Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case Title100REPORTERS LLC v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2014cv01264
Date Filed2014-07-24
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
Plaintiff100REPORTERS LLC
Case Description100Reporters, LLC, a non-profit media organization focusing on investigating foreign and domestic corruption, submitted a FOIA request to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for records concerning the prosecution of Siemens under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Criminal Division denied the request entirely, citing Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). 100Reporters appealed the denial, which was upheld by the agency. 100Reporters then filed suit.
Complaint issues: Exemption 7(A)

DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DefendantSIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
DefendantTHEO WAIGEL
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Complaint attachment 5
Complaint attachment 6
Complaint attachment 7
Complaint attachment 8
Complaint attachment 9
Complaint attachment 10
Complaint attachment 11
Complaint attachment 12
Opinion/Order [28]
FOIA Project Annotation: There has long been disagreement over the proper role of agencies in assessing the disclosability of business-submitted records and, ultimately, defending a decision to disclose or withhold such records in response to a FOIA request. While agencies have sometimes argued that they are not truly stakeholders and that businesses should probably play a larger role in convincing courts that records are protected by Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and relevant statutes like the Trade Secrets Act, under FOIA agencies bear the burden of persuading a court that a claimed exemption'"including any commercial-related provisions'" is applicable. To the extent that businesses are willing to trust government to adequately protect their interests they bear no legal obligation to participate in the defense of such information when a requester goes to court. However, a recent case provides an interesting discussion of the circumstances under which a company may intervene by right to protect its interests and the claims a plaintiff may make in an attempt to keep the company from participating. The case involved a request from 100Reporters, a non-profit journalism organization, to the Justice Department for records related to the compliance monitoring program established by Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in connection with its 2008 plea agreement for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. DOJ denied the request on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). After the agency upheld its decision on appeal, 100Reporters filed suit. DOJ did not inform Siemens of the request until several months after the suit was filed. Less than a week later, both Siemens and Dr. Karl Waigel, who served four years as an independent corporate compliance monitor to Siemens following the resolution of the ECPA investigation, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Judge Rudolph Contreras explained that under Rule 24(a), an applicant wishing to intervene needed to file to intervene in a timely manner, to show an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the suit, to show that the disposition of the action might impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interests, and to show that its interests might not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Finally, the party seeking to intervene as of right must show that it had standing to participate in the lawsuit. Contreras found both Siemens and Waigel qualified under the timeliness factor, pointing out that "to date, no substantive progress has occurred in this action, and the Court finds that allowing Siemens to intervene at this time would not unduly disrupt the litigation or pose an unfair detriment to the existing parties." Contreras has little problem finding that Siemens had a legally protected interest in the records requested by 100Reporters. He pointed out that "indeed, preventing the disclosure of commercially-sensitive and confidential information is a well-established interest sufficient to justify intervention under Rule 24(a)." But 100Reporters questioned Waigel's legal interest in intervening since he was essentially arguing that disclosure would harm future compliance monitors by failing to protect the confidentiality of their reports and communications with government agencies. Contreras rejected 100Reporters' suggestion that Waigel must show an interest protected by an exemption before being allowed to intervene. Contreras noted that "such a requirement would, in fact, be putting the cart before the horse because a ruling on the merits of an intervenor's right to withhold information under a certain FOIA exemption clearly would be premature at this embryonic stage of the litigation." Instead, he observed, "it is sufficient for purposes of Rule 24(a) that the Monitor has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his reports and communications. . .[T[he Monitor should have an opportunity to litigate the merits of his interest, including whether the interest actually is covered by a FOIA Exemption, in a single proceeding involving all interested parties." 100Reporters argued that as long as DOJ continued to insist that all the records were protected by an exemption the government's interests were aligned with those of Siemens and Waigel. But Contreras indicated that the ruling in Appleton v. FDA 310 F. Supp 2d 194 (D.D.C. 2004) had held that "by the very nature of FOIA litigation the government entity and the private intervenor will possess fundamentally different interests´┐Ż"the government is interested in fulfilling its FOIA obligations; the intervenor is interested in preventing disclosure of its confidential materials´┐Ż"such that the government entity is quite unlikely to provide 'adequate representation.'" He added that "the fact that Siemens and the DOJ presently agree on a litigation posture does not mean that the DOJ necessarily will adequately represent Siemens's interests throughout this action, as the DOJ remains free to change its strategy during the course of litigation." Contreras pointed out that "Siemens's presence in this litigation will ensure that, at the very least, its Exemption 4 argument is asserted as strongly as possible because Siemens is in a unique position to articulate the need to withhold its own confidential materials under that FOIA Exemption." Contreras agreed that DOJ and Waigel also had the same basic interest in non-disclosure, but noted that "that alone, however, does not mean that DOJ will adequately represent the Monitor's interests as contemplated by Rule 24(a), especially when the Monitor intends to assert arguments under FOIA Exemption 4." Finally, Contreras found that Siemens and Waigel both had standing. He noted that "when, as here, it is clear that the FOIA requestor seeks the release of documents that are likely to contain the intervenor's confidential information, the intervenor's injury is both particularized and sufficiently imminent. It is not surprising then, that 100Reporters cannot cite a single FOIA case in which a court denied on standing grounds the application of a prospective intervenor whose own confidential materials were the clear subject of the FOIA request. Instead, though there always exists significant overlap between Rule 24(a)'s interest requirement and Article III's injury-in-fact requirement, that likely never is truer than in a situation such as this, where the imminent and concrete risk of the proposed intervenor's confidential materials being released through a successful FOIA action is obvious."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing
Opinion/Order [78]
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2014-07-241COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3788880) filed by 100Reporters LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
2014-07-24Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (kb) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-252NOTICE TO ISSUE REVISED SUMMONS by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-253SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(kb, ) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-314NOTICE of Appearance by Theodore David Frank on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Frank, Theodore) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
2014-08-075Corporate Disclosure Statement by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-076RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/6/2014. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/5/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-077RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 8/4/14. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-078RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 8/4/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-239Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 08/23/2014)
2014-08-25MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's response to the complaint shall be filed on or before October 6, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 08/25/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/6/2014, (tj ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-10-0310Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
2014-10-06MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's response is due on or before October 14, 2004. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/06/2014. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
2014-10-1411ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Truong, John) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-14MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before October 29, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/14/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-2012NOTICE of Appearance by Raul F. Yanes on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-2013MOTION to Intervene by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit (Proposed Answer), # 4 Exhibit (LCvR 7.1 Certificate of Corporate Disclosures))(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-2014MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - (212) 450-4000. Fax No. - (212) 450-6032 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3877469. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Declaration of Michael Scheinkman), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-2015MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - (212) 450-4000. Fax No. - (212) 450-5649 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3877475. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Declaration of Paul Spagnoletti), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-2016NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. Case related to Case No. 08-367 and 08-2167. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-2017MOTION to Intervene by THEO WAIGEL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Answer)(Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-21MINUTE ORDER granting 14 , 15 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice : Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, it is hereby ORDERED that Michael Scheinkman and Paul Spagnoletti are admitted to represent proposed Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/21/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
2014-10-2818NOTICE OF OBJECTION by 100REPORTERS LLC re 16 Notice of Related Case (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-2819MOTION for Hearing re Order (Motion for Status Conference) by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-2920MOTION for Order and Status Report by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-30MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 19 Plaintiff's motion for a hearing and 20 Defendant's motion for an order and status report, it is hereby ORDERED that a Status Conference shall be held on December 3, 2014, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/30/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
2014-10-3021RESPONSE re 18 Notice (Other) /Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Notice of Related Case filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
2014-11-0322RESPONSE re 17 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-0423NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Rosenberg on behalf of THEO WAIGEL (Rosenberg, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
2014-11-05Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/3/2014 @ 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj ) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
2014-11-1024REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION to Intervene filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
2014-11-1025REPLY to opposition to motion re 17 MOTION to Intervene filed by THEO WAIGEL. (Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
2014-11-1326MOTION to Continue Consent Motion to Reschedule Status Conference by THEO WAIGEL (Sigler, Geoffrey) Modified event title on 11/14/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 11/13/2014)
2014-11-18MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Motion to Continue Status Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for December 3, 2014, is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that the status conference is rescheduled for December 16, 2014, at 11:00 AM. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/18/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
2014-12-0327ORDER granting 13 Siemens's Motion to Intervene; and granting 17 Dr. Waigel's Motion to Intervene. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/3/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
2014-12-0328MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 13 Siemens's Motion to Intervene; and granting 17 Dr. Waigel's Motion to Intervene. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/3/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
2014-12-0329ANSWER to Complaint by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT.(znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0330LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT identifying Corporate Parent SIEMENS CAPITAL COMPANY LLC, Corporate Parent SIEMENS LTD., MUMBAI, Corporate Parent SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO., LTD. for SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0331ANSWER to Complaint by THEO WAIGEL.(znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0432NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald G. London on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (London, Ronald) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0433NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Rose Handman on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (Handman, Laura) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0434NOTICE of Appearance by Adam M. Shoemaker on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (Shoemaker, Adam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-0535NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to 100REPORTERS LLC. Attorney Theodore David Frank and Murad Hussain terminated. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-1536NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Spagnoletti on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-1537NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Scheinkman on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Scheinkman, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-1538NOTICE of Appearance by Francis Joseph Warin on behalf of THEO WAIGEL (Warin, Francis) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-16Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 12/16/2014. Parties advise the court of the status of this action. (Court Reporter: Annette Montalvo.) (tj) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
2014-12-2239NOTICE of Proposed Order On Behalf Of All Parties by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
2014-12-2940CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/29/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
2014-12-31Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/23/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (gdf) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
2015-03-3041Consent MOTION to Modify Case Management Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-03-30MINUTE ORDER granting 41 Consent Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. It is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the U.S. Department of Justice shall have up to and including June 1, 2015, to meet its obligations as set forth in Paragraph III of the 40 Case Management Scheduling Order; and (2) the April 23, 2015, Status Hearing is VACATED and rescheduled for June 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/30/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-03-31Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/10/2015@ 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj ) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
2015-04-0242MOTION to Continue Consent Motion to Reschedule Status Hearing by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-03MINUTE ORDER granting 42 Siemens' consent motion to reschedule the status hearing: It is hereby ORDERED that the status hearing scheduled for June 10, 2015, is VACATED and rescheduled for June 16, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/03/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-06-1543MOTION to Continue / Consent Motion to Adjourn Status Hearing and Enter Briefing Schedule by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
2015-06-16MINUTE ORDER granting 43 the motion to continue, and VACATING the status conference currently scheduled for 6/16/15 @ 10:00am. (Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/16/15). (tj) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
2015-06-1744SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/17/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
2015-06-24Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 11/19/2015. Response to Cross Motions due by 12/18/2015. Reply to Cross Motions due by 1/14/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 10/19/2015. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/19/2015. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/18/2015. Vaughn Index due by 9/17/2015 (tj) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
2015-09-1645Consent MOTION to Modify The Court's June 17, 2105 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 44) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
2015-09-1746REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/17/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
2015-10-1547NOTICE of Compliance of September 17, 2015 Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
2015-11-0548Consent MOTION to Modify The Court's September 17, 2015 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2015-11-06MINUTE ORDER granting 48 Defendant's Motion to Modify: It is hereby ORDERED that 46 the Court's Scheduling Order and the deadlines for summary judgment briefing are VACATED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report on or before December 18, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/6/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-06Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/18/2015. (gdf) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-12-1849Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Briefing Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
2015-12-2250SECOND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/22/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
2016-02-2251Consent MOTION to Modify Second Revised Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
2016-02-2352THIRD REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 51 Motion to Modify. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/23/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-02-23Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 4/15/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 5/16/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/6/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 3/15/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/15/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/16/2016. (tj) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-03-1453MOTION to Modify Third Revised Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
2016-03-1454FOURTH REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 53 Motion to Modify. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/14/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
2016-03-1755MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Gerard McCarthy, :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - 212-450-4000. Fax No. - 212-450-5586 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-4450625. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gerard McCarthy, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
2016-03-18MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice : Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, it is hereby ORDERED that Gerard McCarthy is admitted to represent Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft pro hac vice in this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/18/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-03-2156NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Claude Sprung on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Sprung, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
2016-03-2257MOTION for Summary Judgment by THEO WAIGEL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of F. Joseph Warin, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-2258MOTION for Summary Judgment by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Joel Kirsch in Support of Siemens' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-2259MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit of Suzanna Moberly and Exhs A to E, # 4 Exhibit F (Amended Vaughn Index), # 5 Exhibit G (Table of Documents), # 6 Affidavit of Tarek Helou, # 7 Affidavit of Joey Lipton, # 8 Affidavit of Tracy Price)(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-2360NOTICE by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to E)(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
2016-03-2361NOTICE of Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support (Corrected))(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
2016-04-2262MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-2263Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-2264RESPONSE to Defendants' Jt. Statement of Facts filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-05-1065Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment and their respective oppositions to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before June 16, 2016. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a single consolidated reply brief in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment on or before July 22, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/10/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-06-1066MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order and extend the briefing deadlines by 60 days by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-1067ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION for Leave to File the Declaration of John C. Truong Under Seal by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) Modified on 6/13/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-1068SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Truong, John) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-13NOTICE OF ERROR re 67 Motion for Leave to File; emailed to john.truong@usdoj.gov, cc'd 21 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Entered in Error; Duplicative motion; In future, only the Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal entry is required. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
2016-06-15MINUTE ORDER granting 68 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal: It is hereby ORDERED that Attachment A to 68 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal shall be accepted as filed under seal. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/15/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
2016-06-15MINUTE ORDER granting 66 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment and their respective oppositions to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before August 16, 2016. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a single consolidated reply brief in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment on or before September 22, 2016. The Court observes that 44 the Court's initial Scheduling Order called for summary judgment briefing to conclude on January 14, 2016. Prior to the unanticipated medical issue of counsel for Defendant, the Court granted multiple motions to extend the briefing schedule and issued four Revised Scheduling Orders. It is therefore FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not grant any further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/15/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
2016-06-1569SEALED DOCUMENT (Sworn Declaration) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. re 66 MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order and extend the briefing deadlines by 60 days filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(znmw) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-08-1670REPLY to opposition to motion re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by THEO WAIGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sigler, Geoffrey) Modified link on 8/17/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-1671Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spagnoletti, Paul) Modified link on 8/17/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-1672Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts)(Truong, John) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-1673REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Reply Regarding Defendants' Joint Statement of Material Facts)(Truong, John) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-1674Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by THEO WAIGEL. (See Docket Entry 70 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
2016-08-1675REPLY to opposition to motion re 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (See Docket Entry 71 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
2016-09-2276REPLY to opposition to motion re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
2017-03-3177ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Defendant-Intervenor Theo Waigel's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 58 Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 59 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying 62 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2017-03-3178MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 57 Defendant-Intervenor Theo Waigel's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 58 Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 59 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying 62 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff