Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleHARDY v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES et al
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2015cv01649
Date Filed2015-10-07
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeChief Judge Beryl A. Howell
PlaintiffDAVID T. HARDY
Case DescriptionDavid Hardy, an attorney and blogger on firearms law issues, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for records concerning various firearms laws and regulations. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but had not yet responded. Hardy also submitted a FOIA request to the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General for records related to a 2007 OIG report about the BATF. OIG also failed to respond to Hardy's request. He then filed suit on both requests.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantBUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES
DefendantDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DefendantDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Opinion/Order [31]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has provided a nuanced explanation of why the deliberative process privilege applies in some situations, but not in others, although the documents may seem closely related. Ruling in a case brought by David Hardy, an attorney and internet blogger who writes on information relating to firearms law issues, Howell found that a number of claims made by the Inspector General at the Justice Department for records relating to a 2007 report entitled "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, June 2007," exploring the effectiveness of the agency's database through interviews, data analyses and document reviews, as well as an electronic survey and an onsite visit, did not qualify under the privilege. By the time she ruled, Howell had divided 511 pages processed by OIG into three categories: (1) records of interviews and notes of telephone interviews, (2) records related to surveys, and (3) miscellaneous work papers. Howell noted initially that "OIG appears to suggest a blanket rule covering all the documents, asserting that even if the documents contain purely factual information, they were produced in preparation for a final public report and thus are non-disclosable." But Howell indicated that "at issue, is whether for each contested document withheld in part or in full, the declarations establish (1) 'what deliberative process is involved,' (2) 'the role played by the document in issue in the course of that process,' and (3) 'the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the office or person issuing the disputed document, and the positions in the chain of command of the parties to the documents.'" Turning to the interview notes, Howell pointed out that "to the extent information in the documents includes 'recommendations' or 'opinions on legal or policy matters,' they are clearly 'deliberative' in nature and non-disclosure is permissible under Exemption 5." She added that "even if the documents contain 'purely factual material,' that information is still covered by Exemption 5 because it would reveal the agency's deliberative process." She then observed that "for this reason, interview notes and summaries are routinely found to be subject to Exemption 5." She explained that "as the records of interviews and interview notes constitute information 'line-level inspectors believed were relevant' from the interviews they conducted, the inspectors would have had to 'extract pertinent material' from a larger universe of facts and thus the documents reflect an 'exercise of judgment as to what issues' seemed most 'relevant' to those inspectors to 'pre-decisional findings and recommendations.'" Howell rejected the agency's claim that since a small number of individuals had been interviewed, disclosure would increase the chance of identification. Howell noted that "that argument is not persuasive." She pointed out that "in this case, OIG interviewed 72 individuals, far from a 'relatively small number' of employees, including over 50 ATF officials and staff members, whose titles and locations are fully disclosed in the report. Given the significant number of interviewees, and the availability of redacting identifying information from the documents, the possibility of linking any individual to a particular document is not a colorable risk that would warrant withholding. Thus, this rationale does not support the application of Exemption 5." Addressing the records related to OIG's survey, Howell explained that "survey data is quintessentially factual information that reveals little about an agency's deliberative process." She indicated that OIG sent the electronic survey to 609 ATF Industry Operations Investigators, of which 334 responded. She pointed out that "OIG released portions of the survey results in the final report, including aggregate data from the multiple-choice questions as well as numerous direct quotations from the narrative responses." Howell noted that "given that OIG has already produced in the NFRTR Report the survey questions in their entirety, and the results and data in part, to withhold the remaining survey results and data, OIG must explain how the withheld information is 'different from those released in any relevant respect.'" She added that "further, the 'Survey Results' and 'Final Survey Data' are anonymized collections of information from 334 individuals and, thus, disclosure of the results and data could not be used to identify any particular respondent. Even quotes from narrative responses to questions from the survey cannot be tied to any particular survey respondent. Therefore, public disclosure is unlikely 'in the future to stifle honest and frank communication within the agency.'" Howell questioned the agency's claim that a document entitled "Final Survey Data Analysis" was either predecisional or deliberative. She pointed out that "OIG does not describe with any specificity (1) the type of information contained in the documentsâ€"whether merely collative of survey results or actually evaluative; (2) the particular role the documents played in any agency deliberations prior to or during the drafting of the NFRTR Report; or (3) 'the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the office or person issuing the disputed documents, and the positions in the chain of command of the parties to the documents.' In short, OIG has not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine, one way or the other, whether these documents are protected by Exemption 5." The agency argued that disclosure could create confusion with the public. Rejecting the claim, Howell noted that "OIG has raised no concern about the 'Final Survey Data Analysis' document being 'erroneous or incomplete.' Moreover, as the final report has already been released, the disclosure of this document now would not result in the 'premature exposure' of any agency decision or policy. Finally, the 'confusion' rationale 'has special force with respect to disclosure of agency positions or reasoning concerning proposed policies.' Here, OIG is not promulgating a 'policy,' it has merely released a report about the adequacy of another agency's record-keeping. Thus, if the 'Final Survey Data Analysis' document was released, there is no risk that the public would be confused about the grounds for an agency's policy." Howell found that an "Interview Workpaper" was protected by Exemption 5, but that a "Workpaper Index and Assignments Worksheet" was not. As to the "Interview Workpaper," she observed that "even if the document contains purely factual material derived from interview notes, this document was prepared by 'culling' information 'from a much larger universe of facts,' namely the interviews, and thus 'reflects an exercise of judgement.' Indeed, the document is a 'spreadsheet' that analyzes the very interview responses this Court has already held to be deliberative." Finding the "Workpaper Index and Assignment Worksheet" was not protected, Howell indicated that "given that the NFRTR Report already divulges significant information about who was interviewed, how many interviews were conducted, and where they were conducted, along with information about how other data was collected, OIG has not explained why the disclosure of the 'log of all interviews and other data collected' must be withheld in full." She added that "at a minimum, OIG has failed to explain how the information in the 'Workpaper Index and Assignments Worksheet' differs so significantly from the publicly released information as to implicate adversely the interests to be protected by Exemption 5." She also faulted the agency's claims that email and document summaries were privileged. She pointed out that "OIG does not explain who drafted the email summary, who the emails were from and to whom they were sent, or how they were used in drafting the report. OIG's declarant describes the 'Document Summary' as 'containing information the OIG reviewed in the course of preparing the NFRTR Report.' This description is patently inadequate, however, as it would apply to every document and piece of information reviewed by OIG for the NFRTR Report, including the portions of documents OIG already disclosed. If this rationale were sufficient to exempt material under Exemption 5, no information could ever be released."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2015-10-071CIVIL COVER SHEET by DAVID T HARDY filed by DAVID T HARDY.(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
2015-10-072COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4270984) filed by DAVID T HARDY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit FOIA to BATFE, # 2 Exhibit USPS Delivery to BATFE, # 3 Exhibit FOIA to OIG, # 4 Exhibit USPS Delivery to OIG)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
2015-10-073REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE on all Defendants filed by DAVID T HARDY. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Summons to DOJ, # 2 Summons Summons to DOJ OIG)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 10/07/2015)
2015-10-07Case Assigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. (rd) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
2015-10-134STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 13, 2015. (lcbah3) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
2015-10-145SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(rd) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
2015-10-186MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Alan Alexander Beck, :Firm- Attorney at Law, :Address- 2692 Harcourt Drive, San Diego CA 92103. Phone No. - 619-905-9105. Check# 1046 $100 by mail Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by DAVID T. HARDY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Alan Alexander Beck, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 10/18/2015)
2015-10-19MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 6 Motion for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice . Mr. Alan Alexander Beck, Esq. may enter an appearance pro hac vice for the purpose of representing the plaintiff in this action. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 19, 2015. (lcbah3) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
2015-10-23Filing Fee Paid: $ 100.00, receipt number 4616074240 re 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Attorney Name-Alan Alexander Beck. (md) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
2015-11-067NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Alexander Beck on behalf of DAVID T. HARDY (Beck, Alan) (Main Document 7 replaced on 11/9/2015) (znmw). (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-078RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 11/4/2015. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/4/2015.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 11/4/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Receipts for Proof, # 2 Exhibit Return Receipts)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 11/07/2015)
2015-11-079RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL served on 11/4/2015, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 11/4/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Return Receipts for DOJ, OIG, US Attorney, # 2 Receipts for DOJ, OIG, US Attorney)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 11/07/2015)
2015-11-1210RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES served on 11/5/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Return Receipts for DOJ, ATF, US Attorney, # 2 Exhibit Receipts for DOJ, ATF, US Attorney)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 11/12/2015)
2015-11-2511NOTICE of Appearance by Heather D. Graham-Oliver on behalf of BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
2015-12-0212Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 2 Complaint, by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
2015-12-02MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 12 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint. The defendants shall, by December 14, 2015, respond to the plaintiff's 2 Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 2, 2015. (lcbah3) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
2015-12-02Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer to the Complaint due by 12/14/2015. (tg) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
2015-12-1413ANSWER to Complaint by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Attachments: # 1 OIG response to the Plaintiffs FOIA request dated August 27, 2015)(Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 12/14/2015)
2015-12-2314Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Order by DAVID T. HARDY (Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
2015-12-29MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 14 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Order. The parties shall, by January 7, 2016, submit a joint status report as directed in the Court's 4 Standing Order, para. 3. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 29, 2015. (lcbah3) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
2015-12-29Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 1/7/2016. (tg) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
2016-01-0715MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
2016-01-09MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING, upon consideration of the parties' 15 Joint Status Report, the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control the timing of proceedings in this matter: each defendant shall (1) release to the plaintiff any non-exempt material by February 29, 2016; and (2) produce a Vaughn index to the plaintiff by March 14, 2016. The parties shall (1) resolve any disputes related to the Vaughn indices by April 4, 2016; (2) file any dispositive motions by May 5, 2016; (3) file any cross-motions or oppositions to dispositive motions by June 6, 2016; and (4) file any oppositions to cross-motions or replies to dispositive motions by July 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 9, 2016. (lcbah3) (Entered: 01/09/2016)
2016-01-11Set/Reset Deadlines: Non-exempt material due by 2/29/2016; Vaughn Index due by 3/14/2016; Dispositive Motions due by 5/5/2016; Cross-Motions/Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 6/6/2016; Oppositions to Cross-Motions and Replies to Dispositive Motions due by 7/6/2016. (tg) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
2016-04-0416Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Set/Reset Deadlines, In January Scheduling Order by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
2016-04-04MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 16 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER in this matter as follows: The parties shall (1) confer in an attempt to resolve any disputes related to the Vaughn indices by April 26, 2016; (2) file any dispositive motions by May 19, 2016; (3) file any cross-motions or oppositions to dispositive motions by June 22, 2016; and (4) file any oppositions to cross-motions or replies to dispositive motions by July 21, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 4, 2016. (lcbah3) (Entered: 04/04/2016)
2016-04-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Attorney Conference regarding Vaughn indices due by 4/26/2016; Dispositive Motions due by 5/19/2016; Cross-Motions/Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2016; Oppositions to Cross-Motions/ Replies to Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 7/21/2016. (tg) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
2016-05-1617Consent MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
2016-05-17MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 17 Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER in this matter as follows: The parties shall (1) file any dispositive motions by June 20, 2016; (2) file any cross-motions or oppositions to dispositive motions by July 20, 2016; (3) file any oppositions to cross-motions or replies in support of dispositive motions by August 5, 2016; and (4) file any replies in support of cross-motions by August 18, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 17, 2016. (lcbah3, ) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
2016-05-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 6/20/2016; Cross-Motions/Opposition to Dispositive Motions due by 7/20/2016; Opposition to Cross-Motions/Replies to Oppositions to Dispositive Motions due by 8/5/2016; Replies to Oppositions to Cross Motions due by 8/18/2016. (tg) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
2016-06-1518Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct Set/Reset Deadlines, Order on Motion to Modify,, by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Graham-Oliver, Heather) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
2016-06-16MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 18 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER in this matter as follows: The parties shall (1) file any dispositive motions by July 21, 2016; (2) file any cross-motions or oppositions to dispositive motions by August 22, 2016; (3) file any oppositions to cross-motions or replies in support of dispositive motions by September 5, 2016; and (4) file any replies in support of cross-motions by September 19, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 16, 2016. (lcbah3) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-06-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 7/21/2016; Cross-Motion/Opposition to Dispositive Motion due by 8/22/2016; Opposition to Cross-Motion/Reply to Opposition to Dispositive Motion due by 9/5/2016; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 9/19/2016. (tg) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
2016-07-0619NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Joshua M. Kolsky on behalf of BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Substituting for attorney Heather Graham-Oliver (Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
2016-07-1520MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motion by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-07-1521RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motion in Opposition filed by DAVID T. HARDY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Correspondence Second Extension, # 2 Exhibit Ltr to Heather re Vaughn Indices, # 3 Exhibit Email to Joshue Kolsky, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-07-19MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, over the plaintiff's objection, the defendants' 20 Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motion, and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER in this matter as follows: (1) the defendants shall file any motion for summary judgment by August 29, 2016; (2) the plaintiff shall file any cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the defendants' motion by September 28, 2016; (3) the defendants shall file any reply in support of their motion and opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion by October 12, 2016; and the plaintiff shall file any reply in support of his cross-motion by October 26, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 19, 2016. (lcbah3) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
2016-07-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Summary Judgment motion due by 8/29/2016; plaintiff's Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/28/2016; defendants' Opposition to plaintiff's Cross-Motion and Reply to plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/12/2016; plaintiff's Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 10/26/2016. (tg) (Entered: 07/21/2016)
2016-08-2922MOTION for Summary Judgment by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration (Waller), # 3 Declaration (Pelletier), # 4 Exhibit A)(Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 08/29/2016)
2016-09-2223MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment by DAVID T. HARDY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
2016-09-22MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's consented to 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment and to File Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court enters the following revised SCHEDULING ORDER to control the timing of proceedings in this matter: the plaintiff shall, by October 28, 2016, file any response and/or cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by November 11, 2016, file any reply and/or opposition. The plaintiff shall, by November 25, 2016, file any reply. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 22, 2016. (lcbah4) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
2016-09-23Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motion and Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/28/2016; Response to Cross Motion/Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/11/2016; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 11/25/2016. (tg) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
2016-10-2824RESPONSE re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID T. HARDY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit OIG Production, # 2 Exhibit Correspondence to Heather re Vaughn, # 3 Declaration Declaration of Robert Sanders, # 4 Exhibit Thomas A. Busey article, # 5 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
2016-10-2825CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment by DAVID T. HARDY. (See Docket Entry 24 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
2016-11-0726Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Reply/Opposition by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-08MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 26 Consent Motion to Extend Time for Filing a Combined Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and AMENDING the SCHEDULING ORDER to control the timing of proceedings in this matter as follows: Defendants shall file a Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by November 28, 2016. Plaintiff shall file a Reply in Support of his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by December 12, 2016. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 8, 2016. (lcbah4) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
2016-11-08Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Opposition to Cross-Motion/Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/28/2016; Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 12/12/2016. (tg) (Entered: 11/08/2016)
2016-11-2827REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-11-2828Memorandum in opposition to re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-12-1129REPLY to opposition to motion re 25 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DAVID T. HARDY. (Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 12/11/2016)
2017-03-2230ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the defendants' 22 Motion for Summary Judgment, and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the plaintiff's 25 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 22, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
2017-03-2231MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants' 22 Motion for Summary Judgment and the plaintiff's 25 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 22, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
2017-03-23Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint proposed schedule due by 4/21/2017. (tg) (Entered: 03/23/2017)
2017-04-2132Joint STATUS REPORT and Motion to Stay by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
2017-04-2133Joint MOTION to Stay and Joint Status Report by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 04/21/2017)
2017-04-24MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 33 Joint Motion to Stay and STAYING this action until June 5, 2017. Accordingly, the parties shall, by June 5, 2017, file a joint status report stating (1) whether the parties seek to continue settlement discussions, or (2) a proposed schedule for further proceedings. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 24, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
2017-04-25Set/Reset Deadlines : Joint Status Report due by 6/5/17. (kk) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
2017-06-0534Joint STATUS REPORT by BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL. (Kolsky, Joshua) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
2017-06-06MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING, upon consideration of the parties' 34 Joint Status Report, the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this matter: (1) by July 7, 2017, the plaintiff shall file his Motion for Attorney's Fees; (2) by August 7, 2017, the defendants shall file any opposition; and (3) by August 21, 2017, the plaintiff shall file any reply. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 6, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
2017-06-06Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees due by 7/7/2017; Defendants' opposition due by 8/7/2017; Plaintiff's reply due by 8/21/2017. (tg) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
2017-06-0835STIPULATION of Dismissal except for claim for Attorneys' Fees by DAVID T. HARDY. (Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
2017-07-0536MOTION for Attorney Fees by DAVID T. HARDY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 24.IOI Survey Results, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 58.OIG Analysis - Q12 Survey question, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 53.Copy of Final Survey Data - Cleaned.xlsx, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 Eric Larson Declaration with exhibits, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 Hardy declaration for FOIA, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 Cover letter from ATF, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Stamboulieh Declaration and Time, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 Beck Declaration and Time)(Stamboulieh, Stephen) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff