvertent' and the agency has acted to prevent such disclosures since June 2013." He observed that "these disputed facts are material because if Defendant has been knowingly and intentionally disclosing EID and IIDS metadata and database schema for year, including during the present litigation, then that would call into question the reasonableness of Defendant's expectation that disclosure of the presently withheld information could contribute to or increase the risk of phishing, spear phishing, APT attacks, or SQL attacks." He pointed out that if that were the case, then "it arguably would be patently unreasonable to claim an expected risk of attack from disclosing the presently withheld materials."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Prosecutorial guidelines - Risk of circumvention

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2014-01-29	1	COMPLAINT against CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3605500) filed by SUSAN B. LONG, DAVID BURNHAM. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Attorney General, # 3 Summons United States Attorney, # 4 Summons Immigrations & Customs Enforcement, # 5 Summons Customs & Border Protection)(Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
2014-01-29		Case Assigned to Judge John D. Bates. (kb) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
2014-01-29	2	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (4) Issued as to CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(kb) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
2014-02-17	3	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 1/30/2014. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/1/2014. (Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 02/17/2014)
2014-02-25	4	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
2014-02-25		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 4 the government's consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein; it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the government shall answer or otherwise respond to 1 plaintiffs' complaint by not later than April 2, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 2/25/2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
2014-02-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/2/2014. (tb, ) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
2014-04-02	5	ANSWER to Complaint by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT.(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-03	6	ORDER setting schedule. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/3/2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
2014-04-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 4/24/2014. (tb, ) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
2014-04-24	7	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
2014-04-25		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 7 defendants' consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule (or separate proposals, if they cannot agree) by not later than April 28, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/25/2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
2014-04-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 4/28/2014. (tb, ) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-04-28	8	Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-04-28	9	ORDER granting 8 the parties' joint motion for a briefing schedule. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/28/2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-04-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 10/3/2014. Response to Cross Motions due by 11/3/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 12/3/2014. Summary Judgment motions due by 8/18/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/3/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/3/2014. Vaughn Index due by 6/18/2014, (tb, ) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-06-18	10	Vaughn Index Notice of Filing of Vaughn Index . (Attachments: # 1 Vaughn Index)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
2014-07-17	11	Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
2014-07-18		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 the parties' joint motion to amend the briefing schedule in this case, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall supplement their Vaughn index and, if applicable, their non-exempt disclosures by not later than August 5, 2014; it is further ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be filed by not later than August 25, 2014; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment shall be filed by not later than October 10, 2014; it is further ORDERED that defendants' opposition and reply shall be filed by not later than November 10, 2014; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs' reply shall be filed by not later than December 10, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on July 18, 2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
2014-07-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 10/10/2014. Response to Cross Motions due by 11/10/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 12/10/2014. Summary Judgment motions due by 8/25/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/10/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/10/2014. Vaughn Index due by 8/5/2014, (tb, ) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
2014-08-04	12	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
2014-08-04		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 12 defendants' consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file a supplemental Vaughn Index by not later than August 12, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on August 4, 2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
2014-08-05		Set/Reset Deadline: Defendants shall file a Supplemental Vaughn Index by 8/12/2014. (jth) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
2014-08-12	13	Vaughn Index Supplemental Vaughn Index . (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Vaughn Index)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
2014-08-22	14	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
2014-08-25		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 14 defendants' consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment by not later than September 29, 2014; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment by not later than November 3, 2014; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their opposition and reply by not later than December 12, 2014; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their reply by not later than January 12, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on August 25, 2014. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 11/3/2014. Response to Cross Motions due by 12/12/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 1/12/2015. Summary Judgment motions due by 9/29/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/3/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/12/2015. (tb, ) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-09-26	15	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
2014-09-26		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 15 defendants' consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment by not later than October 2, 2014; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment by not later than November 6, 2014; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their opposition and reply by not later than December 15, 2014; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their reply by not later than January 15, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 9/26/14. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
2014-09-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 10/2/2014; Plaintiffs Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 11/6/2014; Defendants Cross-Opposition and Reply is due by 12/15/2014; Plaintiffs Cross-Reply is due by 1/15/2015. (jth) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
2014-10-01	16	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
2014-10-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 16 defendants' consent motion for an extension, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment by not later than October 9, 2014; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment by not later than November 13, 2014; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file their opposition and reply by not later than December 22, 2014; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their reply by not later than January 22, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 10/1/14. (lcjdb1) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
2014-10-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 11/13/2014. Response to Cross Motions due by 12/22/2014. Reply to Cross Motions due by 1/22/2015. Summary Judgment motions due by 10/9/2014. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/13/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/22/2014. (tb, ) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
2014-10-09	17	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Attachments 1 - 26 to Exhibit 2, # 4 Attachment 27 to Exhibit 2, # 5 Attachment 28 to Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
2014-11-13	18	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jehan A. Patterson, # 2 Declaration of Susan B. Long, # 3 Declaration of Paul C. Clark, # 4 Declaration of Michael Hasan, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
2014-11-13	19	Memorandum in opposition to re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jehan A. Patterson, # 2 Declaration of Susan B. Long, # 3 Declaration of Paul C. Clark, # 4 Declaration of Michael Hasan, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
2014-12-19	20	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment , 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
2014-12-22		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 20 defendants' consent motion for an extension of time, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall file any opposition to plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment by not later than January 12, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file any reply to defendants' opposition by not later than February 27, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 12/22/2014. (lcjdb4) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
2014-12-24		Case randomly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. Judge John D. Bates no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
2014-12-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants shall file their Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by 1/12/2015; Plaintiffs shall file any Reply in support of their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by 2/27/2015. (jth) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
2015-01-09	21	NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Lawrence Nelson on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
2015-01-12	22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment , 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
2015-01-14	23	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment , 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
2015-01-28	24	Vaughn Index Supplemental Vaughn Index . (Attachments: # 1 Vaughn Index, # 2 Vaughn Index)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
2015-01-28	25	Memorandum in opposition to re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Wilson Supp Decl, # 2 Exhibit to Wilson Decl, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Pineiro Supp Decl, # 4 Exhibit to Pineiro Decl, # 5 Exhibit to Pineiro Decl, # 6 Response to Pl Statement of Facts, # 7 Def Statement of Facts)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/28/2015)
2015-02-04		MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc to January 12, 2015, 22 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply; and nunc pro tunc to January 14, 2015, 23 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Defendant's 25 Memorandum in Opposition that was filed on January 28, 2015 shall be considered timely. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs' Reply is to be filed on or before March 16, 2015. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/04/2015. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
2015-03-10	26	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Reply in Support of Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
2015-03-12		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is to be filed on or before March 30, 2015. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/12/2015. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
2015-03-12		ENTERED IN ERROR.....MINUTE ORDER vacating the initial scheduling conference previously set for 03/12/2015. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/12/2015. (lcapm1) Modified on 3/12/2015 (tth). (Entered: 03/12/2015)
2015-03-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Cross Motions due by 3/30/2015. (sm) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
2015-03-12		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re MINUTE ORDER was entered in error. (tth) (Entered: 03/12/2015)
2015-03-30	27	REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Second Declaration of Susan B. Long, # 2 Declaration Second Declaration of Paul Clark, # 3 Declaration Second Declaration of Michael Hasan, # 4 Statement of Facts Response to Defendants' Statement of Facts)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-10-20	28	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. Attorney Jehan A. Patterson terminated. (Patterson, Jehan) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
2015-10-20		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Oral Argument re 17 , 18 Cross Motions for Summary Judgment set for 10/28/2015 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (cdw) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
2015-10-28		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Motion Hearing held on 10/28/2015 re 17 18 Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Motions heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Barbara DeVico) (cdw) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
2015-12-14	29	MEMRORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 17 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part 18 Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. It is further ordered that, within 30 days of this date, Defendants shall be permitted to supplement their summary judgment briefing with additional evidence that supports their assertions that (1) disclosure of metadata and database schema "could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law" under Exemption 7(E) and (2) they have conducted an adequate search for records in response to FOIA Request III. Thereafter, within seven days, Plaintiffs shall notify the court if they intend to challenge the newly submitted evidence, and if so, the parties shall propose a briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/14/2015. (lcapm2) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
2016-01-13	30	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to submit supplemental evidence by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
2016-01-14		MINUTE ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Supplemental Evidence. It is further ordered that Defendants shall submit supplemental evidence in support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before January 20, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/14/2016. (lcapm1) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
2016-01-14		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' Supplemental evidence due by 1/20/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
2016-01-19	31	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court's December 14, 2015 Order by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
2016-01-20		MINUTE ORDER granting 31 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall submit supplemental evidence in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment on or before February 2, 2016. The court further orders that, on or before February 17, 2016, Plaintiffs shall notify the court if they intend to challenge the newly submitted evidence, and if so, the parties shall propose a briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/20/2016. (lcapm2) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
2016-01-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants shall submit supplemental evidence in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment by 2/2/2016. Plaintiffs shall notify the court by 2/17/2016 if they intend to challenge the newly submitted evidence, and if so, the parties shall propose a briefing schedule. (jth) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
2016-02-02	32	NOTICE of Supplemental Evidence by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT re 29 Memorandum & Opinion,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
2016-02-17	33	Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule Joint Motion for Supplemental Briefing Schedule by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
2016-02-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 33 Joint Motion for Supplemental Briefing Schedule. Defendants shall file their supplemental memorandum on or before March 18, 2016; Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental memorandum and any supporting materials on or before April 18, 2016; and Defendants shall file any reply on or before May 9, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/18/2016. (lcapm2) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
2016-02-19		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Supplemental Brief due by 3/18/2016. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief due by 4/18/2016. Defendants' Replies due by 5/9/2016. (zmm) (Entered: 02/19/2016)
2016-03-17	34	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
2016-03-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time and setting the following schedule for further proceedings: Defendants shall file their supplemental memorandum on or before April 1, 2016; Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental memorandum and any supporting materials on or before May 2, 2016; Defendants shall file their reply to Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum, if any, on or before May 23, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/18/2016. (lcapm2) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-03-18		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants supplemental memorandum due by 4/1/2016. Plaintiffs supplemental memorandum due by 5/2/2016. Defendants reply due by 5/23/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-04-01	35	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Ross, Carl) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
2016-04-01	42	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (To view document see docket entry 35 )(zrdj) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
2016-04-22	36	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendants' Supplemental Brief by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-25		MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is further ordered that Plaintiffs shall file their supplemental memorandum and any supporting materials on or before May 20, 2016; and Defendants shall file their reply to Plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum, if any, on or before June 10, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/25/2016. (lcapm1) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
2016-04-26		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief due by 5/20/2016. Reply due by 6/10/2016. (zmm) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
2016-05-20	37	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 35 Supplemental Memorandum filed by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Third Declaration of Susan B. Long, # 2 Declaration Third Declaration of Paul Clark)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
2016-06-09	38	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 06/09/2016)
2016-06-10		MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall file its Reply in Support of its Supplemental Memorandum on or before June 24, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/10/2016. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-24	39	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
2016-06-28		MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants shall file their Reply in Support of its Supplemental Memorandum on or before July 1, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/28/2016. (lcapm2) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
2016-06-28		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' replies due by 7/1/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
2016-07-01	40	REPLY to opposition to motion re 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Cross-Motion and Reply filed by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ross, Carl) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
2017-01-18	41	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Melanie Dyani Hendry on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Carl Ross (Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 01/18/2017)
2017-01-26		MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to the telephone conference held on January 26, 2017, the parties shall file supplemental briefing on the following question: Whether there remains a "reasonable" risk of a security breach given Plaintiffs' claim that Defendants previously disclosed samples of the requested information. Defendants shall file their Supplemental Brief on or before February 21, 2017, and Plaintiffs shall file their Response on or before March 3, 2017. Each brief shall be limited to 10 pages. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/26/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
2017-01-26		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Telephone Conference held on 1/26/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
2017-01-26		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' supplemental brief due by 2/21/2017. Plaintiffs' response due by 3/3/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
2017-02-17	43	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
2017-02-17		MINUTE ORDER granting Defendants' 43 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Brief. Defendants' Supplemental Brief is now due on or before February 28, 2017. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief is due on or before March 10, 2017. No further extensions will be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/17/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
2017-02-17		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' Supplemental Brief due by 2/28/2017. Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief due by 3/10/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
2017-02-28	44	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to filed by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
2017-03-10	45	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment , 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Fourth Declaration of Susan B. Long)(Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
2017-03-27		MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to file a Joint Status Report by April 6, 2017, stating (1) whether the parties intend to submit their dispute to mediation, and (2) if so, what time limit, if any, they wish to place on such mediation. If either party determines prior to April 6, 2017, that mediation will not occur, then that party must inform opposing counsel and the court. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/27/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
2017-03-27		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 4/6/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 03/28/2017)
2017-04-06	46	Joint STATUS REPORT by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG. (Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
2017-04-06		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' 46 Joint Status Report, the court orders the parties to submit another Joint Status Report on or before May 4, 2017, updating the court on the parties' effort to settle this matter and stating whether the parties wish for the court to appoint a mediator. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/06/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
2017-04-06		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 5/4/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 04/09/2017)
2017-05-04	47	Joint STATUS REPORT re Mediation by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
2017-09-29	48	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 17 Motion for Summary Judgment and denying in full Plaintiffs' 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties are ordered to appear for a status hearing on October 12, 2017, at 11:00 a.m., in Courtroom 10. See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/29/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-09-29		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/12/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zcdw) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-10-13		MINUTE ORDER setting an evidentiary hearing for January 17-18, 2018, to begin at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10. The parties are directed to meet and confer to set a date for the mutual exchange of exhibits. In a Joint Status Report to be filed on or before October 19, 2017, the parties shall inform the court of (1) the date for the mutual exchange of exhibits, and (2) whether the date of the evidentiary hearing presents a conflict for any witness. In the event of a scheduling conflict as to the evidentiary hearing, the parties are directed to coordinate with one another to find three dates on which both parties and all witnesses are available and to include those proposed dates in the Joint Status Report filed on October 19, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/13/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
2017-10-19	49	Joint STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-10-20		MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' 49 Joint Status Report, the court resets the evidentiary hearing in this matter to January 24-25, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10. Absent leave of court, the parties shall exchange exhibits no later than 30 days prior to the hearing. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/20/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
2017-10-20		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Evidentiary Hearing reset for 1/24/2018 and 1/25/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zcdw) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
2017-12-20	50	NOTICE Concerning Hearing Dates by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 12/20/2017)
2018-01-05	51	NOTICE Second Notice Concerning Hearing Dates by DAVID BURNHAM, SUSAN B. LONG (Nelson, Scott) (Entered: 01/05/2018)
2018-01-16		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the representations made by the parties on this date concerning one of the government's witnesses scheduled to appear at the evidentiary hearing, the court hereby vacates the evidentiary hearing currently set for January 24-25, 2018. The parties are directed to file a Joint Status Report on or before February 15, 2018, that updates the court and proposes new dates for an evidentiary hearing. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/16/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-16		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 2/15/2018. (zcdw) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-02-15	52	Joint STATUS REPORT by CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Hendry, Melanie) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
2018-02-21		MINUTE ORDER. Per the parties' joint request in their 52 Joint Status Report, the evidentiary hearing in this matter will be held on May 8 and 9, 2018, beginning at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 10. Mr. Onello is permitted to testify on May 9, 2018. Defendants need not make a pre-hearing disclosure of the substance of Mr. Onello's testimony--discovery in FOIA litigation is rarely granted--unless he intends to provide evidence that is materially in conflict with any prior affidavit submitted by Defendants in support of summary judgment. In that event, Mr. Onello shall disclose by affidavit his expected testimony. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/21/2018. (lcapm1) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
Hide Docket Events