Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleLIPTON et al v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2017cv02588
Date Filed2017-12-04
Date Closed2018-10-23
JudgeJudge John D. Bates
PlaintiffERIC LIPTON
PlaintiffNEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Case DescriptionNew York Times reporter Eric Lipton submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for an electronic copy of Administrator Scott Pruitt's daily calendar regularly updated. Lipton also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. The agency granted Lipton's request for expedited processing and indicated that there would be no fees associated with processing the request. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Lipton filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantUNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Complaint attachment 5
Opinion/Order [35]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge John Bates has made it clear that the frequently-requested records provision in Section (a)(2) of FOIA, requiring agencies to post documents that have been the subject of three or more requests, only applies to existing records and does not require agencies to commit to posting future meeting calendars. Frustrated by his inability to get current meeting calendars for then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, New York Times reporter Eric Lipton filed a FOIA request with the agency not only for Pruitt's existing calendars, but also demanding that the agency routinely post such records because they qualified under the frequently-requested records provision in Section (a)(2). In part because the request-driven provision in Section (a)(3) is still subject to constant delays, some FOIA litigators have begun to explore the frontiers of the affirmative disclosure provisions of Section (a)(2), hoping to force agencies to take those provisions more seriously by routinely posting more information. In overlapping litigation, CREW and the Campaign for Accountability has had a modicum of success, at least in getting the D.C. Circuit to recognize a cause of action under (a)(2), although that cause of action appears to be limited to situations in which the requester has made a FOIA request under (a)(3) as well. Although the reading room concept goes back to the original 1966 version of FOIA " a now-quaint reminder that agencies once maintained physical reading rooms that were supposed to be open to the public " the frequently-requested provision first appeared in the 1996 EFOIA Amendments as part of a legislative recognition that records subject to frequent requests should be made routinely available to the public and that making such records available electronically would help requesters as well as ease the burden on agencies. While the three-request threshold for determining whether records were considered frequently requested evolved shortly after the 1996 EFOIA Amendments became effective, Congress codified the rule in 2016. Lipton argued that §552(a)(2)(D) applied to Pruitt's calendar because it was of continuing public interest, likely to be subject to future requests, and had already been the subject of more than three requests. The EPA argued that the provision's requirement that "a document be released under the reactive provision before the section is triggered dooms plaintiff's claim, as one cannot make a proper FOIA request for documents that do not yet exist." Bates noted that "to resolve plaintiffs' claims, then, the Court must determine whether the Administrator's detailed calendar " including both existing and future entries " constitutes a single 'agency record' which must be continuously published under the reading-room provision." Bates then went on to explain that "the reading-room provision does not enable plaintiffs to seek all future entries in the Administrator's detailed calendar on a rolling basis; it only requires an agency to make publicly available documents that have already been created, and released in the past." Bates found that both the statutory language and the legislative history supported his conclusion. He started with what constituted a record under the frequently-requested provision, pointing out that "the law only specifies that 'record' and any other term used in [FOIA] in reference to information includes. . . any information that would be an agency record subject to the requirements of this section when maintained by an agency in any format, including an electronic format.' This otherwise tautological statement merely clarifies that electronic, as well as paper, documents count as records. It does not define what a record is." He continued: "And the ordinary understanding has long been that a 'record' is an existing document or other permanent, preserved account of past events. This was equally true in 1966, when FOIA itself became law, and in 1996 and 2016, when FOIA was amended to include §552(a)(D). Common usage, and common sense, supports the government's interpretation of the term 'record.'" He rejected Lipton's claim that Pruitt's calendar constituted a continuous record. Instead, he noted that "to qualify for publication under [the frequently-requested] provision, records must first 'have been released to any person' under the more familiar, reactive FOIA provision. If the other prerequisites in the reading-room provision are fulfilled, the agency must publish 'copies' of those same records. And one of the two ways in which those prerequisites can be met is if records are released under the reactive provision 'that have been requested 3 or more times.' Thus §552(a)(2)(D) equates the 'records' that must be published under the reading-room provision with the 'records' that have been successfully requested under the reactive provision. This language suggests that the particular information that must be published under the reading-room provision has to be the same information that has already been released in the past. One cannot previously have released information, or copies of information, that has not yet been created. Nor is nonexistent information likely to have been requested more than three times." Bates added that FOIA's search requirement also presumed the existence of records and he noted that "since a record must have been released under §552(a)(3) to qualify for publication under the reading-room provision, information not yet generated at the time of the search is not subject to the reading-room provision." Bates indicated that the legislative history of the 1996 and 2016 amendments supported his conclusion as well. He pointed out that while the 1996 amendments included a definition of "record" for the first time, it was intended only to clarify that FOIA applied to electronic records as well as paper records, noting that "the definition did not create a new substantive definition of what a record is." Indeed, both the House and Senate reports on the 1996 amendments explained that the reason for the inclusion of the frequently-requested provision was to avoid duplicative requests for the same records. Bates observed that Lipton's interpretation would expand the provision dramatically, requiring "agencies to continue releasing an official's calendar in perpetuity, after only three requests for even a small number of calendar entries. This would only increase, not alleviate, agencies' workloads." Bates noted that "plaintiff's reading of §552(a)(2)(D) would create massive, ongoing duties to publish non-static records if any part or prior version of a record had met the provision's prerequisites." He observed that "nor does this duty have any natural stopping point," adding that "popular interest in a non-static document like a calendar at one time could saddle an agency with responsibility to publish every update even when there would otherwise be no interest in or request for those updates at a later time. This is not the sort of efficient access that Congress envisioned."
Issues: Affirmative disclosure
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2017-12-041COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5232301) filed by Eric Lipton, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet, # 4 Summons, # 5 LCvR 7.1 Certificate)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
2017-12-04Case Assigned to Judge John D. Bates. (md) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-052MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- John Langford, :Firm- Yale Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, :Address- P.O. Box 208215, New Haven, CT 06520-8215. Phone No. - 203-436-5831. Fax No. - 203-432-3034 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-5233543. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Eric Lipton, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John Langford, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
2017-12-053MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Charles S. Sims, :Firm- Yale Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic, :Address- 11 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Rm. 2376. Phone No. - 917-612-6575. Fax No. - 212-969-2900 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-5234452. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by Eric Lipton, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Charles S. Sims, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Schulz, David) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
2017-12-074LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (md) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-075SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent) (md) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-07SUMMONS Not Issued as to U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney General.....FOIA SUMMONS WERE NOT SUBMITTED AT THE TIME COMPLAINT WAS FILED. (md) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-07MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 2 the motion for admission of John Langford to appear pro hac vice, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter the appearance of John Langford on behalf of plaintiffs. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 12/7/2017. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-07MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 3 the motion for admission of Charles S. Sims to appear pro hac vice, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2(d), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter the appearance of Charles S. Sims on behalf of plaintiffs. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 12/7/2017. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2018-01-086CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY re 1 Complaint, to Defendant U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
2018-01-087CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY re 1 Complaint, to U.S. Attorney General . (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
2018-01-088CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY re 1 Complaint, to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia . (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
2018-01-09NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entries 8 Certificate of Service, 7 Certificate of Service, 6 Certificate of Service were filed using the incorrect event; counsel is instructed to refile using the proper Summons Returned Executed entries (as to US Attorney General, as to Federal Defendant, and in FOIA case as to U.S. Attorney) on the Service of Process menu. (znmw) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
2018-01-109NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Todd Cohen on behalf of UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
2018-01-1010RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY served on 12/11/2017 (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
2018-01-1011RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 12/13/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 1/12/2018. (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
2018-01-1012RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 12/12/2017. (Langford, John) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
2018-01-1013MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 01/10/2018)
2018-01-11MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 13 defendant's motion for extension of time to answer, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART; it is further ORDERED that defendant shall file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by not later than February 2, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/11/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
2018-01-11Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 2/2/2018. (tb) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
2018-02-0214ANSWER to 1 Complaint by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.(Cohen, Jason) Modified to add link on 2/5/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 02/02/2018)
2018-02-0215ORDER requiring the parties to submit joint or separate proposed schedules for filing dispositive motions by not later than March 2, 2018. See text of order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 2/2/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
2018-02-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 3/2/2018. (tb) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
2018-03-0216Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Proposed Briefing Schedule by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Langford, John) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
2018-03-02MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 16 plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time to file a proposed briefing schedule, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule, or else separate proposed briefing schedules, by not later than March 5, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/2/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 03/02/2018)
2018-03-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint proposed briefing schedule, or else separate proposed briefing schedules due by 3/5/2018. (tb) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
2018-03-0517PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Plaintiffs by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Langford, John) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
2018-03-0518PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
2018-03-0919ORDER setting schedule for summary judgment briefing. See order for further details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 3/9/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
2018-03-12Set/Reset Deadlines: Partial Summary Judgment motion on Claim 1 due by 3/20/2018. Cross Motion and Response due by 04/20/2018. Response and Reply to Cross Motion due by 05/11/2018. Reply to Cross Motion due by 05/25/2018. Partial Summary Judgment motion on Claim 2 due by 5/8/2018. Cross Motion and Response due by 6/8/2018. Response and Reply to Cross Motion due by 6/29/2018. Reply to Cross Motion due by 7/13/2018. Vaughn Index due by 5/8/2018. (tb) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
2018-03-2020MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of John Langford, # 4 Exhibit A-T to Langford Declaration, # 5 Exhibit U to Langford Declaration, # 6 Exhibit V-BB to Langford Declaration, # 7 Declaration of Eric Lipton, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(Langford, John) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
2018-04-1721Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Claim 1 by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
2018-04-17MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 21 defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendant shall file its response to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and any cross-motion for partial summary judgment by not later than April 25, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/17/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
2018-04-18Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion due by 4/25/2018. (tb) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
2018-04-2522Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Claim 1 by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-25MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 22 defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendant shall file its response to plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and any cross-motion for partial summary judgment by not later than April 30, 2018, plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion and their response to any cross-motion by not later than May 18, 2018, and defendant shall file its reply in support of any cross-motion by not later than June 1, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 4/25/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-26Set/Reset Deadlines: Response and Cross Motion due by 4/30/2018. Reply and Response to Cross Motion due by 5/18/2018. Reply to Cross Motion due by 6/1/2018. (tb) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
2018-04-3023Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Claim (and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute, # 2 Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Larry F. Gottesman, # 4 Exhibits A-E to Gottesman Declaration, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
2018-04-3024Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (see ECF No. 23) filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
2018-05-0725Joint STATUS REPORT by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (Langford, John) (Entered: 05/07/2018)
2018-05-1426Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Opposing Defendant's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claim 1/in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Claim 1 by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Langford, John) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-14MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 26 plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and opposition to defendant's cross-motion by not later than May 25, 2018, and defendant shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment by not later than June 8, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 5/14/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-15Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply and Response to Cross Motion due by 5/25/2018. Reply to Cross Motion due by 6/8/2018. (tb) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
2018-05-17MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 20 plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, 23 defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that a motions hearing is scheduled for June 28, 2018 at 9:30 am in Courtroom 30. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 5/17/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 05/17/2018)
2018-05-2527Memorandum in opposition to re 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Claim (and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) and Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Responding to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Statement of Facts Supplementing Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts, # 3 Declaration of John Langford, # 4 Exhibit DD, # 5 Exhibit EE, # 6 Exhibit FF, # 7 Exhibit GG, # 8 Exhibit HH, # 9 Exhibit II, # 10 Exhibit JJ, # 11 Exhibit KK, # 12 Exhibit LL, # 13 Exhibit MM, # 14 Exhibit NN, # 15 Exhibit OO, # 16 Exhibit PP)(Langford, John) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
2018-05-2528REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY. (Langford, John) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
2018-06-0729Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Claim (and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
2018-06-08MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 29 defendant's unopposed motion for extension of time to file, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendant shall file its reply in support of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment by not later than June 12, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 6/8/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
2018-06-08Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Cross Motion due by 6/12/2018. (tb) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
2018-06-1230REPLY to opposition to motion re 23 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Claim (and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment) filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Cohen, Jason) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
2018-06-2531Letter Request for Permission for Law Student Allison Douglis to Appear for Plaintiffs at June 28, 2018, Oral Argument by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Langford, John) Modified on 7/10/2018 to edit the event text (zrdj). (Entered: 06/25/2018)
2018-06-2632NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit QQ, # 2 Exhibit RR)(Langford, John) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
2018-06-2733ORDER re 31 Notice of Request for Permission for Law Student Allison Douglis to Appear for Plaintiffs at June 28, 2018, Oral Argument filed by NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, ERIC LIPTON. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on 6/27/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (zrdj) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
2018-06-28Minute Entry for Proceedings held before Judge John D. Bates: Motions Hearing held on 6/28/2018 re: Plaintiffs' 20 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Defendant's 23 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. The Motions 20 23 were Heard and Taken Under Advisement. (Court Reporter: Janice Dickman) (jth) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
2018-07-1034ORDER denying 20 plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting 23 defendant's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See text of order and accompanying Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 7/10/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
2018-07-1035MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 7/10/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
2018-07-1336TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge John D. Bates held on June 28, 2018; Page Numbers: 1-65. Date of Issuance:July 13, 2018. Court Reporter/Transcriber Janice Dickman, Telephone number 202-354-3267, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/node/110">Transcript Order Form</a><P></P><P></P>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, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P> 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.<P></P> Redaction Request due 8/3/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/11/2018.(Dickman, Janice) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
2018-10-0937MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report (or separate reports, if they cannot agree) on their anticipated course of action in this case, including a proposed schedule for any further proceedings, by not later than October 23, 2018. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 10/9/2018. (lcjdb2) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
2018-10-2338NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by ERIC LIPTON, NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY (Langford, John) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar