Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleMONTGOMERY et al v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2017cv00918
Date Filed2017-05-16
Date ClosedOpen
JudgeJudge James E. Boasberg
PlaintiffTHOMAS A. MONTGOMERY
PlaintiffBETH W. MONTGOMERY
Case DescriptionThomas and Beth Montgomery submitted two FOIA requests to the IRS for records concerning claims for awards for information submitted pertaining to the Montgomerys' tax liability. The agency told Montgomery that it did not have records indicating a criminal investigation, but would withhold information identifying a confidential source under Exemption 7(D). Montgomery filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. Montgomery then filed suit.
Complaint issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantINTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Complaint attachment 5
Complaint attachment 6
Complaint attachment 7
Complaint attachment 8
Complaint attachment 9
Complaint attachment 10
Complaint attachment 11
Complaint attachment 12
Opinion/Order [28]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the IRS has not shown that Thomas and Beth Montgomery's FOIA requests pertaining to a suspect tax investment scheme used by the Montgomerys are subject to either collateral estoppel or res judicata. The IRS previously found that two partnerships that allowed the Montgomerys to claim tax losses without any real economic loss were shams and disallowed losses the Montgomerys had claimed on their individual tax returns. The two partnerships filed suit against the government and the Fifth Circuit found that one of the partnerships was legitimate. As the result of a settlement agreement, the IRS was ordered to refund the Montgomerys $485,588. The Montgomerys then submitted FOIA requests to the IRS looking for the identity of a likely confidential informant. The IRS denied that portion of the Montgomerys' request under Exemption 7(D) (confidential source). The Montgomerys filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. The IRS claimed that its settlement agreement with the Montgomerys prohibited any further action by them on the issue. Boasberg, however, noted that the term "ongoing disputes" in the Settlement Agreement "is limited to the consolidated cases in [the previous litigation resulting in the refund]. As Plaintiffs' FOIA suits had not yet been filed, it is not barred by the plain language of the agreement." The IRS then argued that collateral estoppel, which prevents a party from bringing suit on an issue that has been previously decided, applied to block the Montgomerys' FOIA suit. Boasberg disagreed. He noted that "the Service never alleges that [in the litigation resulting in the refund] Plaintiffs asked for, and were denied, access to the records that they seek here." He pointed out that "access to records, not what those records may detail, is the relevant question here." Boasberg also rejected the IRS's claim that res judicata �" prohibiting the same parties from relitigating issues that had already been decided in prior litigation �" applied. Boasberg pointed out that "the Government's res judicata argument founders on a more basic ground: this FOIA suit and the previous litigation do not share a cause of action." He observed that "Plaintiffs' FOIA claim �" i.e., whether the IRS's search was adequate and its claimed exemptions appropriate �" is wholly different from what the previous courts assessed �" namely, the Mongomerys' correct tax liability. The present suit is, therefore, not barred by res judicata."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim
Opinion/Order [50]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the IRS properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records based on Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) in response to FOIA requests filed by Thomas and Beth Montgomery for information about how their tax fraud scheme came to the attention of the agency. After an investigation, the IRS disallowed the Montgomerys from taking losses from several sham partnerships they had created. The Montgomerys entered into a global settlement agreement, but later submitted several FOIA requests aimed at uncovering who had tipped off the IRS. The Montgomerys argued that the agency had waived its ability to use Glomar because the agency had originally claimed that any materials were protected by Exemption 7(D). Boasberg pointed out that "although the Court finds the Service's error unfortunate, it does not amount to an official acknowledgement. It would be draconian to penalize the Government in a sensitive matter concerning a potential informant by refusing to permit some leeway for an honest mistake. . .Even if the Court were to find that the [agency] letter acknowledged the existence of some records, its reference to 'withheld' or 'exempted' material does not specify which of the five requests it refers to and thus does not rise to the level of an official acknowledgment." Boasberg admitted that Exemption 7(D)'s requirement that the agency show that the information was provided in confidence posed some problems here "because a Glomar response is meant to obscure the very existence of the source (or attempted source), the Government cannot offer any public statement concerning the confidentiality assurances given to that source (or a statement that no source exists). As the Service persuasively argues, even though the identity of an informant may not be at risk in every case, to protect whistleblowers in cases where disclosure of the existence of records could lead to their identification, it must assert Glomar whenever an informant is involved." After reviewing the records in camera, Boasberg found the agency's Glomar response was appropriate. The Montgomerys also challenged the adequacy of the search, arguing that the agency should not have limited its search to two databases. Boasberg agreed that the agency had not adequately explained why it did not search other files. He noted that "it is entirely plausible that previous litigation files might contain information unrelated to a confidential informant but responsive to Plaintiffs' requests. And even if the Whistleblower Office was not a likely place to search for records, the Government must 'at the very least. . .explain in its affidavit that no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents.'"
Issues: Determination - Glomar response
Opinion/Order [62]
Opinion/Order [64]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the IRS properly invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in response to requests from Thomas and Beth Montgomery for records pertaining to how their various partnerships came to the agency's attention, based on Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources). In the mid-2000s, the IRS disallowed certain tax losses and issued certain tax penalties against partnerships associated with the Montgomerys. After several years of litigation, the parties came to a global settlement agreement. The Montgomerys then filed a number of FOIA requests attempting to find out more about why the agency decided to investigate them. In an earlier decision, Boasberg told the IRS to conduct a further search pertaining to five of the Montgomerys' requests and agreed with the agency that Exemption 7(D) could form the basis for a Glomar response. The Montgomerys challenged the agency's use of in camera declarations to justify its Glomar response. Boasberg pointed out that "where that very explanation may reveal information protected by a FOIA exemption, like here, it can be provided to the Court via in camera declarations and paired with a Glomar response." He explained that "in camera declarations, properly understood, thus safeguard plaintiffs' rights to government records, at least in this context. Were the Court, as Plaintiffs wish, to refuse to grant Defendant leave to file declarations in camera and responsive documents were to exist, the Court could not confirm that the records' disclosure would in fact implicate a FOIA exemption. . .It would simply have to take the Government at its word that this is the case. By reviewing such in camera materials, conversely, the Court can closely evaluate the Government's reasoning and then order as much of the materials released as is consistent with the exemption the agency has invoked. Such a procedure is assuredly second best to a full-throated debate about the specific records in question. But that is why such declarations may be relied on only in the rare circumstances like here, where such debate would 'reveal precisely the information that the agency seeks to withhold.'" The Montgomerys suggested that the agency could not be trusted. Boasberg responded by noting that "to the extent Plaintiffs think any declaration must be entirely public because of the agency's alleged misconduct, the Court disagrees. It has not observed here the sort of bad-faith conduct Plaintiffs allege the IRS committed several years ago and has seen nothing to make it question the veracity of the declarations in this case." The Montgomerys argued that the agency statement that there was no confidential source involved in the case against Thomas Montgomery constituted a public acknowledgement on the part of the agency. Boasberg rejected the claim, noting that "there may have been a source reporting on conduct or persons outside the scope of [the litigation pertaining to the Montgomerys' tax penalties]. Or it is possible that someone might be a confidential source within the meaning of Exemption 7(D) but not have been considered an informant or whistleblower in the investigations that were the subject of prior litigation �" perhaps because the IRS did not rely upon their information." Upholding the agency's use of Exemption 7(D), Boasberg pointed out that "there are some circumstances in which the divulging of the existence of a confidential source will also reveal that source's identity. Those circumstances, as the IRS explains, obtain here."
Issues: Litigation - In camera review, Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources, Determination - Glomar response
Opinion/Order [79]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the IRS has not supported its Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records in the ongoing litigation between the Thomas and Beth Montgomery and the agency. After the IRS investigated their company, the Montgomerys sent a series of FOIA requests to the agency in an attempt to find out if someone had acted as a whistleblower in bringing their tax activities to the attention of the agency. The agency cited Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) as the basis for declining to respond to some of their requests, but not for others relating to records from the agency's Whistleblower Office. However, the agency ultimately provided a Glomar response to the remaining requests. The Montgomerys argued that the agency's Glomar response was inappropriate because it did not cite an exemption as the basis for its claim. Boasberg agreed with the Montgomerys that this was fatal to the agency's Glomar defense. Boasberg pointed out that that his previous order required the agency "to disclose the results of its search or assert Glomar. But in giving Defendant those options, the Court was not preemptively sanctioning any Glomar response; it was, instead, explaining the scope of the agency's options under FOIA, which it has not yet lived up to. The IRS's obligation to justify its Glomar response thus remains." Boasberg indicated that while it was possible for the agency to sufficiently justify its Glomar response as it related to records about whistleblowers, it had not yet done so. He observed that the agency "has never adequately justified its Glomar response as to whistleblower-related records potentially responsive to [six of the Montgomerys' FOIA requests]; if it wants to invoke Glomar as to only 'whistleblower-related documents' it must explain publicly how it crafted such a category and why the category encompasses only documents that implicate an exemption."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response, Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2017-05-161COMPLAINT against INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4954271) filed by THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY, BETH W. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
2017-05-172ERRATA /Notice of Errata by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY 1 Complaint, filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Complaint, # 2 Corrected Civil Cover Sheet)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
2017-05-19Case Assigned to Judge James E. Boasberg. (zsb) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
2017-05-193SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Form)(zsb) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
2017-06-024RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 05/23/2017. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-025RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE served on 5/23/2017 (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-026RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 5/23/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 6/22/2017. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-197Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
2017-06-19MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court ORDERS that Defendant shall respond to the Complaint on or before July 22, 2017. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/19/17. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
2017-06-19Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 7/22/2017. (nbn) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
2017-07-218ANSWER to Complaint by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
2017-07-24MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by August 7, 2017. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7-24-2017. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
2017-07-24Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties shall meet, confer, and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by 8/7/2017. (nbn) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
2017-08-019NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas Lawrence Wilkins on behalf of BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Wilkins, Nicholas) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
2017-08-0210PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE / Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
2017-08-02MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by August 7, 2017, which shall propose sequential, not simultaneous, briefs. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/2/17. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
2017-08-02Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 8/7/2017. (nbn) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
2017-08-0311PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE /Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
2017-08-04MINUTE ORDER: Per the parties' Joint 11 Proposed Briefing Schedule, the Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before October 11, 2017; (2) Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion and cross-motion on or before November 6, 2017; (3) Defendant shall file its reply and opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion on or before November 30, 2017; and (4) Plaintiffs shall file their reply on or before December 14, 2017. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/4/17. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
2017-08-04Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 10/11/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/6/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/30/2017. Replies due by 12/4/2017. (nbn) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
2017-10-1012Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summ. Judg. Motion by 9-Days and Entire Summ. Judg. Briefin Schedule by 1-Day by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
2017-10-10MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File. The Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before October 20, 2017; (2) Plaintiffs shall file their opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment on or before November 15, 2017; (3) Defendant shall file its reply and opposition to the cross-motion for summary judgment on or before December 1, 2017; and (4) Plaintiffs shall file their reply regarding the cross-motion for summary judgment on or before December 15, 2017. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/10/2017. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
2017-10-10Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 10/20/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/15/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/1/2017. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 12/15/2017. (lsj) (Entered: 10/10/2017)
2017-10-2013MOTION for Summary Judgment based upon prior settlment including mutual release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Affidavit of Joseph Hunsader, # 5 Exhibit A (Pltfs' prior Judgment), # 6 Exhibit B (global settlement offer and acceptance letters), # 7 Exhibit C (Forms 211, 211A, etc.), # 8 Exhibit D (Pltfs' prior Complaint), # 9 Exhibit E (Pltfs' motion for disclosure) -- Part 1, # 10 Exhibit E -- Part 2, # 11 Exhibit E -- Part 3, # 12 Exhibit E -- Part 4, # 13 Exhibit E -- Part 5, # 14 Exhibit F (USA opposition motion to disclose ) -- Part 1, # 15 Exhibit F -- Part 2, # 16 Exhibit G (Order denying Pltfs' motion for disclosure), # 17 Exhibit H (Pltfs' proposed form of Judgment), # 18 Exhibit I (Pltfs' withdrawal motion to enforce judgments))(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
2017-10-2014MOTION to Stay obligation to affirmatively move for summary judgment on the ultimate merits of a FOIA lawsuit by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/20/2017)
2017-10-2715RESPONSE re 14 MOTION to Stay obligation to affirmatively move for summary judgment on the ultimate merits of a FOIA lawsuit /Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Stay filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
2017-10-3016MOTION to Amend/Correct 8 Answer to Complaint by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Exhibit Proposed Amended Answer (REDLINE version), # 5 Exhibit Proposed Amended Answer (CLEAN version))(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
2017-11-0317REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Stay obligation to affirmatively move for summary judgment on the ultimate merits of a FOIA lawsuit filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
2017-11-0318Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Defendant's Motion for Stay by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Plaintiffs' Sur-Reply to Defendant's Motion for Stay, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
2017-11-06MINUTE ORDER: Although Plaintiffs are correct in contending that Defendant has been somewhat protean in its handling of the summary-judgment briefing, the Court nonetheless believes that the most efficient way of handling the matter is to permit briefing on the threshold matters of release, estoppel, and res judicata first. As a result, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 18 Motion to File Sur-Reply is GRANTED; 2) Defendant's 14 Motion to Stay is GRANTED; 3) The parties shall confine this first round of briefing to those threshold issues; and 4) In the event the Court denies Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, it will set a further briefing schedule on the merits issues related to the search and withholdings. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/06/2017.(lcjeb2) (Entered: 11/06/2017)
2017-11-06ENTERED IN ERROR.....Case Stayed (nbn) Modified on 11/7/2017 (znbn). (Entered: 11/07/2017)
2017-11-07NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Case Stayed was entered in error. (nbn) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
2017-11-1519Memorandum in opposition to re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment based upon prior settlment including mutual release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Mutual Release, Collateral Estoppel, and Res Judicata filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Statement of Disputed Material Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
2017-12-0120STRICKEN PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 12/6/2017.....REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment based upon prior settlment including mutual release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Exhibit J, # 13 Exhibit K, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Exhibit M, # 16 Exhibit N)(Hunsader, Joseph) Modified on 12/7/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 12/01/2017)
2017-12-0521MOTION to Strike 20 Reply to opposition to Motion,, / Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declaration of Brett P. Ziegler [20-1] by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
2017-12-0522Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Based Upon Mutual Release, Collateral Estoppel, and Res Judicata by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
2017-12-06MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Defendant's 20 Reply is STRICKEN for excessive footnoting, which violates the Court's Local Rules and constitutes an effort to circumvent the page limits. Defendant may refile its Reply by December 7, 2017, which may contain no more than 10 footnotes with an aggregate total of 30 lines. Plaintiffs' 22 Motion is GRANTED, and they may file a Sur-Reply limited to 15 pages by December 15, 2017. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 12/06/2017. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
2017-12-06Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 12/7/2017. Sur-Reply due by 12/15/2017. (nbn) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
2017-12-0723REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment based upon prior settlment including mutual release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata [Revised] Reply filed pursuant to Court's Minute Oder of Dec. 6, 2017 filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-1524SURREPLY to re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment based upon prior settlment including mutual release, collateral estoppel, and res judicata filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 12/15/2017)
2017-12-1825Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Strike 20 Reply to opposition to Motion,, / Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declaration of Brett P. Ziegler [20-1] filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
2017-12-1926REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION to Strike 20 Reply to opposition to Motion,, / Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Declaration of Brett P. Ziegler [20-1] filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
2018-02-2027ORDER DENYING Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING Defendant's 16 Motion to Amend/Correct; and DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Strike. The Court ORDERS that the parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule on or before February 27, 2018. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/20/18. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-02-2028MEMORANDUM OPINION re 27 Order. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/20/18. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-02-20Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 2/27/2018 (lsj) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-02-2030Amended ANSWER to Complaint by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.(td) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
2018-02-2729PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE / Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
2018-02-28MINUTE ORDER: Per the parties' 29 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, the Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on the Ultimate Merits of a FOIA Lawsuit on or before April 9, 2018; (2) Plaintiffs shall file their consolidated Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on the Ultimate Merits of a FOIA Lawsuit on or before May 11, 2018; (3) Defendant shall file its Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 25, 2018; and (4) Plaintiffs shall file their consolidated Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before June 11, 2018. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/28/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
2018-02-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 4/9/2018. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/11/2018. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/25/2018. Plaintiffs' Replies due by 6/11/2018. (lsj) (Entered: 02/28/2018)
2018-04-0931MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Affidavit by Patricia Williams (redacted -- entire declaration to be be filed under seal with leave of Court), # 5 Affidavit of Pamela Sharisse Tompkins, # 6 Affidavit of Amy Mielke)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
2018-04-0932MOTION for Leave to File Declarations or portions thereof IN CAMERA and UNDER SEAL re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/09/2018)
2018-04-10MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 32 Motion to File In Camera and Under Seal. The Court ORDERS that Defendant shall submit the referenced materials in camera on or before April 17, 2018. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/10/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
2018-04-10Set/Reset Deadlines: In-Camera Submission due by 4/17/2018. (lsj) (Entered: 04/10/2018)
2018-04-1133MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit Declarations for the Court's In Camera Review by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit Declarations for the Court's In Camera Review, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
2018-04-1734NOTICE of Submissions of Declarations IN CAMERA for the Court's review by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
2018-04-2535Memorandum in opposition to re 33 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit Declarations for the Court's In Camera Review filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-2636REPLY to opposition to motion re 33 MOTION for Leave to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Submit Declarations for the Court's In Camera Review filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
2018-04-26MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' 33 Motion is GRANTED inasmuch as their Opposition may be filed. To the extent the Court considers any ex parte materials, it will ensure that Plaintiffs are given an opportunity to be heard such that they are not thereby prejudiced. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/26/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
2018-04-2637Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION for Leave to File Declarations or portions thereof IN CAMERA and UNDER SEAL re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (jf) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
2018-05-1138STRICKEN PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER OF 5/14/18. . . . .Memorandum in opposition to re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Statement of Disputed Material Facts, # 2 Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) Modified on 5/14/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 05/11/2018)
2018-05-1139STRICKEN PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 5/14/18. . . . .Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Statement of Disputed Material Facts, # 2 Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) Modified on 5/14/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 05/11/2018)
2018-05-14MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' [38-39] briefs are STRICKEN without prejudice as violating LCvR 5(d)'s ban on excessive footnotes. Plaintiffs may file by May 15, 2018, briefs that contain no more than 10 footnotes with no more than 50 aggregate lines of text. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/14/2018.(lcjeb2) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-1440Memorandum in opposition to re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-1441Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-14Set/Reset Deadlines: Brief due by 5/15/2018. (znbn) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
2018-05-2542RESPONSE re 41 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment , 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts in Opposition to Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
2018-05-2543REPLY to opposition to motion re 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' FOIA complaint based upon the "Glomar response" filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; (See docket entry no. 42 to view.) (ztd) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
2018-06-1144REPLY to opposition to motion re 41 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment / Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Upon Plaintiffs' Complaint and Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
2018-06-2245NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
2018-06-2546RESPONSE re 45 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY /Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Notice of Subsequent Authority filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
2018-08-2247NOTICE of Subsequent Authority by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
2018-08-2248RESPONSE re 47 Notice (Other) / Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Notice of Subsequent Authority filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
2018-09-0649ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendant's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; 2) Plaintiff's 41 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and 3) The parties shall submit a joint status report by September 20, 2018, with a joint proposed schedule for resolving what remains of the case. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 9/6/2018. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
2018-09-0650MEMORANDUM OPINION re 49 ORDER on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 9/6/2018. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 09/06/2018)
2018-09-06Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/20/2018. (znbn) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
2018-09-1451MOTION for Reconsideration re 50 Memorandum & Opinion, 49 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, , MOTION for Hearing /Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Opportunity to be Heard by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kim Marie Boylan in Support of Motion for Reconsideration and Opportunity to be Heard, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
2018-09-2052Joint STATUS REPORT by Plaintiffs and Defendant by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
2018-09-25MINUTE ORDER: Per the parties' 52 Joint Status Report, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration by October 5, 2018, with Plaintiffs' reply due by October 26, 2018; and 2) As to Items 6-12, Defendant shall inform the Court by October 16, 2018, whether it will submit further affidavits or renew its search; in either event, Defendant shall also propose a schedule for its actions. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 9/25/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
2018-09-25Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 10/5/2018. Replies due by 10/26/2018. Defendant shall inform the Court by10/16/18, whether it will submit further affidavits or renew its search; in either event, Defendant shall also propose a schedule for its actions. (znbn) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
2018-10-0453RESPONSE re 51 MOTION for Reconsideration re 50 Memorandum & Opinion, 49 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, MOTION for Hearing /Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Opportunity to be Heard filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
2018-10-1654AFFIDAVIT re 50 Memorandum & Opinion and Court's Minute Order of September 25, 2018 by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2018-10-1655STATUS REPORT pursuant to Court's September 25, 2018, Minute Order by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2018-10-16MINUTE ORDER: A conference call is hereby set for Friday, October 19, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. to discuss scheduling. The Court ORDERS that the parties shall jointly call Chambers at (202) 354-3300 at this time (in Chambers). So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/16/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2018-10-16Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/19/2018 at 09:30 AM in Chambers before Judge James E. Boasberg. (znbn) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2018-10-19MINUTE ORDER: As discussed in today's conference call from chambers, the Court ORDERS that: 1) The parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule regarding the Whistleblower Office search by October 22, 2018; 2) The Government will follow its proposed production schedule in the October 16, 2018, Status Report regarding the Bemont and Southgate files; and 3) The parties shall submit a joint status report about that production and briefing by April 5, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/19/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
2018-10-19Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 10/16/2018. Joint proposed briefing schedule regarding the Whistleblower Office search by 10/22/2018. Status Report due by 4/5/2019. (znbn) Modified on 10/22/2018 to correct date error (znbn). (Entered: 10/19/2018)
2018-10-2256PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE / Joint Proposed Status Report and Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
2018-10-22MINUTE ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the parties' 56 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule and ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs shall file their Motion Challenging Sufficiency of Supplemental Whistleblower Office Declaration and Scope of Search by November 9, 2018; 2) Defendant shall file its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion by December 3, 2018; and 3) Plaintiffs shall file their Reply in support of their Motion by December 14, 2018. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/22/2018. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
2018-10-22Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion Challenging Sufficiency of Supplemental Whistleblower Office Declaration and Scope of Search due by 11/9/2018. Responses due by 12/3/2018. Replies due by 12/14/2018. (znbn) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
2018-10-2657REDACTED DOCUMENT- Redacted Exhibits A, B, and C to replace Dkt. Nos. 53-1, 53-2, and 53-3 to 53 Response to motion, by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit B (to replace Dkt. No. 53-2, # 2 Exhibit Redacted Exhibit C (to replace Dkt. No. 53-3))(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
2018-10-2658REPLY to opposition to motion re 51 MOTION for Reconsideration re 50 Memorandum & Opinion, 49 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, MOTION for Hearing /Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and Opportunity to be Heard filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
2018-11-0959MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion Challenging Sufficiency of Supplemental Whistleblower Office Declaration and Scope of Search by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) Modified event title on 11/13/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 11/09/2018)
2018-11-2660Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION to Compel re Sufficiency of Supplemental Whistleblower Office Declaration and Scope of Search filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
2018-12-1361REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION to Compel filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
2019-01-1062ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 59 Motion Challenging the Sufficiency of the Search is GRANTED; 2) Defendant shall search the Whistleblower Office for records responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA Requests 6-12 and submit the results to Plaintiffs, or explain why that office is not reasonably likely to possess such records; and 3) The parties shall submit a joint status report addressing the status of the search and production, if any, by February 20, 2019. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/10/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
2019-01-1063ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' 51 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/10/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
2019-01-1064MEMORANDUM OPINION re 63 Order on Motion for Reconsideration and Opportunity to be Heard. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/10/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/10/2019)
2019-01-10Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/20/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
2019-02-0465MOTION for Certification for interlocatory appeal / Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of this Court's Order of January 10, 2019, For Interlocutory Appeal by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
2019-02-0666ORDER: The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs' 65 Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal is DENIED. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/6/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
2019-02-2067Joint STATUS REPORT by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
2019-02-21MINUTE ORDER: Having reviewed the parties' 67 Joint Status Report, the Court ORDERS that the Government shall submit any in camera filing by March 6, 2019. After reviewing such filing, the Court will determine what, if any, further briefing is required. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/21/2019. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
2019-02-21Set/Reset Deadlines: In-Camera Submission due by 3/6/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
2019-03-0568NOTICE of submission In Camera and under seal pursuant to Feb 21 Minute Order by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 03/05/2019)
2019-04-0369ORDER: For the reasons stated, the Court ORDERS that Defendant shall file a redacted copy of the in camera Declaration on the public docket by April 10, 2019, stating: (1) That they have adequately searched the Whistleblower Office for responsive documents, including those that may be related to a whistleblower; and (2) Either the result of the search, or that they are asserting Glomar with respect to any potentially responsive documents. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/3/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
2019-04-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file a redacted copy of the in camera Declaration on the public docket by 4/10/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
2019-04-0570Joint STATUS REPORT by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
2019-04-05MINUTE ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the parties' 70 Joint Status Report and ORDERS that they shall file another joint status report on or before June 28, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/5/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
2019-04-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/28/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
2019-04-1071NOTICE of Compliance with Court Order (Dkt. No. 69) by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE re 69 Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Redacted Declaration of Joseph Hebb)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
2019-04-11MINUTE ORDER: In light of Defendant's 71 Notice, the Court ORDERS that the parties shall confer on how they wish to proceed in regard to this issue. If Plaintiffs are challenging the IRS's position, the Court ORDERS that the parties shall submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by April 25, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/11/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
2019-04-11Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 4/25/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-2472PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE /Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
2019-04-24MINUTE ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the parties' 72 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule and ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs shall file their Motion Challenging Defendant's Whistleblower Office Declaration and Position by May 8, 2019; 2) Defendant shall file its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion by May 28, 2019; and 3) Plaintiffs shall file their Reply in support of their Motion by June 12, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/24/2019. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 04/24/2019)
2019-04-25Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 5/8/2019. Responses due by 5/28/2019. Replies due by 6/12/2019. (lsj) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
2019-05-0873MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Motion Challenging Defendant's Whistleblower Office Declaration and Position by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) Modified event title on 5/10/2019 (znmw). (Entered: 05/08/2019)
2019-05-2874Memorandum in opposition to re 73 MOTION to Compel filed by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
2019-06-1275REPLY to opposition to motion re 73 MOTION to Compel / Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion Challenging Defendant's Whistleblower Office Declaration and Position filed by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
2019-06-2876Joint STATUS REPORT by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
2019-07-01MINUTE ORDER: The parties' latest 76 Joint Status Report contains a number of disagreements on next steps. It appears to the Court that these are best resolved via a motion for partial summary judgment, rather than a declaration and further objections. The Court, accordingly, ORDERS that the parties shall confer and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by July 8, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/1/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
2019-07-01Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 7/8/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
2019-07-0577Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File to file Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Carroll, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
2019-07-05MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 77 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court ORDERS that the parties shall confer and submit a joint proposed briefing schedule by July 12, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/5/2019. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
2019-07-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 7/12/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
2019-07-0878ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' 73 Motion is GRANTED IN PART; and 2) The parties shall address in their Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, to be filed by July 12, 2019, how briefing should proceed on the outstanding Whistleblower Office issues, including whether it should be incorporated into the remaining summary-judgment briefing. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/8/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
2019-07-0879MEMORANDUM OPINION re 78 Order on Plaintiffs' Motion Challenging Sufficiency of Defendant's Response. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/8/2019. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
2019-07-08Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 7/12/2019. (znbn) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
2019-07-1280PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE / Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by BETH W. MONTGOMERY, THOMAS A. MONTGOMERY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Boylan, Kim) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
2019-07-12MINUTE ORDER: The Court ADOPTS the parties' 80 Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule and ORDERS that: (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the non-Whistleblower Office issues by August 16, 2019; (2) Plaintiffs shall file their Opposition and Cross-Motion, if applicable, to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the non-Whistleblower Office issues by September 17, 2019; (3) Defendant shall provide the information, including any supplemental evidence and/or briefing, required by the Whistleblower Office Order by September 17, 2019; (4) Defendant shall file its Reply and Opposition, if applicable, to Plaintiffs' Opposition and Cross-Motion on the non-Whistleblower Office issues by October 16, 2019; (5) Plaintiffs shall file any motion challenging Defendant's response to the Whistleblower Office Order by October 16, 2019; (6) Plaintiffs shall file their Reply, if applicable, to Defendant's Opposition on the non-Whistleblower Office issues by November 4, 2019; (7) Defendant shall file its opposition, if applicable, to Plaintiffs' motion challenging Defendants response to the Whistleblower Office Order by November 4, 2019; (8) Plaintiffs shall file their reply, if applicable, to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion challenging Defendant's response to the Whistleblower Office Order by November 22, 2019. So ORDERED by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/12/2019. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
2019-07-12Set/Reset Deadlines: Partial Summary Judgment motions due by 8/16/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/17/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/16/2019. Replies (if applicable) due by 11/4/2019. Responses (if applicable) due by 11/22/2019. (lsj) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
2019-08-1681MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) regarding Bemont and Southgate litigation files by INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit of Ann Mielke, # 3 Supplement Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Partial Summary Judgment, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Hunsader, Joseph) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar