Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJORDAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2016cv01868
Date Filed2016-09-19
Date Closed2018-03-31
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
PlaintiffJACK JORDAN
Case DescriptionJack Jordan, an attorney representing a client in a case against DynCorp International under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, submitted several FOIA requests to the Department of Labor for emails forwarded by DynCorp's counsel to the administrative judge. The agency redacted records under Exemption 5 (privileges), claiming the attorney-client privilege. Jordan appealed several of the requests, which were upheld by the agency on appeal. Jordan then filed suit.
Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AppealD.C. Circuit 18-5128
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Opinion/Order [39]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that two emails submitted by DynCorp to the Office of Administrative Law Judges at the Department of Labor in a case brought under the Defense Base Act contain attorney-client privileged information and were properly withheld from Jack Jordan, an attorney representing his wife Maria against DynCorp International, under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), rather than the more obvious legal privilege claims in Exemption 5 (privileges). The circumstances of the case present a rather peculiar instance in which the agency relied on the "commercial or financial information [that is] privileged" protection in Exemption 4, rather than the more common claim that the information is commercially confidential and would cause competitive harm to the submitter if disclosed. Administrative Law Judge Larry Merck, who was hearing the DBA case, reviewed the emails in camera and ruled that they were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were not available in discovery. Perhaps faced with that reality, Jordan resorted to requesting them under FOIA. While by their very description the emails appear to be clearly privileged, because they were neither inter- or -intra-agency records, they did not qualify for those privileges incorporated under Exemption 5. But to the extent the emails could be considered commercial, they did qualify for a privilege claim under Exemption 4. Contreras relied on Baker & Hostetler v. Dept of Commerce, 473 F. 3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006), to explain the meaning of commercial interest. He indicated that in Baker & Hostetler the D.C. Circuit had given commercial interest "a broad definition, one that includes records that 'reveal basic commercial operations,' 'relate to the income-producing aspects of a business,' or bear upon the 'commercial fortunes of the organization." He observed that 'like in Baker, the information in the DynCorp emails bears directly upon the 'commercial fortunes' of DynCorp as a company because this information addresses a business contract of the company." Jordan argued that Labor was trying to use a commercial interest privilege when it was clear that the emails, to the extent that they were privileged at all, were protected by a legal privilege. But Contreras indicated that "'privileged' information is generally understood to be information that falls within recognized constitutional, statutory, or common-law privileges" and added that "though 'case law examining privilege under Exemption 4 is sparse,' courts have repeatedly found that Exemption 4's 'privilege' requirement covers properly-practiced attorney-client privilege. Though 'the mere fact that an attorney is listed as a recipient. . . does not make a document protected under [attorney-client] privileged,' confidential disclosures between an attorney and her client regarding factual and legal matters are certainly protected by attorney-client privilege." Applying these standards to the two emails, Contreras found that the agency's description of one of the emails "supports the inference that the DynCorp emails concern contractual information that DynCorp wishes to protect and thus this contractual information was sent to [its] in-house attorney for his legal advice." Contreras, however, found the confidential privilege claim covering the second email more tenuous because that email did not appear to deal directly with legal advice. He asked the agency to provide more information before ruling on whether the second email qualified as privileged under Exemption 4. Trying to undercut the legitimacy of the DynCorp privilege claim, Jordan argued that DynCorp had waived its privilege by submitting the emails to the ALJ and allowing him to review them in camera. Contreras rejected the claim. He noted that "ALJs are judicial actors who, in the matters pending before them, must make determinations on the propriety of privilege claims asserted by the parties before them. There is no basis to conclude that they may not avail themselves of in camera review as a useful tool in making those determinations. If submission of information to such review jettisoned privilege, the review would have no purpose, because any privileged document submitted for in camera review would be immediately eligible for full disclosure under FOIA." He added that "Mr. Jordan unjustifiably disregards the fact that DynCorp submitted its emails for in camera review to validate its claim of privilege in accordance with an ALJ order. DynCorp's submission was consistent with attorney-client confidentiality and did not constitute a waiver of privilege. Indeed, ALJ Merck found that the attorney-client privilege applied, bolstering the Court's holding that the review process alone did not waive the privilege." Contreras rejected Jordan's claim that the agency should have segregated and disclosed the notation "Subject to Attorney-Client Privilege." Noting that even by Jordan's own logic the phrase provided no meaningful information, Contreras pointed out that "the Court will not adopt a rule that requires agencies 'to parse [privileged] emails, letters and general conversations on a statement-by-statement basis to determine which sentences or even clauses were protected and which were not' when there is no indication that the clauses have any substantive meaning." Aside from his FOIA claims, Jordan also leveled a number of Rule 11 sanction motions against the agency's attorney. Finding all his sanction motions bordered on the frivolous, Contreras noted that "the Court reminds Mr. Jordan that 'Rule 11 is not a toy.' Sanctioning the conduct of a litigant is a solemn endeavor. The Court admonishes Mr. Jordan to 'think twice' before moving for sanctions in the future. Mr. Jordan's cavalier approach to sanctions motions could result in him being sanctioned himself."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Competitive harm
Opinion/Order [60]
FOIA Project Annotation: After dismissing Jack Jordon's persistent demands that he recuse himself because he was biased or reverse his previous ruling in favor of the Department of Labor, Judge Rudolph Contreras has resolved the remaining FOIA issues in a case brought by Jordan for communications made by DynCorp International during an administrative proceeding in which Jordan was representing his wife Maria in a labor dispute with DynCorp International. By the time of his first decision, the case had boiled down to whether two emails that originated with DynCorp were privileged under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). While Contreras found that the confidentiality prong of Exemption 4 applied to the emails, he concluded that, without further justification from the agency, only one of the emails qualified under the attorney-client privilege. He told the agency to either disclose the second email or to better justify its privilege claim. In response, DOL supplemented its affidavits in an attempt to show the second email was privileged as well. This time, Contreras rejected the agency's claim. He noted that "here, DOL seems to argue that [the email sent by Robert Huber, who was DynCorp's Senior Contracts Director] qualifies for protection under the attorney-client privilege because it was sent as part of DynCorp's broader efforts to address a legal issue and because it was sent to an in-house attorney to provide him 'with a complete understanding of the facts relevant to the matter that was being discussed in the email.'" Rejecting that claim, Contreras pointed out that "it is difficult to say, under the circumstances of this case, that one of the primary purposes of the Huber email was to obtain legal advice. The email is specifically directed to another person " a non-attorney " and the email specifically (and only) seeks information from that person. It is not at all apparent from DOL's submission how Mr. Huber's request that [the non-attorney] provide certain information might in any way shape [DynCorp's in-house attorney's] legal advice on the business contract or any other legal matter. DOL's contention that some broader legal problem existed in the background is insufficient to connect this specific communication to that legal problem or to any prospective legal problem. [Further], the Huber email does not appear to contain any factual information on which the [in-house attorney] might rely to form a legal judgment." He added that "the Huber email's topic and distribution list appears to be nearly identical to that of the final email in the chain, which was not withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. The only difference between the two emails is that the Huber email was copied to an attorney while the final email in the chain was not. . .Simply copying an attorney on a communication does not make that communication privileged."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2016-09-191COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616080566) filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
2016-09-19SUMMONS (3) Issued as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
2016-09-262MOTION for CM/ECF Password by JACK JORDAN (jf) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
2016-10-143NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Todd Cohen on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
2016-10-194ORDER granting 2 Motion for CM/ECF Password. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/19/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
2016-10-255First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 10/25/2016)
2016-10-26MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 5 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that 5 Defendant's Motion is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant shall file its Answer or otherwise respond to Complaint by November 28, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/26/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
2016-10-26Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 11/28/2016. (tj) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
2016-11-146RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 9/27/2016. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 10/27/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Return Receipt, # 2 Exhibit USPS Confirmation)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
2016-11-147RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 9/26/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Return Receipt)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
2016-11-148RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR served on 9/27/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Return Receipt)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
2016-11-159MOTION for Summary Judgment by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Declaration of J Jordan, # 2 Exhibit B Appendix Index of Documents, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
2016-11-2210MOTION for Sanctions under FRCP Rule 11 by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Declaration J Jordan with Exhibits 1 - 5, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
2016-11-2211First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Proposed Briefing Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
2016-11-2312Memorandum in opposition to re 11 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Proposed Briefing Schedule filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jack Jordan)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
2016-11-2313MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time and 12 Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition, it is hereby ORDERED that 11 Defendant's First Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall adhere to the following briefing schedule: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by December 23, 2016; Plaintiff's Reply in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by January 23, 2017; Defendant's Reply in Support of its Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by February 22, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/23/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
2016-11-2814ANSWER to 1 Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 through 12 to Defendant's Answer)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-12-0115ERRATA Regarding Answer Paragraph #2 by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 14 Answer to Complaint filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-0516Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Index of Documents for Appendix, # 2 Exhibit B Index of Exhibits to the Answer, # 3 Exhibit C Allegations re: DOL Lack of Knowledge, # 4 Declaration of J Jordan, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
2016-12-0517Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION for Sanctions under FRCP Rule 11 filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
2016-12-0518REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 MOTION for Sanctions under FRCP Rule 11 filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Email to DOJ Nov. 18)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
2016-12-2019Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
2016-12-2320Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Declaration of Todd Smyth, with Attachments A-W, # 2 Exhibit 2, Declaration of Ramona Branch Oliver, with Attachments AA-HH, # 3 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) Modified on 12/27/2016 (jf). (Entered: 12/23/2016)
2016-12-2321Memorandum in opposition to re 16 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment (See ECF Nos. 20, 20-1, and 20-2) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
2017-01-2322REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 Amended MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JACK JORDAN. (JORDAN, JACK) Modified link on 1/24/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 01/23/2017)
2017-01-2323Memorandum in opposition to re 20 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JACK JORDAN. (See Docket Entry 22 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-01-2424MOTION to Compel Depositions of Smyth and Johnson by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-01-2625MOTION to Strike 20 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Exhibit 1 Smyth Declaration by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
2017-02-0126MOTION to Stay Pending Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, Emails from Jack Jordan, Jan. 25-31, 2017, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
2017-02-0227Memorandum in opposition to re 26 MOTION to Stay Pending Summary Judgment filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
2017-02-0228MOTION for Leave to File Second Motion under Rule 11 by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
2017-02-02MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 28 Motion for Leave to File Second Motion under Rule 11, it is hereby ORDERED that 28 the Motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/2/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
2017-02-0629MOTION to Compel Production of Evidence by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Request for Production, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
2017-02-0630Amended Memorandum in Opposition and Reply re 23 Memorandum in Opposition, 22 Reply to opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by JACK JORDAN (JORDAN, JACK) Modified event title on 2/7/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
2017-02-1331MOTION to Vacate October 26 Minute Order by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK). Added MOTION to Strike on 2/14/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 02/13/2017)
2017-02-2232REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
2017-03-0633Second MOTION for Sanctions under Rule 11 by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Emails re: Filing Deadline, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-0634JOINT APPENDIX by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Pages 7-26, # 2 Appendix Pages 2-6 & 28-53)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-0635RESPONSE re 34 Joint Appendix , Notice to the Court filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
2017-03-0736MOTION Address the APA in the Court's order by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jack Jordan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
2017-03-0937NOTICE Regarding Oppositions to Recently-Filed Motions by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
2017-07-24MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that, by July 31, 2017, Defendant shall submit the string of five emails with the subject line "WPS -- next steps & actions," described in paragraph 1 of the complaint (ECF No. 1), in its entirety, for in camera review. See Ray v. Turner , 587 F.2d 1187, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1978). SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 7/24/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
2017-08-0438ORDER granting 19 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 16 Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 20 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 10 Plaintiff's First Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11; denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions of Todd Smyth and Diane Johnson; denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Smyth Declaration; denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence Regarding Smyth Declaration; denying 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Prohibited Ex Parte Communication and Vacate October 26 Minute Order; denying 33 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11; denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion Regarding the APA as Basis for Decisions; denying as moot 26 Defendant's Motion for Stay Pending Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 8/4/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
2017-08-0439MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 19 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint; denying 16 Plaintiff's Corrected Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 20 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 10 Plaintiff's First Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11; denying 24 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Depositions of Todd Smyth and Diane Johnson; denying 25 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike the Smyth Declaration; denying 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Evidence Regarding Smyth Declaration; denying 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Prohibited Ex Parte Communication and Vacate October 26 Minute Order; denying 33 Plaintiff's Second Motion for Sanctions Under Rule 11; denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion Regarding the APA as Basis for Decisions. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 8/4/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
2017-08-2040MOTION for Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jack Jordan, # 2 Exhibit 1--Emails with DOJ re Motion, # 3 Exhibit 2--Emails to DOJ re Ex Parte Communications, # 4 Exhibit 3--Emails to DOJ re ECF Notices, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) Modified event title on 8/21/2017 (znmw) (Entered: 08/20/2017)
2017-09-0141MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Robert A. Huber, # 2 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
2017-09-0142Memorandum in opposition to re 40 MOTION for Disclosure and Motion for Protective Order filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 - Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production, # 2 Ex 2 - Emails from Plaintiff threatening to file additional motions)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
2017-09-0143MOTION for Protective Order (Duplicate filing of ECF No. 42) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Ex 1 - Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production, # 2 Ex 2 - Emails from Plaintiff threatening to file additional motions)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
2017-09-0844REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 MOTION for Disclosure filed by JACK JORDAN. (JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
2017-09-1445RESPONSE re 43 MOTION for Protective Order (Duplicate filing of ECF No. 42) filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration J. Jordan 9/14/17, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 09/14/2017)
2017-09-1546RESPONSE re 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration J. Jordan dated 9/15/17, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
2017-09-2047MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
2017-09-2148ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 47 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) Modified on 9/22/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 09/21/2017)
2017-09-2149Memorandum in opposition to re 47 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) Correction with Exhibit 1 filed by JACK JORDAN. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1--Emails with DOJ 9/20/17, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
2017-09-21MINUTE ORDER granting 47 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall have until and including September 28, 2017, to file its reply to Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on September 20, 2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
2017-09-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 9/28/2017. (tj) (Entered: 09/21/2017)
2017-09-2250MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Set/Reset Deadlines by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Minute Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
2017-09-22NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 48 Memorandum in Opposition was entered in error and refiled with an exhibit as Docket entry 49 Memorandum in Opposition. (znmw) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
2017-09-2851REPLY to opposition to motion re 41 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
2017-09-2952Memorandum in opposition to re 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Set/Reset Deadlines filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-10-0253REPLY to opposition to motion re 50 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply, Set/Reset Deadlines filed by JACK JORDAN. (JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 10/02/2017)
2017-10-0454NOTICE of Attempt to Confer by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Emails 8/10 and 8/15/17, # 2 Exhibit 2 Emails 10/3/17, # 3 Exhibit 3 Emails 10/4/17)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
2017-10-1255MOTION to Disqualify Judge Contreras by JACK JORDAN (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
2017-10-1856Memorandum in opposition to re 55 MOTION to Disqualify Judge Contreras filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 10/18/2017)
2017-10-2557REPLY to opposition to motion re 55 MOTION to Disqualify Judge Contreras filed by JACK JORDAN. (JORDAN, JACK) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
2018-03-3058Transmittal Letter. See document for details. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-03-3059ORDER denying 55 Plaintiff's "Motion to Disqualify Judge Contreras"; denying 50 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of order granting Defendant's motion for extension of time; denying 40 Plaintiff's "Motion for Disclosure and Inclusion of Portions of the Emails and Other Non-Privileged Ex Parte Communications"; denying 41 Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment; and denying 43 Defendant's motion for a protective order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 30, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-03-3060MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 55 Plaintiff's "Motion to Disqualify Judge Contreras"; denying 50 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of order granting Defendant's motion for extension of time; denying 40 Plaintiff's "Motion for Disclosure and Inclusion of Portions of the Emails and Other Non-Privileged Ex Parte Communications"; denying 41 Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment; and denying 43 Defendant's motion for a protective order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 30, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar