Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleHUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2015cv01203
Date Filed2015-07-24
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
PlaintiffHUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
Case DescriptionThe law firm of Hunton & Williams submitted four FOIA requests to the EPA for records concerning the agency's decision to take responsibility for making a determination on an by Saltworks for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination under the Clean Water Act for its salt plant in Redwood, CA rather than allowing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make the determination on its behalf. The agency disclosed some documents and withheld others. The law firm, dissatisfied with the agency's response, filed suit.
Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantU.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DefendantU.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (15cv1207)
DefendantU.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (15cv1208)
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
Complaint attachment 13
Complaint attachment 14
Complaint attachment 15
Complaint attachment 16
Complaint attachment 17
Complaint attachment 18
Complaint attachment 19
Opinion/Order [63]
FOIA Project Annotation: In a complex case involving the deliberative nature of discussions involving the EPA and the U.S. Corps of Engineers over whether an industrial site in Redwood City, CA fell within federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act or the Rivers and Harbors Act, Judge Rudolph Contreras has found that the agencies have not yet sufficiently supported their deliberative process privilege claims. In the course of his discussion, Contreras makes some interesting observations as to when deliberations ripen to a final decision, taking them outside the privilege. The law firm of Hunton & Williams submitted FOIA requests to the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Army, for records concerning the developer's request for an Approved Jurisdictional Determination, establishing the government's position on CWA and RHA jurisdiction. The Corps and the EPA share responsibility for issuing AJDs. The Corps prepared a draft AJD, which was reviewed by the Army. The Corps returned to work on the AJD, informing the EPA in December 2014 that it intended to finalize the AJD. However, the EPA exercised its special case authority to take over the CWA portion of the AJD. As of August 2016, the EPA had not issued the CWA portion of the AJD. In response to Hunton & Williams' request, the EPA disclosed 600 documents in full, withheld 12 documents in full, and withheld 320 documents in part, primarily under Exemption 5 (privileges). The Corps disclosed 20,448 pages of documents, out of a total of 22,776 pages. The Army did not respond until the law firm filed suit. The Army identified 3,852 pages of responsive documents and released 2,422 pages. Contreras found the agencies' searches were adequate. However, he turned to Hunton & Williams' claim that the Corps and the Army had failed to search personal accounts for responsive records. He pointed out that in Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science & Technology Policy, 827 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2016), the D.C. Circuit had ruled that when an agency was aware that employees had used personal accounts to conduct agency business it was obligated to search those records. But he observed that in Wright v. Administration for Children & Families, 2016 WL 5922293 (D.D.C. 2016), Judge Beryl Howell, interpreting CEI, found that agencies were not required to search personal accounts based on nothing more than the requester's speculation. Hunton & Williams found some emails in the records the Army disclosed sent from personal email accounts. As a result, the Army searched that particular account, but found no more records. Agreeing that the Army's search was sufficient, Contreras noted that "Hunton identifies no other particular employees whose accounts it asserts should be searched, or other specific facts in the record indicating that personal email accountsâ€"presumably those for all employees identified as having been involved with the issuesâ€"even in the absence of any indication that any such personal accounts were used for agency business. This goes too far. . .Here, as in Wright, the Court finds that Hunton's purely speculative claims are insufficient to overcome the presumption that the agency's search was adequate." Contreras rejected Hunton & Williams' claim that the agencies should also search for text messages. He pointed out that "unlike email messages, no evidence in the record suggests that any agency employees used text messages to conduct official business." The law firm also challenged the Corps' decision to limit its search to specific individuals. Contreras indicated that "while Hunton may not have consented to an unconditional limitation, it did agree that it would inform the Corps if it sought records from additional custodians. Hunton never exercised that right, and thus cannot object to the Corps proceeding with the original list." Contreras found that all three agencies had not adequately justified their deliberative process privilege claims. Addressing the EPA's explanations, he noted that "mindful of the heightened requirement for specificity in the context of the deliberative process privilege, the Court cannot grant the EPA summary judgment because the EPA's disclosures, like other rejected in this jurisdiction, are insufficiently specific about the deliberative process at issue and the function and significance of each record in that process." To assist the agencies in addressing his concerns, Contreras turned to several specific issues, especially the status of the Corps' final draft AJD. Hunton & Williams argued that the Corps had finalized it AJD, meaning it was no longer predecisional. But Contreras agreed with the EPA that regardless of whether the Corps might consider the draft AJD its final decision, it was still predecisional as to the EPA's final decision. He pointed out that "the EPA does not dispute that the 'final' draft AJD was a whisker's breadth from completion. Nonetheless, because the 'final' draft AJD was never finalized and has notâ€"to this Court's knowledgeâ€"been adopted by any agency, the Court agrees with EPA that the deliberative process privilege could apply." The law firm asserted that the Corps' draft AJD was the agency's final decision and its failure to actually issue the AJD was "ministerial." However, Contreras explained that "the 'draft' AJD does not appear to have been given any effect, either informally or formally. It was never signed or finalized. . .Nor does Hunton claim that the draft has been applied to government CWA jurisdiction over the site. Instead, Hunton's repeated assertions that EPA has delayed and continues to delay CWA portions of the AJD makes it clear that the government is not giving the 'final' draft AJD, which Hunton asserts concluded against CWA jurisdiction, any legal effect." Indeed, Hunton & Williams argued that the draft AJD was the Corps' final decision. But Contreras observed that "this argument confuses the temporal sense of 'final' with the sense required by FOIA. Hunton presents no evidence that the Corps, or any other agency, has ever relied on, referred to, or treated as precedential the 'final' draft AJD." He indicated that the draft AJD could still be considered deliberative as well, pointing out that "the deliberative process canâ€"as it did hereâ€"span between two different agencies. This set-up is particularly common when one agency serves a secondary function to a supervising agency." Under the circumstances, he noted that "here, the EPA has the ultimate authority to decide questions of CWA jurisdiction. The agreement between the Corps and the EPA describing the special case authority begins from this premise. The Corps' submissions to the EPA thus are part of the deliberative process because the EPA retained the authority to disagree and exercise its special case powerâ€"as it did here. Given that neither the Corps nor the EPA hasâ€"to the best of this Court's knowledgeâ€"issued a final decision, the deliberative process is ongoing." Contreras rejected the Corps' claims that its draft AJD was protected by the attorney work-product privilege or the attorney-client privilege. He explained that to qualify for the attorney work-product privilege, records had to be created because of the prospect of litigation. He noted that "the 'because of' test demonstrates the flaw in the Corps' reasoning. Drafts of the AJD were not prepared because of possible litigation. The Corps was required to prepare the AJD, and thus drafts of the AJD, even if it knew that no litigation would ever result." He found the agency's attorney-client privilege claims insufficient. He observed that "this general statement cannot overcome the otherwise inadequate Vaughn index because it fails to provide necessary document-specific information such as the identities of the client and lawyer and whether legal advice was sought."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege compiled in anticipation of litigation, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2015-07-241COMPLAINT against U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4187155) filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: EPA Email 10/30/2012, # 2 Exhibit B: Legal Principles 1/9/2014, # 3 Exhibit C: Supplement to Legal Principles 03/25/2014, # 4 Exhibit D: EPA Memo 5/30/2014, # 5 Exhibit E: FOIA 5/30/2014, # 6 Exhibit F: EPA Letter 8/14/2014, # 7 Exhibit G: Itemized List, # 8 Exhibit H: FOIA 8/19/2014, # 9 Exhibit I: EPA Letter (undated), # 10 Exhibit J: Itemized List, # 11 Exhibit K: FOIA 3/19/2015, # 12 Exhibit L: EPA Letter 6/12/2015, # 13 Exhibit M: Itemized List, # 14 Exhibit N: FOIA 3/23/2015, # 15 Exhibit O: EPA Letter 4/23/2015, # 16 Civil Cover Sheet, # 17 Summons EPA, # 18 Summons DOJ, # 19 Summons U.S. Attorney)(Duncan, Deidre) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
2015-07-242LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Duncan, Deidre) (Entered: 07/24/2015)
2015-07-24Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (md) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
2015-07-273SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Consent) (md) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
2015-08-044NOTICE of Appearance by John Eliot Beerbower on behalf of HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Beerbower, John) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
2015-08-055RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY served on 8/4/2015 (Beerbower, John) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
2015-08-056RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General August 3, 2015. (Beerbower, John) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
2015-08-057RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/3/2015. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/2/2015. (Beerbower, John) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
2015-08-208NOTICE of Appearance by George P. Sibley, III on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Sibley, George) (Entered: 08/20/2015)
2015-09-029ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
2015-09-03MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before September 17, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/03/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
2015-09-1710Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Briefing Schedule by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
2015-09-17MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Briefing Schedule: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before September 24, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/17/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
2015-09-2411Joint STATUS REPORT by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Sibley, George) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
2015-09-2512MOTION to Consolidate Cases by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
2015-09-30MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference at 2:30 PM on October 15, 2015, in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/30/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
2015-09-30Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/15/2015 @ 02:30 PM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
2015-10-1313RESPONSE re 12 MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Consolidate) filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Sibley, George) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
2015-10-15Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 10/15/2015. Parties to meet and confer by 10/29/15, and case to be consolidated. (Court Reporter: Annette Montalvo.) (tj) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
2015-10-1514ORDER granting 12 Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Cases. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/15/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
2015-10-1615SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/16/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
2015-10-2916ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
2015-10-2917ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
2015-10-2918PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE JOINT by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 10/29/2015)
2015-11-0219SCHEDULING ORDER for Case Nos. 15-1203 and 15-1207. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/30/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
2015-11-0520SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1208. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/05/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2015-11-0621Joint STATUS REPORT (proposed briefing schedule - Army) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-2522PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE JOINT by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
2015-11-3023Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
2015-11-3024SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1208. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/30/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/30/2015)
2015-12-01MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference at 10:00 AM on December 16, 2015, in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/1/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
2015-12-04MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the December 16, 2015 status conference is VACATED and is RESCHEDULED for December 15, 2015 at 2:30 PM. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/04/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
2015-12-04Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/15/2015 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
2015-12-15Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 12/15/2015. Parties advise the court of the status of this action. (Court Reporter: Jeff Hook.) (tj) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-1625SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1207. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/16/2015. (lcrc2) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2016-01-0726Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file motion for summary judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
2016-01-0827AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1208. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/08/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
2016-01-1328Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file motion for summary judgment in 15-1203 by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
2016-01-1329AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1203. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/13/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
2016-01-14Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 2/5/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/4/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/18/2016. Cross Motions due by 3/4/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 3/18/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 4/1/2016. (tj) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
2016-01-2230Joint MOTION for Scheduling Order Amendment in 15-1207 by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-2231Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file status report and motion for sample Vaughn index by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-2232Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to file status report and motion for sample Vaughn Index in Civil Action No. 15-1207 by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/22/2016)
2016-01-2533AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1207 and ORDER denying as moot 31 , 32 Defendant's Consent Motion and Amended Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/25/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
2016-01-2534Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file motion for summary judgment in 15-1208 by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
2016-01-2535SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1208. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/25/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
2016-01-2736MOTION for Summary Judgment for Civil No 15-1208 by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit 1 - DeAgostino Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Vaughn Index, # 4 Exhibit 3 - General Order)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
2016-02-0337Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file motion for summary judgment in Case No. 15-1203 by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
2016-02-0338SECOND AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1203. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/03/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
2016-02-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 2/19/2016; Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/25/2016; Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/8/2016; Cross Motions due by 3/25/2016; Response to Cross Motions due by 4/8/2016; Reply to Cross Motions due by 4/22/2016. (tj) (Entered: 02/03/2016)
2016-02-0539Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion for Summary Judgment by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
2016-02-05MINUTE ORDER granting 39 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that 35 the Court's Second Amended Scheduling Order for Case No. 15-1208 is amended as follows: Plaintiff shall file its opposition to Defendant the Army's motion for summary judgment, and any cross-motion for summary judgment, on or before March 7, 2016; Defendant shall file its reply, and any opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, on or before March 21, 2016; and Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before April 4, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/05/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
2016-02-1940MOTION for Summary Judgment for case 15-1203 by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Brush Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit A-Q of Brush Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit R-S of Brush Declaration, # 5 Supplement Exhibit 2-4)(Grace, Derrick) Modified on 9/7/2016 (jf). (Entered: 02/19/2016)
2016-02-2641Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 38 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to,, Amend Scheduling Orders by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2016-02-2642THIRD AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER for Case No. 15-1203 and Case No. 15-1208. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/26/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/26/2016)
2016-05-1043Consent MOTION to Amend/Correct 42 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct, 33 Order on Motion for Scheduling Order, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Amend Scheduling Orders by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-1044SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 05/10/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-11Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 6/20/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 8/1/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 8/15/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/20/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/1/2016. (tj) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
2016-06-1345Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Civil No 15-1208 filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Declaration Ex. 9 - Declaration of George P. Sibley, III, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
2016-06-1346MOTION for Summary Judgment by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Declaration Ex. 9 - Declaration of George P. Sibley, III, # 10 Exhibit A, # 11 Exhibit B, # 12 Exhibit C, # 13 Exhibit D, # 14 Exhibit E, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
2016-06-1747Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 44 Order on Motion to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-06-1748SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/17/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-06-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 7/7/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 8/17/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 8/31/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/7/2016. (tj) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-07-0749Memorandum in opposition to re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment for case 15-1203 filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
2016-07-0750MOTION for Order Governing Further Proceedings by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
2016-07-1351REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment for Civil No 15-1208 and Opposition to Plaintiff's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of DeAgostino - Supplementary)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
2016-07-1352MOTION for Summary Judgment in 15-1207 by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration of Michelle Bartlett, # 3 Exhibit A-Y of Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Z - Vaughn Index)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
2016-07-1353Memorandum in opposition to re 46 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 15cv1208 filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY. (See Docket Entry 52 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
2016-07-2754RESPONSE re 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
2016-08-1255Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment in 15-1207 filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Declaration of George P. Sibley, III, # 8 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
2016-08-1256MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment in Case No. 15-1207 by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Declaration of George P. Sibley, III, # 8 Exhibit 1, # 9 Exhibit 2, # 10 Exhibit 3, # 11 Exhibit 4, # 12 Exhibit 5, # 13 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
2016-08-1757REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment for case 15-1203 and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Govern Future Proceedings 50 filed by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
2016-08-1758Memorandum in opposition to re 50 MOTION for Order Governing Further Proceedings for case 15-1203 filed by U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (See Docket Entry 57 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
2016-09-0159REPLY to opposition to motion re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment in 15-1207 and in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Second Bartlett Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Statement of Facts Response)(Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
2016-09-1660RESPONSE re 56 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment in Case No. 15-1207 (Plaintiff's Reply Brief in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) filed by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 09/16/2016)
2016-12-2361NOTICE of additional search by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (Grace, Derrick) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
2017-03-3162ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 EPA's motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 52 Corps' motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 36 Army's motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 50 Plaintiff's motion for order governing further proceedings concerning the EPA, granting in part and denying in part 56 Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment concerning the Corps, granting in part and denying in part 46 Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment concerning the Army, and ordering in camera review. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2017-03-3163MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 40 EPA's motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 52 Corps' motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 36 Army's motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part 50 Plaintiff's motion for order governing further proceedings concerning the EPA, granting in part and denying in part 56 Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment concerning the Corps, granting in part and denying in part 46 Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment concerning the Army, and ordering in camera review. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2017-04-2864Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Case Management Plan by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
2017-04-29MINUTE ORDER granting 64 Joint Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a case management plan as described in 62 this Court's Order on or before May 8, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/29/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/29/2017)
2017-05-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Case Management Plan due by 5/8/2017. (tj) (Entered: 05/03/2017)
2017-05-0865Joint STATUS REPORT Proposed Case Management Plan by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Sibley, George) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
2017-05-08MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 65 Joint Proposed Case Management Plan, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties' proposed case management plan is ADOPTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall advise the Court of whether briefing is necessary concerning the "non-responsive" documents on or before June 30, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide the Court with unredacted copies of the documents selected for in camera review, as described in the proposed case management plan, and their supplemental briefing on or before August 1, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its brief in response on or before August 15, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/8/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
2017-06-2766NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Shanna Laura Cronin on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Derrick Grace (Cronin, Shanna) (Entered: 06/27/2017)
2017-06-3067Joint STATUS REPORT by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP. (Sibley, George) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
2017-07-0768Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 65 Status Report Amend Case Management Plan by HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sibley, George) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
2017-07-07MINUTE ORDER granting 68 Joint Motion to Amend Case Management Plan: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff will identify the records that it has selected pursuant to Paragraph 2(a) of the case management plan no later than July 24, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall provide the Court with unredacted copies of the documents selected for in camera review, as described in the case management plan, and their supplemental briefing on or before August 23, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its brief in response on or before September 6, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 7/7/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
2017-07-10Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Memorandum due by 8/23/2017; Responses due by 9/6/2017 (tj) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff