Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleWALLICK v. AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2016cv02063
Date Filed2016-10-17
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
PlaintiffRICHARD S. WALLICK
Case DescriptionRichard Wallick submitted a FOIA request to the Agricultural Marketing Service for records concerning an application submitted by the Organic Materials Review Commission. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Wallick filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees, Adequacy - Search

DefendantAGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Opinion/Order [27]
FOIA Project Annotation: A recent ruling by Judge Rudolph Contreras dealing with Richard Wallick's request to the Agricultural Marketing Service provides an interesting discussion of the relative obligations of the agency and the requester to sufficiently clarify a request so that both parties agree on the substance of the request. Because in this instance the parties did not agree, the case is also an illustration of the consequences a requester may suffer for his failure to be clear. Wallick's attorney, David Stotter, requested records about the application for certification submitted by the Organic Materials Review Commission. Two weeks later, Stotter submitted a revised request, although the agency never admitted to receiving the correction and instead contacted Stotter confirming the request of his original request. Five weeks later, Stotter emailed the agency to check on the status of the request. The next day he spoke on the phone with AMS FOIA Officer Gregory Bridges. As a result of that conversation, Bridges emailed Stotter indicating that Wallick's request had been modified to encompass the complete OMRI application and AMS communications relating to the application and certification. Stotter responded three hours later, disagreeing that he had modified the request and clarifying that one item in the original request should be interpreted to include "any records pertaining to any follow-up actions by USDA as to the OMRI application to produce technical reports for NOSB's ISO 65 program." Bridges responded the next day, agreeing with Stotter that Wallick's request had not been modified and indicating that the first item in the request encompassed the full application and supporting documents so that OMRI could produce technical reports for NOSB's ISO 65 program, any communications relating to the processing of that application, and any communications related to OMRI's ISO 65 certification. The agency initially disclosed 88 pages in May 2016 and told Wallick it would complete processing the request by June 2016. However, the agency did not complete the request until December 2016, withholding some records under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Wallick challenged the adequacy of the agency's search primarily by arguing that the agency had improperly narrowed the scope of the request by limiting it to OMRI's application for certification and failing to provide records about its recertification. He also challenged the redaction of a single sentence under Exemption 5. Wallick argued that the inclusion of the term "follow-up actions," which appeared in Stotter's clarification emails, but not the original request, included records pertaining to recertification. Contreras disagreed, noting that "Mr. Wallick's FOIA request only included a request for OMRI's original application and not subsequent applications for recertification and documents related to those applications." Wallick argued that "the plain language of the parties' statement of what they understood the request to encompass clearly covers certification " meaning the state of being certified " since it covers any communication within the agency's possession 'relating to OMRI's ISO certification." Contreras pointed out that "plaintiff is correct that the word 'certification' could mean the state of being certified. However, it could also easily mean the process of being certified. Because the language in the parties' agreement is ambiguous, the Court cannot rely on the plain language of the agreement alone, and instead must look at the context in which the language is used." He noted that "the phrasing 'related to OMRI's ISO certification' did not originate from his FOIA request, but rather his and Mr. Bridges' joint interpretation of his FOIA request, which Mr. Wallick's attorney insisted was not a modification of the original FOIA request. The original request only requested documents relating to 'the complete application' OMRI submitted. At no point does it reference any subsequent applications or give any indication as to what other processes Mr. Wallick was interested in. Read in this context, the Court cannot conclude that the plain meaning of the agreement indicates that Mr. Wallick requested every document in AMS's possession related to the actions OMRI took to maintain its ISO certification." Wallick contended that his request was not specifically limited to the original application. Contreras indicated that "agencies must interpret FOIA requests liberally and reasonably, but they need not extend the meaning of the request to include things not asked for." He explained that "when Mr. Wallick asked for information regarding 'the application' and then insisted that his original FOIA request had not been modified through communications between Mr. Stotter and Mr. Bridges, AMS was not making a distinction between applications for certification and applications for recertification " Mr. Wallick was. The agency was simply reasonably interpreting his FOIA request, which asked for materials related to a single application." Contreras agreed with Wallick that the fact that the agency provided records containing audit and recertification materials and characterized them as responsive "does raise the question of how the agency originally interpreted the FOIA request. The agency now claims that it provided these documents out of generosity rather than any obligation under FOIA. If the agency believed this throughout the course of this litigation, it remains unclear why it did not specify this position in its releases to Mr. Wallick or in its motion for summary judgment." He observed that "however, the agency's seeming change in its interpretation of the FOIA request is of little consequence when determining the scope of this FOIA request, as it is this Court's duty to review the record de novo and therefore to interpret the scope of the FOIA request de novo. . .[T[he plain meaning of the FOIA request clearly indicates an interest in only a single application and the follow-up actions pertaining to that application. The clarification emails were specifically stated to not be modifications of the request, and therefore cannot be read to broaden the scope of the request." Having agreed with the agency's interpretation of Wallick's request, Contreras went on to find that the agency's search was deficient in several aspects. He pointed out that "here, the agency has not sufficiently demonstrated that there are no other locations or record systems that are also likely to hold the types of documents requested." Although the agency searched two network drives for emails, Contreras faulted the Bridges' affidavit, observing that "he conclusorily asserts that these were the only places likely to have responsive records, but he never explains why this is so. He never explains how OMRI's application would have made it onto either email system: for example, he never states that OMRI submitted its application by email rather than in paper form, or that it is common practice for AMS employees to email these kinds of applications to each other, thereby uploading them to the agency's email server. As such, AMS's statement that the two networks searched were the only places likely to have all responsive records is merely conclusory." He also found the agency's search insufficient because it had failed to search for other documents that should have been attached to OMRI's application. Contreras found that a sentence the agency had redacted from an email was not protected by the deliberative process privilege. He pointed out that "the redacted sentence is simply an off-hand comment from a supervisor to a subordinate employee about the potential effect of OMRI's decision to exclude the subordinate employee from an upcoming audit. It is not part of any identifiable deliberative process, nor does it appear to constitute a recommendation as to how the agency should proceed." Alternatively, the agency argued that the since the email was considered non-responsive, it could be withheld on that basis. But Contreras explained that "once an agency has deemed a document to be responsive and has produced it to the requester, regardless of whether it actually is or not, the agency may not redact the information without sufficiently justifying such redaction pursuant to one of FOIA's statutory exemptions."
Issues: Request - Specificity, Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2016-10-171COMPLAINT against AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4710509) filed by Richard S. Wallick. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Sorenson, C.) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
2016-10-17Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (jd) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
2016-10-172SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Forms)(jd) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
2016-11-213MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
2016-11-25MINUTE ORDER granting 3 Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint on or before December 22, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/25/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 11/25/2016)
2016-12-224Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
2016-12-23MINUTE ORDER granting 4 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its response to the Complaint on or before January 5, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/23/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
2016-12-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 1/5/2017, (tj) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
2017-01-065NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J. Stotter on behalf of RICHARD S. WALLICK (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
2017-01-066MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/9/2017: # 2 Proposed Answer) (znmw). (Entered: 01/06/2017)
2017-01-067ANSWER to Complaint (lodged) by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE.(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 01/06/2017)
2017-01-09NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 7 Answer to Complaint was entered in error as a separate docket entry and has been added to Docket Entry 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer, pending a ruling from the Court. (znmw) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
2017-01-13MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its answer on or before January 6, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/13/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
2017-02-01MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before February 16, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/1/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/01/2017)
2017-02-148PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE (Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule) by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
2017-02-14SCHEDULING MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 8 the Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before April 17, 2017; Plaintiff shall file his combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition on or before May 19, 2017; Defendant shall file its combined opposition and reply on or before June 19, 2017; and Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before July 24, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/14/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
2017-02-15Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 5/19/2017. Response to Cross Motions due by 6/19/2017. Reply to Cross Motions due by 7/24/2017. Summary Judgment motions due by 4/17/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/19/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/19/2017. (tj) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
2017-04-149Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Briefing Schedule by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
2017-04-17SCHEDULING MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 9 Consent Motion to Extend Briefing Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that the briefing schedule set forth in the scheduling minute order of February 14, 2017 is VACATED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before May 1, 2017; Plaintiff shall file his combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition on or before June 1, 2017; Defendant shall file its combined opposition and reply on or before July 7, 2017; and Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before August 10, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/17/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/17/2017)
2017-04-2810MOTION for Extension of Time to file dispositive motion by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
2017-04-2811Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to file dispositive motion filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
2017-05-0812REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to file dispositive motion filed by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
2017-05-11MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time, 11 Plaintiff's opposition, and 12 Defendant's reply, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the briefing schedule set forth in the scheduling minute order of April 17, 2017 is VACATED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before May 12, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/11/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
2017-05-1213MOTION for Summary Judgment by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Gregory Bridges and Exhibits 1-4, # 2 Exhibit Vaughn Index, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
2017-05-1614Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply & Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by RICHARD S. WALLICK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
2017-05-16MINUTE ORDER granting 14 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for an Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his combined opposition and cross motion for summary judgment on or before June 2, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/16/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
2017-06-0215MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities by RICHARD S. WALLICK (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard Wallick & Exhibits A - E, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-0216RESPONSE re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard Wallick & Exhibits A - E, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-1317Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
2017-06-13MINUTE ORDER granting 17 Consent Motion to Extend Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its combined opposition and reply on or before June 29, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before July 24, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/13/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
2017-06-2818Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
2017-06-2819Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
2017-06-28MINUTE ORDER granting 18 and 19 Consent Motions to Extend Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its combined opposition and reply on or before July 18, 2017. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before August 18, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/28/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/28/2017)
2017-06-30Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant combined response/reply due by 7/18/2017. Plaintiff's reply due by 7/18/2017. (gdf) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
2017-07-1820Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities and reply in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Suppl. Bridges Declaration, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) Modified link on 7/19/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 07/18/2017)
2017-07-1821REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (See Docket Entry 20 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
2017-08-1822REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 08/18/2017)
2017-10-0523ORDER directing Defendant to submit disputed record for in camera review. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/05/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
2017-10-1324NOTICE (Defendant's Notice of Submission in Camera) by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE re 23 Order (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 10/13/2017)
2017-10-1925NOTICE of Appearance by Rachel Doughty on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Doughty, Rachel) (Main Document 25 replaced on 10/20/2017) (znmw). (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-11-2026ORDER granting in part and denying in part 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 15 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/20/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
2017-11-2027MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 13 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 15 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/20/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
2017-12-1928Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by RICHARD S. WALLICK (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Daniel J. Stotter, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) . (Entered: 12/19/2017)
2017-12-1929Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file dispositve motion, oppositions and replies by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
2017-12-19MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before January 16, 2018. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion and reply to Defendant's opposition shall be due by February 14, 2018, and any reply by Defendant to Plaintiff's opposition shall be due by February 28, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/19/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
2018-01-1230Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 01/12/2018)
2018-01-16MINUTE ORDER granting 30 Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff's renewed motion for summary judgment shall be due by January 25, 2018. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's motion and reply to Defendant's opposition shall be due by March 1, 2018, and any reply by Defendant to Plaintiff's opposition shall be due by March 15, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/16/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-2231Consent MOTION to Stay filing of Cross Motion for SumJt. and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in light of Lapse of Appropriations by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
2018-01-23MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 31 Consent Motion to Stay filing of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion in light of Lapse of Appropriations. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 01/23/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
2018-01-2532MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's cross motion by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Suppl. Bridges Decl., # 2 Statement of Facts addressing Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, # 3 Statement of Facts Defendant's Statement of Undisputed Facts not in Dispute, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
2018-01-2533Memorandum in opposition to re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
2018-03-0134REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard Wallick)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-0135REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment & Supplemental Declaration of Richard Wallace filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Richard Wallace (Supplemental))(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-0136Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's cross motion filed by RICHARD S. WALLICK. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Supplemental Declaration Of Richard Wallick))(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-1537Consent MOTION to Stay proceedings by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 03/15/2018)
2018-04-03MINUTE ORDER granting 37 Consent Motion to Stay Proceedings: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on April 5, 2018, and that Defendant shall file its reply brief on or before April 12, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/03/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
2018-04-0438Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file status report (to 4/25/18) and Defendant's reply (5/3/18) by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
2018-04-19MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on April 25, 2018, and that Defendant shall file its reply brief on or before May 3, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/19/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
2018-04-19Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/25/2018; Reply Brief due by 5/3/2018. (tj) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
2018-04-2539Joint STATUS REPORT by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-05-0140Joint STATUS REPORT with Exhibit 1 by AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Exhibit 1)(Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
2018-05-01MINUTE ORDER: In light of the parties' representations in 40 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that, to the extent Plaintiff intends to seek costs and/or fees, he must do so on or before June 1, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 05/01/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
2018-05-1641Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Motion For Attorney Fees & Costs by RICHARD S. WALLICK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Stotter, Daniel) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
2018-05-18MINUTE ORDER granting 41 Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff may file his Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs by July 1, 2018. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of both parties' representations that the only dispute remaining in this case is the amount of costs and fees to be awarded to Plaintiff, 28 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and 32 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 05/18/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff