Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJETT v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2014cv00276
Date Filed2014-02-21
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Amit P. Mehta
PlaintiffJAMES B. JETT
Case DescriptionJames Jett submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning the agency's investigation of alleged bribery activities associated with a 2012 congressional campaign in Northeast Florida. The FBI indicated it had located 66 pages, but disclosed only 35 redacted pages. The agency claimed that Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) applied to the withheld records. Jett appealed to the Office of Information Policy, but after hearing nothing further, Jett filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantFEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Opinion/Order [20]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the FBI did not conduct an adequate search for records concerning its investigation of allegations that James Jett, a Florida candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives, was approached by intermediaries of his incumbent opponent and offered future employment and reimbursement of campaign expenditures if he agreed to drop out of the race. Jett reported these offers to the FBI, whose Jacksonville field office began an investigation. Jacksonville field office agents asked Jett to record any subsequent phone calls with intermediaries and Jett agreed to do. Based on those recordings, the field office requested permission from the Public Corruption Unit to have Jett wear a wire during a meeting with his opponent, the intermediaries, and a high-ranking member of the House. The Public Corruption Unit, however, turned down the field office's request, advising Jett that before he would be authorized to wear a wire he would have to record another conversation with the intermediaries and unequivocally declare that he was unwilling to drop out of the race. Jett did not record another call. Instead, he met with his opponent and the intermediaries, although the high-ranking member of the House was not present, and told them he had been approached by the FBI about whether he had received any offer to drop out of the race. He also told his opponent that he would not drop out of the race. His opponent denied making such an offer and asked Jett if he was wearing a wire. The meeting ended abruptly and weeks later Jett publicly accused his opponent of trying to bribe him. Based on Jett's actions, the FBI closed its investigation. Jett made a FOIA request to the FBI for records about the investigation, including copies of any telephone tape recordings that were made. The FBI told Jett that it would search its Central Records System for records linked to his name, but would not search for records on identified third parties without a Privacy Act waiver. Jett argued that a Privacy Act waiver was unnecessary because of the public interest in disclosure. After searching under Jett's name, the agency located an FBI Jacksonville main file and two sub-files containing 66 pages. The agency disclosed one page in full, 59 pages with redactions, three pages were withheld entirely, and three pages were withheld as being duplicative. The agency claimed Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement record), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) as the basis for its redactions. Jett claimed the agency's search was inadequate because it failed to search for records of third parties and because it did not search its electronic surveillance indices. Mehta agreed with Jett on both counts. He pointed out that "Jett's failure to produce a Privacy Act waiver did not, in this case, justify the FBI's refusal to search for documents by running the names of other pertinent players through the CRS database. Whether such searches would return producible documents is a separate question." He explained that "in deciding whether the FBI's categorical refusal to run names of other than Jett's in CRS was warranted, the question is not whether Jett obtained third-party waivers, but rather whether all responsive documents resulting from such searches would be exempt from disclosure under FOIA." Mehta cited Reporters Committee and CREW v. Dept of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) to support his decision. He observed that Reporters Committee indicated the privacy balance was weakest when disclosure of records would shed light on government activities. As to CREW, in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FBI could not invoke a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records concerning its corruption investigation of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay because of the high level of public interest in the investigation, Mehta noted that "the FBI here could not categorically decline to run searches using the names of those people identified by Jett as being involved in the public corruption investigation. . .[T]he public surely has an interest here in knowing why the FBI and DOJ conducted a public investigation involving an elected federal official and�"especially in light of Jett's public accusation that the investigation ended prematurely to protect the high-ranking House Member�"why they ultimately decided not to pursue it further. . .Simply put, like CREW. . .this is not a case in which the public-private balance 'characteristically tips in one direction' and thus would warrant a refusal to search based on the failure to obtain a Privacy Act waiver." Mehta agreed with Jett that the agency should have searched its electronic surveillance indices. He pointed out that "here, the need to search the ELSUR system was plain on the face of Jett's FOIA request" because Jett had asked for tape recordings of phone calls. Mehta observed that "when his request sought information that plainly was not contained within CRS, i.e., recorded telephone conversations, the FBI could not put its head in the sand and ignore an obvious source for the requested material." Mehta conducted an in camera review of the records. He found that Jett's reliance on CREW as evidence that the FBI had withheld too many records under Exemption 7(C) was misplaced. He explained that in CREW the D.C. Circuit found the FBI could not categorically refuse to search for and process responsive records on the basis of Exemption 7(C). He observed that "the FBI in this case did not categorically withhold all responsive records; rather, it conducted a line-by-line review of the records and invoked Exemption 7(C). . .only to redact names and other identifying information of third parties. That approach is consistent with CREW [and other D.C. Circuit case law]." Turning to Exemption 7(E), Mehta noted that the agency's affidavit "fails to meet even the relatively low bar required to justify withholding under Exemption 7(E)." But after reviewing the records in camera, Mehta agreed with the agency that the information was protected. Redacting more than 20 lines of text in his opinion to protect the substance of the techniques, Mehta observed that "the redactions here do not concern the methods or techniques of surreptitious recording; rather, they relate to how the FBI directed the investigation and why it instructed Jett not to wear a wire. Because the disclosure of that information poses a risk to future law enforcement activities, it was properly withheld under Exemption 7(E)."
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - In camera review, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques
Opinion/Order [26]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has declined to reconsider his September 2015 ruling requiring the FBI to search for records concerning a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and intermediaries who allegedly tried to bribe House candidate James Jett from running against the incumbent member. Based on Jett's allegations that he had been approached to accept a bribe, the FBI asked Jett to record further phone conversations, which he did. The agency also asked Jett to wear a wire to record his meeting with the intermediaries. Instead, Jett accused his opponent of trying to bribe him, a charge the opponent denied. Jett then issued a press release accusing the FBI of trying to coerce him into wearing a wire, which led the FBI to close the investigation. Jett then requested records of the investigation. While the agency searched for records under Jett's name, it refused to search for records of the other parties involved, claiming that would violate their privacy. Under these unique circumstances, Mehta ruled that the FBI was required to search using the names of the other parties involved, although he stressed that any records found as a result of such a search might well still be exempt under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Mehta had based his previous ruling on CREW v. Dept of Justice. 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FBI could not rely on a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to CREW's request for the agency's reasons for not prosecuting former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) even though DeLay had publicly acknowledged the existence of the investigation. Here, by contrast, the FBI insisted that CREW did not apply. But Mehta explained that "the court clarifies further here why it did not find the factual distinctions between this case and CREW to be material. The Court of Appeals in CREW did not say, as the FBI suggests, that the involvement of a high-ranking government official is the critical element that tips the private-public balance against allowing an agency to categorically withhold information. Indeed, the history books, newspapers, and�"in today's world�"blogs are replete with stories and commentary about investigations and prosecutions of public officials, including those who may be characterized as 'obscure.' " He added that "public accountability surely is not restricted to high-ranking elected officials." The FBI also argued that DeLay's privacy interest was diminished because he had publicly acknowledged the existence of the investigation. But Mehta noted that "once an investigation of a sitting Congressman accused of misusing his office emerges into the public realm, the citizens, particularly his constituents, acquire a substantial interest in learning how federal law enforcement handled his investigation, especially if no prosecution results." The FBI also argued that Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2012), in which the D.C. Circuit found the agency did not have to search for records pertaining to third parties when any such records would be exempt, supported its position. Mehta pointed out that Jett had only asked for records about third parties to the extent that they were involved in his investigation. He noted that "here, it is not hard to imagine that a search using the Opponent's and the Intermediaries' names could produce additional responsive, non-duplicative records about the investigation, similar to the records the FBI already disclosed. Such records, unlike Blackwell, would not be protected from disclosure in their entirety under Exemption 7(C)." Mehta emphasized the limits of his decision, noting that "the court held only that the FBI's categorical refusal to search for the names provided by Plaintiff was improper. The applicability of FOIA exemptions to any additional responsive information is a question left for another day,"
Issues: Determination - Glomar response
Opinion/Order [41]
FOIA Project Annotation: In a decision that may have serious repercussions as to how the FBI conducts searches of its Electronic Surveillance Indices database, Judge Amit Mehta has granted James Jett limited discovery to ascertain whether the agency can search its Central Records System and its ELSUR databases simultaneously or whether it has to search each database separately. The case involves a FOIA request by James Jett, an unsuccessful candidate from Florida for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. While he was a candidate Jett informed the FBI that he had been offered a bribe by two intermediaries from one of the opposing candidates to drop out of the race. Jett agreed to wear a wire during a meeting with the opposing candidate, but inexplicably told his opponent of the investigation instead, at which time the FBI closed the investigation. Jett then filed a FOIA request for records concerning the investigation. In a previous opinion, Mehta found the FBI had not shown that it conducted an adequate search, based in part on its failure to search the ELSUR database. Mehta ordered the agency to conduct another search, using more key words. That search yielded no further records, but the agency disclosed another 19 records, claiming they had been inadvertently overlooked originally. Jett complained that the FBI had claimed in earlier affidavits in his case, as well as in other FOIA litigation in the D.C. Circuit district courts, that ELSUR records could only be located through a separate search of that database. But the FBI now told Jett that it could search both the CRS and the ELSUR databases simultaneously and no longer needed to conduct separate searches. Mehta indicated that the agency's new position was puzzling, leaving more questions unanswered. He pointed out that "these unanswered questions and the inconsistencies in the FBI's statements, not only within this case but also across different cases over the course of years, give rise to the kind of serious misgivings that may evidence agency bad faith and warrant discovery to resolve. Jett, the court, and the public have a profound interest in achieving clarity regarding the searchability of the ELSUR indices and resolving the conflicting representations that the FBI has made about the characteristics of that database. Consequently, the court concludes the FBI has not satisfied its burden to prove it performed an adequate search within the meaning of FOIA as to responsive records that might be found within the ELSUR indices." Mehta found that the agency had properly redacted information from the records disclosed to Jett under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The FBI withheld a questionnaire under Exemption 7(E). Mehta agreed that withholding the questionnaire was appropriate under the circumstances. He observed that the questionnaire "though perhaps publicly known in a generic sense, becomes sensitive when filled out with content related to a specific investigation, as is the case here."
Issues: Litigation - Discovery
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2014-02-211COMPLAINT against FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3630168) filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21Case Assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (md, ) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
2014-02-22SUMMONS NOT ISSUED as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. Attorney & U.S. Attorney General. (md, ) (Entered: 02/22/2014)
2014-02-242REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE by JAMES B. JETT filed by JAMES B. JETT.(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
2014-02-243ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (3) ISSUED as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Consent, # 2 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
2014-03-254NOTICE of Appearance by Benton Gregory Peterson on behalf of FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
2014-03-255MOTION for Extension of Time to File by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
2014-03-26MINUTE ORDER treating as opposed and granting over opposition 5 defendant's motion for extension of time. Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint by no later than April 28, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 26, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
2014-03-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/28/2014. (mac) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
2014-04-286ANSWER to Complaint by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-04-28MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than May 26, 2014. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 28, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-04-29Set/Reset Deadlines: Individual Recommendation or Joint Status Report due by 5/26/2014. (mac) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
2014-05-267NOTICE PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by JAMES B. JETT (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 05/26/2014)
2014-05-278NOTICE (In response with Joint Briefing Schedule Attached) by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re 7 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-05-28MINUTE ORDER. The Court has received 8 the parties' joint proposed briefing schedule. In accordance with their proposal, the parties are directed to comply with the following briefing schedule: defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than August 20, 2014. Plaintiff shall file his combined cross motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendant's motion by no later than October 6, 2014. Defendant shall file its reply in support of its motion, combined with its opposition to plaintiff's cross motion, by no later than November 17, 2014. Plaintiff shall file his reply in further support of his cross motion by no later than December 18, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 28, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
2014-05-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment due 8/20/14. Plaintiff Combined Cross Motion For Summary Judgment And Opposition due 10/06/14. Defendant's Reply in Support Of Its Motion, Combined With Its Opposition due 11/17/14. Plaintiff Reply In Further Support If Its Cross Motion due 12/18/14. (mac) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
2014-08-189Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
2014-08-18MINUTE ORDER granting 9 defendant's consent motion for extension of time. The defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than August 27, 2014. All other deadlines stated in the Court's May 28, 2014 Minute Order shall remain in place. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 18, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
2014-08-25Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Summary Judgment Motion due by 8/27/2014. (mac) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-2710MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-10-0611RESPONSE re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter and Exhibits A-D, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
2014-10-0612MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points And Authorities by JAMES B. JETT (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter & Exhibits A-D, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
2014-11-1713Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points And Authorities filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Peterson, Benton) Modified on 11/18/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 11/17/2014)
2014-11-1714REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
2014-12-1815REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points And Authorities filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
2014-12-30Case reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr, ) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
2015-07-3016ORDER: On or before August 6, 2015, Defendant FBI shall make available to the court for in camera inspection an unredacted version of the 66 pages of responsive records identified in response to Plaintiff James B. Jett's December 26, 2012 Freedom of Information Act request. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/30/2015. (lcapm3). (Entered: 07/30/2015)
2015-07-30Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant to make available to the Court for in camera inspection an unredacted version of the responsive records by 8/6/2015. (zmm) (Entered: 07/30/2015)
2015-08-0617NOTICE of In Camera Submission by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re 16 Order, Set/Reset Deadlines (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
2015-08-25MINUTE ORDER: Attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter [pages 145-149 of ECF No. 12-2] is a newspaper article from the Ocala Star-Banner dated February 27, 2014, which states: "Recently, however, FBI documents obtained by the Star-Banner under a separate FOIA request indicate that Jett's story was valid, at least as far as could be determined from the non-redacted parts of the records." On or before August 31, 2015, Defendant FBI shall advise the court whether it has disclosed to the Ocala Star-Banner or any other requester some or all of the documents at issue in this case. If so, the FBI shall submit to the court a set of such documents in the same form produced to the requester. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/25/2015. (lcapm3) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
2015-08-25Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant FBI's response to the Court due by 8/31/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
2015-08-3118Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
2015-08-31MINUTE ORDER granting 18 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. On or before September 7, 2015, Defendant shall respond to the court's August 25, 2015 Minute Order. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/31/2015. (lcapm3) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
2015-09-0819NOTICE of Filing Declaration in Response to Court's Order by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
2015-09-3020MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Granting in part and denying in part 10 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting in part and denying in part 12 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment. The unredacted version of the Memorandum Opinion and Order has been served only on Defendant; Plaintiff has received the redacted version. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on September 30, 2015. (cdw) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
2015-09-3021SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on September 30, 2015. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(zcdw) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
2015-10-2822MOTION for Reconsideration by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
2015-10-2923ERRATA by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 22 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
2015-10-3024STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 10/30/2015)
2015-11-1125RESPONSE re 22 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 11/11/2015)
2016-01-0826MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 22 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. On or before February 7, 2016, the parties shall file a joint status report (1) detailing the FBI's compliance with the 20 Memorandum Opinion and Order and (2) stating their respective views on whether further litigation is expected in this matter. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/08/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
2016-01-08Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 2/7/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
2016-02-0427Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by JAMES B. JETT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
2016-02-05MINUTE ORDER granting 27 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time. On or before February 23, 2016, the parties shall file their Joint Status Report pursuant to this court's 26 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/05/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
2016-02-08Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/23/2016 (zmm) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
2016-02-2328Joint STATUS REPORT by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-02-23MINUTE ORDER: In light of the 28 Joint Status Report, the court orders that: (1) Defendant shall file a supplemental declaration by March 4, 2016, describing the agency's additional search actions conforming with this court's 20 Memorandum Opinion and Order, and setting forth the basis for its withholdings of portions of the additional responsive records that were located from the agency's additional search actions; and (2) The parties shall file an additional Joint Status Report by March 24, 2016, either indicating that this action has been resolved, or otherwise setting forth a proposed summary judgment briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/23/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-02-24Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Declaration due by 3/4/2016. Joint Status Report due by 3/24/2016. (zmm) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
2016-03-0329NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
2016-03-2430Joint STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
2016-03-25MINUTE ORDER setting the schedule for further proceedings. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before May 10, 2016; Plaintiff's Opposition and Cross-Motion shall be filed on or before June 17, 2016; Defendant's Reply shall be filed on or before July 18, 2016; and Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed on or before August 8, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/25/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
2016-03-25Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion due by 5/10/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/17/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/18/2016. Plaintiff's Cross Motion due by 6/17/2016. Reply to Cross Motion due by 8/8/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
2016-05-1031MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-06-1632MOTION Rule 56(d) Limited Discovery re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JAMES B. JETT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration - Second Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter & Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-06-1633Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities by JAMES B. JETT (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration - Second Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter & Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-06-1634Memorandum in opposition to re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration Second Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter and Exhibit A, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-06-2835Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
2016-07-05MINUTE ORDER granting 35 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time and to Consolidate Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Discovery along with its Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and its Reply shall be due on or before July 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/05/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 07/05/2016)
2016-07-1536Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-07-15MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time. It is further ordered that Defendant's Consolidated Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Discovery, Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and its Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, shall be due on or before August 2, 2016, while any Replies by Plaintiff are due on or before August 26, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/15/2016. (lcapm1) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-08-0237REPLY to opposition to motion re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Peterson, Benton) Modified on 8/3/2016 to correct linkage (zrdj). (Entered: 08/02/2016)
2016-08-0238Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION Rule 56(d) Limited Discovery re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Peterson, Benton) Modified on 8/3/2016 to correct linkage (zrdj). (Entered: 08/02/2016)
2016-08-2639REPLY to opposition to motion re 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
2016-08-2640REPLY to opposition to motion re 32 MOTION Rule 56(d) Limited Discovery re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
2017-03-1341MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 31 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiff's 33 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting Plaintiff's 32 Rule 56(d) Motion for Limited Discovery. See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/13/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
2017-03-13Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 3/24/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
2017-03-2442Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
2017-03-24MINUTE ORDER granting Defendant's 42 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report. The parties' Joint Status Report is now due on April 7, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/24/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
2017-04-0743Joint STATUS REPORT by JAMES B. JETT. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
2017-04-10MINUTE ORDER. In light of 43 the parties' Joint Status Report, the parties shall submit another Joint Status Report no later than May 31, 2017, which updates the court on the deposition of David Hardy and proposes a further schedule for summary judgment briefing, if necessary. As to Defendant's planned Motion for Reconsideration, as no such Motion is before the court it would be premature to rule on its merits. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/10/2017. (lcapm3) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
2017-04-10Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/31/2017. (mac) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
2017-04-1844MOTION for Reconsideration re 41 Memorandum & Opinion, by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
2017-04-2145Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 MOTION for Reconsideration re 41 Memorandum & Opinion, by JAMES B. JETT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
2017-04-21MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 45 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff shall file his Opposition on or before May 5, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/21/2017. (lcapm1) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff