Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: In a wide-ranging decision that touches on a host of procedural issues, Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that various practices of the CIA do not violate the FOIA but the fact that many of them expose the agency to judicial challenges may lead the agency to be somewhat more forthcoming during the administrative stages of processing. In a suit brought by National Security Counselors challenging 12 CIA policies the organization claimed violated FOIA or the APA, Howell substantively analyzed such issues as the scope of requests, the distinction between electronic searches and creating a new record, and the equitable remedies available under FOIA. She also sharply criticized the conclusion of one of her district court colleagues on the issue of whether or not the right to pursue a pending FOIA request could be assigned to another interested party. National Security Counselors presented Howell with a frontal assault on CIA policies and urged her to find that they violated either the letter or spirit of the law. NSC attacked the agency's policy of refusing to provide an administrative appeal when it rejected a request as improper. Howell began by pointing out that NSC's claim "can survive only if a determination that a request is improper qualifies as an 'adverse determination' under the FOIA." She noted that NSC's complaint was the flip side of the issue settled in Oglesby v. Dept of Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), in which the D.C. Circuit ruled that a requester was required to file an administrative appeal if the agency responded to his or her request before suit was filed. "Oglesby and the instant case reside on opposite sides of the same coinâ€"Oglesby deals with when a requester must pursue an administrative appeal, and the instant case deals with when an agency must provide an administrative appeal." She explained that "upon any [proper] request. . .the agency 'shall. . .determine within 20 days. . .after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request.' This language makes clear that an agency has no duty to make any 'determination' with regard to a FOIA request unless that request is proper. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the term 'adverse determination' only contemplates agency decisions that are in response to a proper FOIA request. In other words, the FOIA does not require agencies to provide administrative appeals on the issue of whether a request is proper in the first place." But Howell emphasized that the CIA's policy came with a price. She pointed out that "the unavailability of an administrative appeal would not preclude a requester from seeking judicial review of an agency's decision that a request is improper. . .In such a circumstance, a requester's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies does not bar judicial review because, when an agency makes a conscious choice not to provide a party with administrative process, the agency constructively waives the requirement of administrative exhaustion." She added that "a party appearing before an administrative body cannot be punished for the agency's choice to shoot itself in the foot by refusing to review its own decisions. In this way, the refusal of the CIA to provide administrative appeals in these circumstances could be viewed as a boon to FOIA requesters because it expedites a requester's ability to seek judicial review of an agency's decision that a particular request does not reasonably describe records sought or otherwise fails to comply with the agency's FOIA regulations." NSC also challenged the agency's policy concerning requests for aggregate data. The CIA contended that requests asking for database listings would require both the creation of new records and would require research as opposed to merely searching. Howell observed that "the distinction between searching and either performing research or creating records remains somewhat muddled. . .When points of data are stored in a database, that data can often be manipulated in myriad ways, only some of which are likely to qualify as mere 'searching' within the meaning of the FOIA." She continued: "Although the act of searching or sorting an electronic database is clearly not the creation of a record under the FOIA, the question remains whether producing a listing of database search results involves the creation of a record. First, it is important to note that it is not unprecedented for a federal agency to produce entire fields of data from particular electronic databases in response to a FOIA request and such requests could certainly be considered requests for 'aggregate data.' Producing a listing or index of records, however, is different than producing particular points of data (i.e., the records themselves). This is because a particular listing or index of the contents of a database would not necessarily have existed prior to a given FOIA request." Howell distinguished between a list of records and the records themselves. She pointed out that "if a FOIA request sought 'an inventory of all non-electronic records created in 1962 regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis,' an agency need not create an inventory if one did not already exist, though the agency would need to release any such non-electronic records themselves if they were requested and were not exempt from disclosure. Therefore, a FOIA request for a listing or index of a database's contents that does not seek the contents of the database, but instead essentially seeks information about those contents, is a request that requires the creation of a new record, insofar as the agency has not previously created and retained such a listing or index." Howell recognized that her conclusion still had a potential downside for the agency. She observed that "although the CIA may not be required to produce an index of database listings in response to a FOIA request, it can be required to hand over the contents of entire databases of information to the extent those contents are not exempt from disclosure. Although producing the contents of a database would likely involve the same search burden upon an agency as producing a database listing, the production of a database listing would entail a substantially lighter production burden upon the agency. Despite the fact that the CIA can continue to escape the production of database listings under the FOIA if it wishes, the CIA may nevertheless find it more efficient to begin producing such database listings upon request because failing to do so may prompt requesters to seek the reams of data underlying such listings instead." The agency argued that many of NSC's procedural challenges could not be addressed under FOIA because most of them did not deal with the agency's denial of records. But Howell noted that the court's equitable powers under Payne Enterprises v. U.S., 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988), were substantial. She pointed out that "remedying procedural violations of the FOIA may not necessarily lead to the production of withheld responsive records, yet it is concomitantly reasonable to interpret the jurisdictional grant in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) to include the power to enjoin procedural violations of the FOIA when they are connected to specific requests for records." Attorney Kel McClanahan had filed one of the requests at issue when he worked at the James Madison Project. When he left to start National Security Counselors, the James Madison Project assigned all its rights in the request to him. The CIA argued that an assignment of rights was not appropriate under FOIA and cited to Feinman v. FBI, 680 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D.D.C. 2010) a ruling by Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle that supported its position. Finding that McClanahan's relationship to the request in this case was substantially greater than the proposed assignment in Feinman, Howell concluded the request could be assigned. She pointed out that "the Feinman court was nevertheless concerned that [the process of validating a new requester's entitlement] would be 'greater than the minimal burden on any given assignee to make her own FOIA request.' That balancing of equities, however, does not fully account for the realities of FOIA litigation and the central animating purposes of the FOIA. The burden imposed by requiring an assignee to file a new request and wait at the back of the FOIA line is not 'minimal' in most cases. Although filing a new FOIA request may often involve a small amount of effort or resources, it exacts a temporal cost on FOIA requesters that should not be discounted, considering that the FOIA was intended to promote not merely disclosure, but timely disclosure."
Issues: Request, Adequacy - Search

FOIA Project Annotation: In her time so far on the bench, Judge Beryl Howell has expressed her willingness to take on a range of complicated FOIA issues and, regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with her legal conclusions, to consider and analyze them thoroughly. Such detaled analysis has led to some extraordinarily lengthy opinions, including her most recent 163-page ruling in a case brought by National Security Counselors against several agencies, primarily the CIA, concerning the way FOIA requests are processed. While finding fault with a number of agency practices, her conclusion that the CIA routinely claims that the coverage of Section 6 of the CIA Act, 50 § 403g, long-recognized as an Exemption 3 statute, is considerably broader than can be supported by the statutory language places significant restrictions on one of the agency's primary non-disclosure provisions. Section 6 exempts "the publication or disclosure of the organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries, or numbers of personnel employed by the CIA." After reviewing the D.C. Circuit's opinions dealing with the coverage of §403, Howell observed that "the thrust of these cases is that § 403, standing alone, only protects 'information on the CIA's personnel and internal structure,' such as the names of personnel, the titles and salaries of personnel, or how personnel are organized within the CIA." Indicating that "the CIA's proposed construction of § 403g's scope is too broad," Howell noted that "the CIA would have § 403g exempt from disclosure all 'information about the [CIA's] functions.'" She explained that "the CIA relies heavily on the malleable terms 'functions' and 'organization' in §403g to expand the provision's scope, and it is true that those are the two terms used in § 403g with potentially the broadest sweep. Nevertheless, the plain text of the statute limits protection from disclosure only to the functions and organization pertaining to or about personnel, not to all information that relates to such functions and organization." The CIA argued that since the agency acted through its personnel, there was no practical difference between the organization and functions of its personnel and the agency itself. But Howell pointed out that this argument ran directly contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Milner v. Dept of Navy finding that the term personnel rule meant a rule for personnel, not about personnel. She noted that "Congress did not intend § 403g to exempt all information for personnel, but only information about personnel, i.e., their 'organization, functions, names, official titles, salaries or numbers.' Therefore, just because a piece of information relates to or concerns something CIA personnel do in carrying out their government responsibilities does not mean it is exempt from disclosure under § 403g." Having narrowed the provision's coverage, Howell next concluded that records about FOIA processing were not covered by § 403g. She then examined whether or not information about how the agency's information management practices still qualified under the provision. She noted that "shorn of the gratuitous addition of the words 'internal' and 'organizational,' it appears that the information referred to in these categories is information about how the CIA manages, stores, and retrieves information. . .It is undoubtedly true that managing, storing, and retrieving information is a function of some, if not all, CIA personnel, but the CIA is attempting to augment the scope of § 403g by withholding information that merely relates to or concerns that function. The language of the statute simply does not support such a broad reading." She added that "the CIA may not invoke § 403g to withhold information merely because that information may be used by CIA personnel to carry out their responsibilities or functions." She rejected NSC's invitation to find the agency was in bad faith. Instead, she observed that "it is highly unlikely that the CIA was or could be acting in 'bad faith' regarding its interpretation of § 403g�"a finding that would require a showing that the CIA invoked this statute to withhold information while being aware of (and choosing to ignore) a definitive interpretation of that statute's scope." The CIA had refused to respond to several NSC requests because they required the agency to query its database in unique ways to get information about such issues as categories of requesters and most frequent requesters. Although Howell had a considerable amount of sympathy with the desire to use agency databases to compile information for requesters, she indicated that "permitting a member of the public to request from an agency a listing of search results or a listing that summarizes or describes the contents of an electronic database would permit the public to requisition the resources of governmental agencies in a way that the FOIA did not intent. The FOIA was intended to provide access to records held by federal agencies, nothing more. The FOIA was not intended to provide access to the mechanisms that agencies use to retrieve or aggregate information." She explained that "these individual pieces of information�"for example, the data points that populate a given field of a database�"are records under the FOIA." But she noted that "when those individual data points are uniquely arrayed�"for example, when a query returns a list of search results�"that unique array (or 'aggregation') of individual data points constitutes a distinct record. It is a distinct record because the particular arrangement of data conveys a unique set of information�"information that is distinct from what the individual data points can convey when they are arranged differently or when they are not arranged in any particular way at all. Thus, unless the agency has 'chosen to create and retain' this unique aggregation or arrangement of data points, the product of such an aggregation or arrangement of data involves the creation of a new record." NSC claimed that both the CIA and the State Department had improperly refused to provide records in electronic formats. Both agencies explained to Howell that they maintained both classified and unclassified computer systems and because requests were processed on the classified system it was impossible to provide disclosable records in electronic format. Howell indicated that the CIA claimed at one point that it did not transfer documents from its unclassified system to its classified system, but in another declaration it said records responsive to FOIA requests were "scanned and uploaded to the classified system. Because of these inconsistent statements, she found the agency had so far failed to explain why it could not disclose records in electronic format. On the other hand, the State Department provided an elaborate explanation of how records were processed on its classified system which contained the required redaction tools. To then transfer reviewed records to the unclassified system would take a number of further steps, including a second line-by-line review, that the agency claimed would be unduly burdensome. But Howell noted that "other than this second redundant line-by-line review of documents, none of the additional steps required to produce documents in electronic format appear unduly burdensome." Finding the agency had not shown that the records were not "readily reproducible," Howell ordered State to either provide a supplemental justification or to release documents to NSC in electronic format.
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Choice of format

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-02-28	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036786) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
2011-02-28		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
2011-02-28	2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS identifying Corporate Parent NONE for NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
2011-03-02	3	STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 2, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
2011-03-07	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY served on 3/7/2011, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 3/2/2011., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 3/4/2011. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 4/3/2011.) (znmw, ) (Entered: 03/08/2011)
2011-03-29	5	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan Bradley Parker on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-29	6	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-30		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting Defendants' 6 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading. The Defendants shall file a responsive pleading in this case by May 20, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 30, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-30		Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 5/20/2011, (cp) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
2011-05-20	7	MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
2011-06-01	8	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 7 MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/01/2011)
2011-06-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting plaintiff's 8 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint. The plaintiff shall have until June 10, 2011 to file its opposition. The defendant shall file a reply by June 17, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 2, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
2011-06-02		Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 6/10/2011 Replies due by 6/17/2011. (cp) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-08	9	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 7 MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
2011-06-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 11 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. The plaintiff shall file its opposition by June 14, 2011. The defendants shall their reply by July 1, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 9, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
2011-06-10		Reset Deadlines: Response to partial motion to dismiss due by 6/14/2011 Reply due by 7/1/2011. (cp) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
2011-06-14	10	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 7 MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
2011-06-14		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 10 Plaintiff's Consent Motion an Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The plaintiff shall have until June 15, 2011 to file its opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 14, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/14/2011)
2011-06-14		Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 6/15/2011 (cp) (Entered: 06/15/2011)
2011-06-16	11	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Nunc Pro Tunc by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
2011-06-16	12	Memorandum in opposition to re 7 MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - JMP-NSC FBI Assignment of Rights, # 3 Exhibit B - Jones to McClanahan of 9-23-09, # 4 Exhibit C - McLeod to McClanahan of 11-9-09, # 5 Exhibit D - Argall to McClanahan of 7-26-10, # 6 Exhibit E - Hardy to McClanahan of 7-30-10, # 7 Exhibit F - McClanahan to Pustay of 9-23-10, # 8 Exhibit G - Jones to McClanahan of 9-30-10, # 9 Exhibit H - McLeod to McClanahan of 4-28-11, # 10 Exhibit I - JMP-NSC DOJ Assignment of Rights, # 11 Exhibit J - Day to Zaid of 11-23-09, # 12 Exhibit K - Day to McClanahan of 3-18-10, # 13 Exhibit L - Beirne-Feinman Assignment of Rights, # 14 Exhibit M - JMP-NSC NGA Assignment of Rights, # 15 Exhibit N - Finn to McClanahan of 5-24-10, # 16 Exhibit O - McClanahan-NSC Assignment of Rights, # 17 Exhibit P - Seven Letters from Nelson to McClanahan of 6-7-10, # 18 Exhibit Q - F-2008-01105 assignment correspondence)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
2011-06-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 11 Plaintiff's Consent Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 16, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
2011-07-01	13	REPLY to opposition to motion re 7 MOTION to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
2011-07-05	14	MOTION for Leave to File a Demonstrative Exhibit by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit R - Request timeline chart, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-12-01	15	MOTION for Status Conference Regarding Count 3 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - FOIA request, # 2 Exhibit B - FOIA response, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
2011-12-02	16	Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Status Conference Regarding Count 3 filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
2011-12-02	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Status Conference Regarding Count 3 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
2011-12-08		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 15 Motion for Status Conference Regarding Count Three. The parties shall appear for a status conference on December 16, 2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Beryl A. Howell. The parties may submit, by noon on December 14, 2011, any additional authority for their position regarding 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B). Such submissions shall not exceed 5 pages in length. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 8, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/08/2011)
2011-12-08		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Additional Authority due by 12/14/2011. Status Conference set for 12/16/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Beryl A. Howell. (alp) (Entered: 12/09/2011)
2011-12-14	18	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C - Electronic Reading Room (CIA), # 2 Exhibit D - Electronic Reading Room (intelligence), # 3 Exhibit E - Electronic Reading Room (studies), # 4 Exhibit F - Electronic Reading Room ("studies in intelligence"), # 5 Exhibit G - Special Collections)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
2011-12-14	19	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
2011-12-14	20	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit H - NSA letters)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
2011-12-16		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beryl A. Howell: Status Conference held on 12/16/2011. Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum due by 1/13/2012. (Court Reporter Crystal Pilgrim.) (alp) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2011-12-16		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) For the reasons stated on the record at the status conference held on December 16, 2011, the defendant shall submit an explanation, by January 13, 2012, for (1) why unclassified records responsive to a FOIA request must be processed on the agency's classified information system, including whether redaction software is available and can be installed on the unclassified information system in order to facilitate the processing of such records; (2) how the current policy of processing all records, whether classified or unclassified, on the classified information system fulfills the agency's obligations under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B); and (3) the process by which the agency makes records in electronic format available in the agency's public reading room. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 16, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2011-12-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Explanation regarding classified and unclassified records due by 1/13/2012. (alp) (Entered: 12/19/2011)
2012-01-13	21	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Respond to Questions Posed by the Court in its 12/16/2011 Minute Order filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
2012-01-17	22	MOTION for Supplemental Status Conference Regarding Count 3 and Electronic Records by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit I - JMP v. CIA SJ Memo, # 2 Exhibit J - JMP transcript excerpt, # 3 Exhibit K - TOCs on website, # 4 Exhibit L - Transcript excerpt, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
2012-01-20	23	Memorandum in opposition to re 22 MOTION for Supplemental Status Conference Regarding Count 3 and Electronic Records filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
2012-01-22	24	REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 MOTION for Supplemental Status Conference Regarding Count 3 and Electronic Records filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/22/2012)
2012-01-31		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Supplemental Status Conference Regarding Count 3 and Electronic Records. A status conference has previously been held on the same subject for which the Plaintiff now seeks a supplemental status conference. See Minute Entry dated 12/16/2011. The Defendant has submitted two declarations describing its processing of FOIA requests and the reasons for its refusal to provide records responsive to a FOIA request in electronic format. ECF No. 19-1, Decl. of Susan Viscuso ["First Viscuso Decl."]; ECF No. 21-1, Suppl. Decl of Susan Viscuso ["Second Viscuso Decl."]. The plaintiff seeks a supplemental status conference to clarify information provided in those declarations. The declarations are not a model of clarity. Compare First Viscuso Decl. at para. 5 ("[T]he CIA maintains two different IT systems, a classified system and an unclassified system.") and para. 8 ("[A] data transfer office would have had to move the releasable information from the classified system to the unclassified system."), with Second Viscuso Decl. at para. 4 ("[A]ll CIA systems of records are located on the Agencys classified system."). Nevertheless, another status conference on this same topic will divert judicial resources from the pending motion in this case and the issues raised may be more efficiently addressed in the context of the pending motion for summary judgment in NSC v. CIA, No. 11-cv-444. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 31, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
2012-03-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Submit a Demonstrative Exhibit. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 27, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
2012-03-27	25	NOTICE of Filing of Demonstrative Exhibit R - Request timeline Chart by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (dr) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
2012-08-03	26	MOTION to Compel Production , MOTION, in the Alternative, for Status Conference by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 10/1/2012 (jeb, ). (Entered: 08/03/2012)
2012-08-08	27	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Three by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
2012-08-13	28	Memorandum in opposition to re 26 MOTION to Compel Production MOTION, in the Alternative, for Status Conference filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
2012-08-13	29	REPLY to opposition to motion re 26 MOTION to Compel Production MOTION, in the Alternative, for Status Conference filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Parker-McClanahan email)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
2012-08-13	30	MOTION to Stay re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Three by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 10/1/2012 (jeb, ). (Entered: 08/13/2012)
2012-08-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 26 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production, or, in the Alternative, for Status Conference. The defendant shall provide the plaintiff, by August 25, 2012, with a copy of each of the two CIA documents referenced in the plaintiff's motion, if possible, with all classified information redacted therefrom. If the defendant is unable to provide copies of these documents in redacted form due to concerns regarding the classified nature of the documents, the defendant must file a notice to that effect prior to August 25, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
2012-08-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Compliance with Minute Order entered on 8/15/2012 due by 8/25/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
2012-09-03	31	MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 1955-1979 Index, # 2 Exhibit B - 1980-1982 Index, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/03/2012)
2012-09-13	32	Memorandum in opposition to re 31 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
2012-09-17	33	REPLY to opposition to motion re 31 MOTION to Compel Compliance with Court Order filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C - Proposed protective order, # 2 Exhibit D - McClanahan-Parker email (8/29/12), # 3 Exhibit E - McClanahan-Parker email (8/31/12))(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
2012-09-21	34	ORDER granting 31 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court's 15 August 2012 Order and granting nunc pro tunc 30 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Briefing of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 21, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
2012-09-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/27/2012 by 5:00 PM. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/17/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/21/2012)
2012-09-27	35	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
2012-09-27	36	NOTICE of Clarification by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 35 Status Report (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
2012-09-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) The parties shall appear before the Court at a Status Conference in this matter at 9:30 AM on October 12, 2012 in Courtroom 15. The parties shall be prepared to discuss the issues presented in the parties' 35 Joint Status Report and 36 Notice of Clarification. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 28, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
2012-09-28		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/12/2012 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Beryl A. Howell. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
2012-09-30	37	ORDER denying 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 30, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/30/2012)
2012-10-12		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beryl A. Howell: Status Hearing held on 10/12/2012. (Order forthcoming). (Court Reporter Chantal Geneus) (tg, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
2012-10-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) As stated on the record at the Status Conference held before the Court on October 12, 2012, the plaintiff is entitled to rely on the designations of information in the two indices at issue, ECF Nos. 35-1 and 35-2, as provided by the defendant, regarding whether redacted information in those documents is either classified or subject to protection under the CIA Act. The stay on the briefing of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 30, is hereby lifted, and the plaintiff shall file, by October 29, 2012, any opposition to that motion. The parties are also hereby directed to confer and cooperate, as officers of the Court, regarding any procedures that will be required to submit any protected information to the Court in connection with the Motion for Summary Judgment or the opposition thereto. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 12, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
2012-10-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to 30 Motion due by 10/29/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
2012-10-17	38	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	39	ORDER denying 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Claims One and Two of Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-22	40	NOTICE by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/22/2012)
2012-10-31	41	Memorandum in opposition to re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Three (Notice of FIling in camera) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response, # 2 Exhibit B - Tables of Contents, # 3 Exhibit C - McClanahan-Parker email 1, # 4 Exhibit D - Parker-McClanahan email, # 5 Exhibit E - McClanahan-Parker email 2, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-11-05	42	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
2012-11-05		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 42 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply. The defendant shall file, by November 15, 2012, any reply in further support of its 27 Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Three. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 5, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
2012-11-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of Summary Judgment due by 11/15/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/06/2012)
2012-11-15	43	REPLY to opposition to motion re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Three filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
2012-11-25	44	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 41 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/25/2012)
2012-12-22	45	MOTION to File In Camera Filings on the Public Record re 41 Memorandum in Opposition, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/22/2012)
2012-12-27	46	MOTION for Scheduling Order , MOTION to Expedite Briefing of this Motion by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Parker-McClanahan emails, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
2013-01-08	47	RESPONSE re 45 MOTION to File In Camera Filings on the Public Record re 41 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
2013-01-09	48	Memorandum in opposition to re 46 MOTION for Scheduling Order MOTION to Expedite Briefing of this Motion filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
2013-01-09	49	REPLY to opposition to motion re 46 MOTION for Scheduling Order MOTION to Expedite Briefing of this Motion (Notice In Lieu of Reply) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/09/2013)
2013-01-10		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting in part and denying in part 46 Plaintiff's Motion to Set a Briefing Schedule and to Expedite Briefing of This Motion. The CIA shall file, by January 31, 2013, any motion for summary judgment on Counts 1 and 2 in Civil Case No. 11-443. The CIA shall file, within 14 days of filing its reply brief in Civil Case No. 11-443, any motion for summary judgment on Counts 8 and 21 in Civil Case No. 11-444. The CIA shall file, within 14 days of filing its reply brief in Civil Case No. 11-444, any motion for summary judgment on Counts 12 and 20 in Civil Case No. 11-445. The parties shall file any opposition and reply briefs in these three related actions within the time limits prescribed in Local Civil Rule 7. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 10, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
2013-01-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 1/31/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
2013-01-11	50	MOTION for Sanctions by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Parker email, # 2 Exhibit B - Parker-McClanahan email, # 3 Exhibit C - Status conference transcript, # 4 Exhibit D - Redaction comparison chart, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
2013-01-12	51	REPLY to opposition to motion re 45 MOTION to File In Camera Filings on the Public Record re 41 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/12/2013)
2013-01-18		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) The parties in this action are hereby ORDERED to appear at a Status Conference before the Court at 10 A.M. on February 15, 2013 in Courtroom 15. The parties shall come prepared to discuss any issues raised in the briefing for the 45 Motion to File Plaintiff's In Camera Opposition on the Public Record and the 50 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 18, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
2013-01-18		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 2/15/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 15 before Judge Beryl A. Howell. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
2013-01-28	52	NOTICE of Appearance by David Michael Glass on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Glass, David) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
2013-01-28	53	RESPONSE re 50 MOTION for Sanctions filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A)(Glass, David) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
2013-01-31	54	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
2013-02-07	55	REPLY to opposition to motion re 50 MOTION for Sanctions filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
2013-02-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 45 Plaintiff's Motion to File Plaintiff's In Camera Opposition to Defendant Central Intelligence Agencys Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Three and Its Exhibits on the Public Record, for the reasons stated on the record at the motions hearing held on February 15, 2013. The plaintiff shall file, by February 22, 2013, its opposition and any accompanying exhibits on the public record, with the redactions specified on page 2 of the plaintiff's memorandum in support of its motion to file. See ECF No. 45, at 2 (listing eight specific redactions). Prior to filing these documents on the public record, the plaintiff shall confer with the defendant to determine whether any other nonpublic information must be redacted from the opposition or any exhibits attached thereto. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-02-15		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beryl A. Howell: Status Conference/Motions Hearing held on 2/15/2013. (Court Reporter Chantal Geneus). (tg, ) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-02-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) For the reasons stated on the record at the motions hearing held on February 15, 2013, the defendant is hereby ORDERED to file, by February 25, 2013, one or more declarations setting forth an explanation of the CIA's errors regarding the redactions made to the two documents located at ECF Nos. 35-1 and 35-2, as corrected by ECF Nos. 40-1 and 40-2, which are at issue in the 50 Motion for Sanctions. If necessary, the plaintiff may file, by March 4, 2013, a response to the declarations submitted by the defendant. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-02-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's opposition and accompanying exhibits to Defendant Central Intelligence Agency's Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed on the public record by 2/22/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-02-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's declaration explaining CIA's errors regarding redactions made in two documents; Plaintiff's reply, if necessary, due by 3/4/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-02-19	56	Memorandum in opposition to re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - JMP letters, # 2 Exhibit B - NSC letters, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
2013-02-20	57	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1 and 2 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - JMP letters, # 2 Exhibit B - NSC letters, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/20/2013)
2013-02-22	58	Memorandum in opposition to re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count Three (Originally filed in camera as Dkt. #41) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A-1 - AZORIAN compilation, # 3 Exhibit A-2 - At Sea with the Law, # 4 Exhibit A-3 - CIA FOIA case logs, # 5 Exhibit A-4 - SIGINT in Space, # 6 Exhibit A-5 - Rise and Fall, # 7 Exhibit A-6 - American Cryptology During the Cold War, # 8 Exhibit A-7 - 42-4 TOC, # 9 Exhibit A-8 - 43-1 TOC, # 10 Exhibit A-9 - 45-2 TOC)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
2013-02-22	59	NOTICE OF FILING REDACTED DOCUMENT to 58 Memorandum in Opposition,, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (The original PDF Document contained privacy information and was restricted pursuant to the E-Government Act.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-10 - 1955-1979 index, # 2 Exhibit A-11 - 1980-1982 index)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/22/2013)
2013-02-25	60	NOTICE of Clarification Regarding Supplemental Search by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 43 Reply to opposition to Motion (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
2013-02-25	61	NOTICE of Filing by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY re Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Ex. A, # 2 Ex. B)(Glass, David) (Entered: 02/25/2013)
2013-02-27	62	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
2013-02-27	63	NOTICE of Non-Filing of Response by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 61 Notice (Other) (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
2013-03-04	64	REPLY to opposition to motion re 54 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-15	65	REPLY to opposition to motion re 57 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1 and 2 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
2013-03-15	66	ERRATA and Corrected Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 65 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Corrected reply)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/15/2013)
2013-03-19	67	NOTICE of Filing of Additional Exhibit by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 66 Errata (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C - 2d McClanahan Declaration)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/19/2013)
2013-03-20	68	RESPONSE re 67 Notice (Other) of Filing Additional Exhibit filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
2013-03-21		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) In the interests of judicial efficiency, and in light of the complexity and interrelatedness of Civil Case Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445, the Court hereby administratively STAYS consideration of this action until all dispositive motions have been fully briefed in all three related actions. This stay does not affect the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order entered on January 10, 2013. The parties are on notice that the Court does not intend to grant any motions for extensions of time to file any submissions related to dispositive motions, absent exceptional circumstances. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 21, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/21/2013)
2013-03-21		Case Stayed. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
2013-05-20	69	TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS HEARING before Judge Beryl A. Howell held on October 12, 2012; Page Numbers: 1-29. Date of Issuance:October 26, 2012. Court Reporter: Chantal M. Geneus, Telephone number 202-354-3244, Court Reporter Email Address : chantal_geneus@dcd.uscourts.gov. 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. 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 ww.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 6/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2013.(Geneus, Chantal) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-05-20	70	TRANSCRIPT STATUS HEARING before Judge Beryl A. Howell held on February 15, 2013; Page Numbers: 1-32. Date of Issuance: February 18, 2013. Court Reporter: Chantal M. Geneus, Telephone number 202-354-3244, Court Reporter Email Address : chantal_geneus@dcd.uscourts.gov. 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. 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 ww.dcd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 6/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/18/2013.(Geneus, Chantal) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-06-12	71	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. Case related to Case No. 12-807. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-12	72	NOTICE of Filing of Additional Exhibit by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 58 Memorandum in Opposition,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Scudder motion)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-07-17	73	NOTICE of Filing by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY re 72 Notice (Other) (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
2013-07-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Since all pending dispositive motions have been fully briefed in Civil Case Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445, the administrative stay on this action is hereby LIFTED. The Clerk is directed to reopen this case. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 29, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
2013-08-15	74	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the 27 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Three; the 50 plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions; the 54 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two and the 57 plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts One and Two. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
2013-08-15	75	ORDER granting in part and denying in part the 27 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying the 50 plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions; denying the 54 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the 57 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties shall jointly file, by September 4, 2013, the following: (1) a status report that sets forth a list of the records that remain in dispute, in light of the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, and that identifies each such disputed record by a Bates number, or other unique identifier, and by a citation to the particular page(s) of the Vaughn index where the disputed record is described; and (2) a proposed briefing schedule for any further proceedings in this matter, including deadlines for the submission of any renewed dispositive motions, supplementary Vaughn indices, or supplementary declarations. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
2013-08-19		Set/Reset Deadlines: The parties shall jointly file, by 9/04/2013, a status report that sets forth a list of the records that remain in dispute; and a proposed briefing schedule for any further proceedings in this matter. (ad) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
2013-09-04	76	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-04		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 76 Joint Status Report, the Court reiterates that the only withheld documents potentially in dispute as to the defendant Department of Justice in Civil Action 11-445, Count 8, are documents 3 and 13 since the Court has granted Summary Judgment in favor of the Department of Justice as to DOJ documents 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 14-16, and found the plaintiff's challenge to the withholding of document 11 is moot. See Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 74 , at 143. The Court enters the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control the timing of further proceedings in this matter. The defendants shall, by January 17, 2014, file a Motion for Summary Judgment on all outstanding claims. The plaintiff shall, by February 10, 2014, file any opposition to such motion and any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by February 21, 2014, file any reply to the plaintiff's opposition. The plaintiff shall, by March 3, 2014, file any reply to the defendants' opposition to any cross-motion. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 4, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 1/17/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/10/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/21/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 3/3/2014.(tg, ) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
2014-03-07	77	MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration from the CIA, # 2 Exhibit to CIA Declaration, # 3 CIA Vaughn Index, # 4 Declaration from DIA, # 5 DIA Vaughn Index, # 6 Declaration from ODNI, # 7 Exhibit to ODNI Declaration Part I, # 8 Exhibit to ODNI Declaration Part II, # 9 Declaration from OLC, # 10 Exhibit to OLC Declaration, # 11 Declaration from DOS, # 12 Exhibit to DOS Declaration, # 13 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
2014-03-27	78	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
2014-03-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 78 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition. The plaintiff shall, by April 3, 2014, file any opposition to the defendants' 77 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 27, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
2014-03-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition, if any, to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/3/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/27/2014)
2014-03-31	79	MOTION to Consolidate Cases by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-03-31	80	MOTION to Stay re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims , MOTION to Bifurcate Briefing of Defendants' Motion by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-04-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the defendant to respond, by noon on April 2, 2014, to the plaintiff's 89 Motion to Consolidate Cases and 80 Motion to Stay and Motion to Bifurcate. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 1, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
2014-04-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Response to 89 Motion to Consolidate and 80 Motion to Stay and Motion to Bifurcate due by 12:00 PM on 4/2/2014 (tg, ) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
2014-04-02	81	RESPONSE re 80 MOTION to Stay re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims MOTION to Bifurcate Briefing of Defendants' Motion filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-02	82	RESPONSE re 79 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the plaintiff's 79 Motion to Consolidate Cases and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the plaintiff's 80 Motion to Stay Briefing or, in the alternative, to Bifurcate Briefing. The 79 Motion to Consolidate Cases 11-443 and 11-444 is GRANTED and those cases are consolidated for all purposes; insofar as the 79 Motion also seeks to consolidate Case No. 11-445 with Case Nos. 11-443 and 11-444, the 79 Motion is DENIED. All further briefing and filings in those two cases shall be filed in 11-444 ONLY. The plaintiff's 80 Motion to Stay Briefing is DENIED and its 80 Motion to Bifurcate Briefing is GRANTED. All briefing on Count Three in Case No. 11-443 and Counts Seventeen and Eighteen in Case No. 11-444 pertaining to whether Defendant CIA is required to produce responsive records to the plaintiff in an electronic format is hereby STAYED until the resolution of the substantially similar issue of law in Scudder v. CIA , Case No. 12-807. Briefing on all other issues shall continue on the schedule set forth in the Court's Minute Order of February 6, 2014, as amended by the Court's Minute Order of March 27, 2014. To summarize: Case Nos. 11-443 and 11-444 are consolidated, with briefing on 11-443 Count Three and 11-444 Counts Seventeen and Eighteen STAYED pending resolution of the similar issue in Case No. 12-807. The briefing schedule in Case No. 11-445 remains the same and Case No. 11-445 will proceed as an action separate from Case Nos. 11-443 and 11-444. The Clerk is directed to consolidate cases 11-443 and 11-444 into Case No. 11-444 and to close Case No. 11-443. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 2, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-02		CASE CONSOLIDATED. Case 11-443 has been consolidated with 11-444 pursuant to a MINUTE ORDER entered 04/02/2014. From this date forward all pleadings shall be filed ONLY in Civil Action No. 11-444. The parties are advised NOT to elect to SPREAD text when filing in ECF, as this will result in repetitive docketing and emails. (rdj) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
Hide Docket Events