Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJAMES MADISON PROJECT et al v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2017cv00144
Date Filed2017-01-23
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge Amit P. Mehta
PlaintiffJAMES MADISON PROJECT
PlaintiffJOSH GERSTEIN
Case DescriptionThe James Madison Project and reporter Josh Gerstein submitted FOIA requests to the FBI, the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency for records concerning the two-page synopsis given to President Donald Trump with respect to allegations that the Russian government had compromising information about him, any determination regarding the accuracy of the allegations, and any investigative files used to make such a determination. JMP and Gerstein also requested expedited processing from each agency. After hearing nothing further concerning their requests for expedited processing, JMP and Gerstein filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Expedited processing, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DefendantCENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
DefendantOFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
DefendantDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
AppealD.C. Circuit 18-5014
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
Opinion/Order [36]
FOIA Project Annotation: In the first court assessment of what role President Donald Trump's tweets play in constituting an official acknowledgment of documents, Judge Amit Mehta has concluded that while Trump's tweets constitute public statements of the President, they may bear little or no relevance as to whether they serve to confirm their contents. While Mehta's assessment hinges on the extent to which Trump's tweets specifically identify documents under the official acknowledgment doctrine, one implication of his ruling is that Trump's tweets are frequently divorced from any relationship to actual government policy that may be revealed through the existence of records. The case involved a request by the James Madison Project and Politico reporter Josh Gerstein for a copy of the two-page synopsis of the 35-page Steele Dossier containing allegations that Russia had compromising personal and financial information about Trump, that was given to Trump in January 2017. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, and the National Security Agency all told JMP and Gerstein that they had the Synopsis but refused to disclose it. The three agencies also issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying the existence of records, concerning any final determinations regarding the allegations in the Steele Dossier. The FBI issued a Glomar response, declining to confirm the existence of the synopsis as well. JMP and Gerstein then filed suit, claiming that various public statements made by Trump, as well as statements made by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former FBI Director James Comey constituted an official acknowledgment of the existence of the records that waived the agencies' ability to rely on a Glomar response. Mehta agreed with the government that the official acknowledgment standard first enunciated in Fitzgibbon v. CIA, 911 F.2d 755 (D.C. Cir. 1990), required that the information requested must be as specific as the information previously disclosed, that the information must match the information previously disclosed, and that the disclosure must have been made through an official and documented disclosure. JMP and Gerstein argued for a more lenient standard where a plaintiff "must point to official disclosures that warrant a 'logical and plausible' inference as to the existence or nonexistence of the requested records." Mehta responded that "to the extent Plaintiffs contend that Fitzgibbon's three-part test does not apply in the Glomar context, they are mistaken. The D.C. Circuit consistently has applied Fitzgibbon's three prongs to evaluate a claim of 'official acknowledgment' in the Glomar context." He explained that "ultimately then, to overcome an agency's Glomar response when relying on an official acknowledgement, 'the requesting plaintiff must pinpoint an agency record that both matches the plaintiff's request and has been publicly and officially acknowledged by the agency.'" He rejected JMP and Gerstein's claim that the more recent D.C. Circuit decision in ACLU v. CIA, 710 F.3d 422 (D.C. Cir. 2013), found that Glomar responses could be judged based on whether they were "logical or plausible." Instead, he pointed out that "in the Glomar context, the specificity requirement concerns the 'fit' between thee particular records sought and the records that are the subject of the public official statements." He noted that "the 'logical nor plausible' language of ACLU, by contrast, is used to evaluate an agency's justification for invoking a FOIA exemption to withhold records or issue a Glomar response," and added that "while ACLU establishes a standard relevant to the Glomar context, it does not displace the specificity requirement of Fitzgibbon." JMP and Gerstein claimed that a number of Trump's tweets confirmed the existence of the records, as well as statements made by Clapper and Comey both before and after they left the government. JMP, Gerstein, and the government all agreed that Trump's tweets constituted presidential statements. In addition to the tweets, the plaintiffs also relied on various interviews Trump gave to the media, Trump's termination letter to Comey, and statements made by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. JMP and Gerstein also offered testimony by Comey before the House Select Committee on Intelligence before his termination and testimony given to the Senate Intelligence Committee after his termination. Mehta agreed that Comey's testimony before his termination constituted an official statement of the FBI but pointed out that "statements made after leaving government service, however, are a different matter. They do not constitute official statements and, therefore, cannot be treated as an official acknowledgement of the existence of a record." JMP and Gerstein argued that Comey's statement after his termination lent context to statements Trump had already made. But Mehta declined to broaden the scope that far, noting instead that "the official statement must stand on its own �" it either rises to the level of a public acknowledgement or it does not." As to Clapper's statements, Mehta recognized that a press release issued before Clapper resigned constituted an official statement, but that comments Clapper made after he resigned did not. Mehta found Trump's statements did not reveal that he had received the synopsis. Even in an interview with the New York Times, Mehta observed, "the President did not say that Director Comey presented him with the Synopsis. This is not hair-splitting. Distinguishing between [the Dossier and the Synopsis] is critical, for the D.C. Circuit's decision in Wolf [v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007] teaches that the record demanded must 'match' exactly the record that is publicly acknowledged." He pointed out that the "official acknowledgment standard is not a 'surely the agency must have it' standard. The official statements themselves must 'leave no doubt' that the agency possesses the requested records. Here, the President acknowledged in his New York Times interview that, at most, he received some information about the Dossier's contents from Director Comey. . .It does not inexorably follow [from Trump's comments], however, that the FBI possesses the Synopsis. To be sure, a document purported to be the Dossier is in the public domain, and the media has reported on some of its more salacious allegations, but no official statement from any authoritative source has revealed its precise contents." JMP and Gerstein asked Mehta to apply a 'presumption of regularity' to the President's statements and tweets" and to "presume that, when he addresses the public, the President is properly discharging his official duties and relying on 'official U.S. Government information' to do so." Mehta found that none of Trump's tweets went so far as to actually identify the existence of records for purposes of the official acknowledgement standard, but he agreed with the plaintiffs that it was difficult to understand how to view his various tweets. Referring to a tweet in which Trump accused Huma Abedin of disclosing secure protocols on her laptop, Mehta observed that "applying Plaintiff's logic to this tweet, the court would have to find that federal law enforcement agencies had determined that [Abedin] gave foreign agents classified passwords and that documents exist to support that conclusion. But no reasonable jurist would so hold based on the President's tweet alone. To be sure, a presidential tweet could satisfy the stringent requirements of the official acknowledgement doctrine. But it does not follow that just because a tweet is an 'official' statement of the President that its substance is necessarily grounded in information contained in government records."
Issues: Public domain, Determination - Glomar response
Opinion/Order [49]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amit Mehta has ruled that the Trump-approved declassification of two conflicting memos from the House Intelligence Committee " one written by chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) and the other by ranking minority member Adam Schiff (D-CA) " constitute public acknowledgement that the FBI had a copy of the Steele Dossier and had briefed Trump on the allegations while he was President-elect. Mehta admitted that he was caught in a procedural bind because the James Madison Project and Politico reporter Josh Gerstein had already appealed Mehta's earlier ruling that Trump's tweets as of that time did not provide public acknowledgement that the FBI had briefed Trump on the contents of the Dossier to the D.C. Circuit. Having done that, Mehta no longer had jurisdiction over the case until the D.C. Circuit had considered it. But because of the intervening events pertaining to the disclosure of the Nunes and Schiff memos, he agreed to address how he would rule if the case was remanded by the D.C. Circuit. This time, as he had done a few weeks earlier in a case involving a libel suit brought against BuzzFeed for revealing the contents of the Dossier, he indicated that the Nunes and Schiff memos constituted public acknowledgement of the role played by the FBI in assessing the allegations in the Dossier. The Nunes memo confirmed that former FBI Director James Comey briefed President-elect Trump regarding a summary of the Steele Dossier. Mehta observed that "it is true that the Nunes Memo does not use the word 'synopsis.' But that is not fatal. The context in which the official acknowledgement was made leads to the obvious inference that the FBI possesses the two-page synopsis Plaintiffs seek. Is it reasonable to conclude that the synopsis does not exist or that the FBI does not possess it, even though the FBI has, in the words of the Nunes Memo, undertaken a 'rigorous process to vet allegations from Steele's reporting?' Of course not. No reasonable person would accept as plausible that the nation's top law enforcement agency does not have the two-page synopsis in light of these officially acknowledged facts of its actions." JMP and Gerstein has also requested any evidence that the FBI had attempted to validate Steele's claims. The Justice Department argued that neither the Nunes nor the Schiff memo actually confirmed what steps the FBI took. Mehta found that position untenable. He pointed out that "it is simply not plausible to believe that, to whatever extent the FBI has made efforts to verify Steele's reporting, some portion of that work has not been devoted to allegations that made their way into the synopsis. After all, if the reporting was important enough to brief the President-elect, then surely the FBI thought enough of those key charges to attempt to verify their accuracy." Having rejected the FBI's ability to issue a Glomar response, Mehta pointed out that finding did not prevent the intelligence agencies that were not identified in the Nunes or Schiff memos from issuing a Glomar response. He noted that "the court does not read Circuit precedent to go so far as to say that the President's acknowledgement of the existence of records by one agency categorically precludes every part of the Executive Branch from asserting a Glomar response. Rather, if an official acknowledgment is limited to a single component of the Executive Branch, as is the case here, other unrelated components may still invoke Glomar."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2017-01-231COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4814341) filed by THE JAMES MADISON PROJECT, JOSH GERSTEIN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Rule 7.1 certification, # 3 Summons CIA, # 4 Summons DoD, # 5 Summons DOJ, # 6 Summons ODNI, # 7 Summons USADC, # 8 Summons USAG)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
2017-01-232NOTICE of Appearance by Mark Steven Zaid on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 01/23/2017)
2017-01-243LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (zsb) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-01-24Case Assigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zsb) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-01-244SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Form)(zsb) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-02-135RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 1/30/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/1/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proof of Service)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
2017-02-136NOTICE of Appearance by David Michael Glass on behalf of All Defendants (Glass, David) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
2017-02-137AMENDED COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, JOSH GERSTEIN.(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
2017-03-018ANSWER to 7 Amended Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Related document: 7 Amended Complaint filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B, # 3 Ex. C, # 4 Ex. D, # 5 Ex. E, # 6 Ex. F, # 7 Ex. G)(Glass, David) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
2017-03-019VACATED PURSUANT TO COURT'S ORDER OF 3/12/2017............ORDER: Both a Complaint and an Answer are now before the court in this FOIA case. It is hereby ordered that the parties shall meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report on or before March 15, 2017. See attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/01/2017. (lcapm3) Modified on 3/13/2017 (zcdw). (Entered: 03/01/2017)
2017-03-01Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 3/15/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
2017-03-1010Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Glass, David) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
2017-03-12MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before April 5, 2017. The court's March 1, 2017, Order setting a deadline of March 15, 2017, for the status report is hereby vacated. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/12/2017. (lcapm3) (Entered: 03/12/2017)
2017-03-12Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 4/5/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
2017-04-0511Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) (Entered: 04/05/2017)
2017-04-0612ORDER: Having considered 11 the parties' Joint Status Report, the court sets the following schedule for further proceedings in this matter: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before May 30, 2017; Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before June 30, 2017; Defendants' Reply and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before July 31, 2017; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed on or before August 14, 2017. See attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/06/2017. (lcapm3) (Entered: 04/06/2017)
2017-04-06Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion due by 5/30/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/30/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/31/2017. Plaintiff's Cross Motion due by 6/30/2017. Response to Cross Motion due by 7/31/2017. Reply to Cross Motion due by 8/14/2017. (cdw) (Entered: 04/09/2017)
2017-05-2613Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Glass, David) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
2017-05-30MINUTE ORDER granting 13 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The revised schedule in this matter is as follows: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before July 7, 2017; Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before August 7, 2017; Defendants' Reply and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before September 7, 2017; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed on or before September 21, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/30/2017. (lcapm3) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
2017-05-30Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendants' Summary Judgment motion due by 7/7/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/7/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/7/2017. Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 8/7/2017. Response to Cross Motion due by 9/7/2017. Reply to Cross Motion due by 9/21/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
2017-07-0714MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Mem. Supp., # 2 Ex. List, # 3 Ex. A, # 4 Ex. B, # 5 Ex. C, # 6 Ex. D, # 7 Ex. E, # 8 Ex. F, # 9 Ex. G, # 10 Ex. H, # 11 Ex. I, # 12 Ex. J, # 13 LCvR 7(h)(1) Statement, # 14 Prop. Order)(Glass, David) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
2017-07-0715AFFIDAVIT re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ex. C Refiled as Original Filing Not Accepted by PACER) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
2017-07-0716AFFIDAVIT re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Ex. C as Further Refiled as Two Previousl Filings Not Accepted by PACER) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
2017-08-0717Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
2017-08-0718Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
2017-09-0720EXHIBITS re 19 REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. List, # 2 Ex. A, # 3 Ex. B, # 4 Ex. C, # 5 Ex. D, # 6 Ex. E, # 7 Ex. F, # 8 Ex. G, # 9 Ex. H, # 10 Def. Resp. Pl. Statement, # 11 Def, Supp. Statement)(Glass, David) Modified event title on 9/8/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 09/07/2017)
2017-09-0719REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Brief as Refiled due to ECF Glitch) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) (Entered: 09/07/2017)
2017-09-1821Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
2017-09-18MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Reply. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply on or before September 25, 2017. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 09/18/2017. (lcapm3) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
2017-09-18Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Plaintiffs' reply due by 9/25/2017. (zcdw) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
2017-09-2522REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts (Response to Supplemental))(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
2017-10-1923NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 10/19/2017)
2017-10-2224NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 10/22/2017)
2017-10-23Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Oral Argument set for 11/2/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zcdw) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
2017-10-3125RESPONSE to 23 Notice, 24 Notice (Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Notices of Supplemental Information) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. List, # 2 Ex. A, # 3 Ex. B, # 4 Ex. C, # 5 Ex. D)(Glass, David) Modified event title and link on 11/1/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 10/31/2017)
2017-11-0126RESPONSE re 25 Response by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) Modified event title and link on 11/2/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/01/2017)
2017-11-02Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held in lieu of Oral Arguments on 11/2/2017. Defendants To File Motion In Regards To Recusal due by 11/7/2017. Defendants Supplemental Memorandum In Regards To Tweets due by 11/13/2017. Plaintiff Response To Defendants Supplemental Memorandum due on 11/16/2017 by 3:00PM. Oral Arguments is now set for 11/17/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (Court Reporter PATRICIA KANESHIRO-MILLER.) (mac) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
2017-11-0527NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/05/2017)
2017-11-0728NOTICE Regarding Recusal by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Glass, David) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
2017-11-1329SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to 23 Notice, 24 Notice, 27 Notice (Defendants' Supplemental Submission and Further Response to Plaintiffs' Post-Briefing Notices) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. List, # 2 Ex. A, # 3 Ex. B, # 4 Ex. C)(Glass, David) Modified to add links on 11/14/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/13/2017)
2017-11-1630REPLY re 29 to Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) Modified to add link on 11/17/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 11/16/2017)
2017-11-17Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Oral Argument held on 11/17/2017 re 14 , 18 Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. Motions heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: William Zaremba) (zcdw) (Entered: 11/19/2017)
2017-11-2931NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/29/2017)
2017-12-0432TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT PROCEEDINGS before Judge Amit P. Mehta held on November 17, 2017; Page Numbers: 1-39. Date of Issuance:December 4, 2017. Court Reporter/Transcriber: William Zaremba; Telephone number: (202) 354-3249. Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, PDF or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter. NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 12/25/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/4/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/4/2018.(wz) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
2017-12-0833RESPONSE re 31 to Plaintiffs' Fourth Notice of Supplemental Information filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. List, # 2 Ex. A, # 3 Ex. B)(Glass, David) Modified to add link on 12/11/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 12/08/2017)
2017-12-2634NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 12/26/2017)
2018-01-0335RESPONSE re 34 to Plaintiffs' Fifth Notice of Supplemental Information filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. List, # 2 Ex. A, # 3 Ex. B)(Glass, David) Modified to add link on 1/4/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 01/03/2018)
2018-01-0436MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 14 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and 18 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See the attached Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/04/2018. (lcapm3) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
2018-01-0437ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 18 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See 36 Memorandum Opinion and the attached Order for details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/04/2018. (lcapm3) (Entered: 01/04/2018)
2018-01-2338NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090-5297647. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
2018-01-2439Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 38 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
2018-01-25USCA Case Number 18-5014 for 38 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (zrdj) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
2018-02-1640MOTION for Reconsideration by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Nunes Memo, # 2 Exhibit 2 - DOJ Response, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/16/2018)
2018-02-2641NOTICE of Supplemental Information in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Schiff Memo)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
2018-02-2742MOTION to Modify for Leave to Modify and Supplement Motion for Reconsideration by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) Modified evenet title on 2/28/2018 (znmw). Added MOTION for Leave to File on 2/28/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 02/27/2018)
2018-02-28MINUTE ORDER granting 42 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Modify and Supplement Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants' opposition and/or response to the modified Motion for Reconsideration shall be filed on or before March 14, 2018. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/28/2018. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
2018-02-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Opposition And/Or Response due by 3/14/2018. (mac) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
2018-03-1443RESPONSE re 40 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) (Entered: 03/14/2018)
2018-03-1644REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 MOTION for Reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an Indicative Ruling filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 03/16/2018)
2018-04-0345NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Judicial Watch motion, # 2 Exhibit 2 - DOJ Response)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
2018-04-0546RESPONSE re 45 Notice Respond to Plaintiffs' Second Notice of Supplemental Information in Support of Their Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, an Indicative Ruling filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Glass, David) Modified event title and link on 4/6/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 04/05/2018)
2018-05-0947NOTICE of Supplemental Information by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - D.C. Circuit per curiam order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
2018-05-0948ORDER of USCA as to 38 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. USCA Case Number 18-5014. (zrdj) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
2018-08-1649INDICATIVE RULING AND ORDER re: Plaintiffs' 40 Motion for Reconsideration. Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1, the court states that, on remand, the court would grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration as to all of the FBI's Glomar responses. The court denies the Motion for Reconsideration as to the Intelligence Community Defendants' Glomar responses. See the attached Indicative Ruling and Order for details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/16/2018. (lcapm3) Modified document type on 8/17/2018 (zjd). (Entered: 08/16/2018)
2018-11-0150ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the motion for limited remand be granted and the record be remanded to the district court for further proceedings with respect to the motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which remains pending in part in the district court. See Fed. R. App. P. 12.1; D.C. Cir. Rule 41(b) and on the court's own motion, that this case continue to be held in abeyance pending further order of the court as to 38 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court filed by JOSH GERSTEIN, JAMES MADISON PROJECT ; USCA Case Number 18-5014. (zrdj) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
2018-11-01MINUTE ORDER. For the reasons stated in the Indicative Ruling and Order as to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 50, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration is granted as to the FBI's Glomar Response to Items One, Two, and Three of Plaintiffs' FOIA request. The parties shall appear for a status hearing on November 8, 2018, at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom 10 before Judge Mehta. In the event counsel or a party is unable to appear on the scheduled date and time due to an unresolvable scheduling conflict, counsel shall meet and confer and provide, via email, three alternative dates and times to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Mr. Jean-Claude Douyon (Jean-Claude_Douyon@dcd.uscourts.gov), who shall reset the status hearing and provide notice to the parties. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/01/2018. (lcapm3) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
2018-11-01Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/8/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zjd) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
2018-11-08Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Status Conference held on 11/8/2018. (Court Reporter: Crystal Pilgrim) (zjd) (Entered: 11/08/2018)
2018-11-0851ORDER setting the schedule for future proceedings in this matter pursuant to the Status Hearing held on this date. The schedule for further proceedings in this matter is as follows: Defendants shall produce all responsive records requested by Plaintiffs on or before December 14, 2018; Defendants shall submit a Status Report updating the court on what documents have been produced and whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation has completed its search on December 14, 2018; the parties shall meet and confer no later than January 7, 2019 to discuss the specific areas of dispute; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before January 15, 2019; Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before February 15, 2019; Defendants' Reply and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before March 1, 2019; and Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed on or before March 15, 2019. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 11/08/18. (lcapm3). (Entered: 11/08/2018)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar