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 coin�"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

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has finally wrapped up a five-year FOIA suit brought by National Security Counselors for records concerning FOIA processing at various intelligence agencies. Because the CIA was the primary focus of NSC's litigation, Howell's decision affirms that agency's use of Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 5 (privileges), although she reiterated in strong terms that the CIA cannot use the CIA Information Act to withhold records about the agency's functions unless disclosure would reveal something about agency employees. She also found that the DIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly withheld several documents concerning the way referrals would be coordinated between agencies under the deliberative process privilege. In an earlier 2013 decision in the case, Howell ruled 50 U.S.C. § 3507, which exempts the disclosure of "organizations, functions, names, official titles, salaries or number of personnel employed by the agency," was only applicable if the information revealed something about employees. Regardless, the CIA noted that "it respectfully disagrees with this Court's initial determination" and "maintains that, while the [CIA Act] is not without limits, it explicitly allows CIA to withhold information concerning its organization and functions as they relate to the protection of intelligence sources and methods." Howell, however, explained that she earlier "rejected this proposed construction of the relevant statutory language and instead held that the CIA Act exempts from disclosure under FOIA only material that 'would reveal the specific categories of personnel-related information enumerated in the statute. . .'" The CIA had redacted information about the directorates assigned to search for records responsive to FOIA requests, arguing such information would reveal information about the directorates' functions. Howell rejected that argument, noting that "merely describing which directorate is primarily responsible for maintaining general categories of agency records does not identify the organization or function of CIA personnel working within each listed directorate, which is the only information the CIA Act specifically exempts from disclosure." She indicated that "the agency's interpretation of 'functions' is largely a rehash of its effort. . .to conflate the functions of the agency itself with the functions of its individual employees. This effort to cloak nearly all of the agency's operations from scrutiny under the auspices of the CIA Act is a bridge too far. Though certainly keeping with the agency's apparent efforts to seek a wholesale exemption from FOIA's disclosure requirements, the agency's preferred interpretation of the CIA Act 'strips the word "personnel" of any real meaning.' [The redacted information] may be reflective of the function of the divisions listed on the chart as maintaining records on certain subjects, but does not indicate the function of any particular agency employee." The agency fared much better in its invocation of 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) of the National Security Act, which protects intelligence sources and methods. The agency had withheld information about which directorates had been tasked with searching for records, contending disclosure would reveal intelligence sources and methods. Noting that "the agency's reasoning on this front is far from precise," Howell observed that "the agency appears to suggest that information indicating that a particular category of agency records is maintained by a division involved in intelligence gathering, as opposed to a division that merely analyzes information already held by the CIA, provides some indication of the 'intelligence methods' employed by the agency." She pointed out that "the agency's explanation of the link between a directorate's record-keeping responsibilities and the methods used by which the CIA collects intelligence is initially difficult to square with its wholesale redaction in these documents." But she indicated that "nonetheless, it is not illogical to imagine that revelations related to even these seemingly innocuous topics may implicate sensitive intelligence-gathering methods." A number of redactions made under Exemption 5 remained in dispute. Howell found the CIA's supplemental affidavit was sufficient to carry its burden to show that redactions it made under the deliberative process privilege were appropriate. The agency withheld preliminary search terms. NSC argued that search terms were normally revealed during litigation so they could not be deliberative. But Howell pointed out that "revealing the initial search terms and results used by the agency to guide its subsequent efforts to respond to a particular FOIA request may expose a central element of the agency deliberations in determining how to formulate any final response. Most notably. . .preliminary searches generally dictate whether the agency must neither confirm nor deny the existence of responsive documents." The DIA had redacted information about coordinating referrals. Howell accepted the agency's explanation that "the decision whether to attribute the processing of a document to a particular intelligence agency is itself often subject to debate among interested agencies." She approved redactions made by ODNI as well. She noted that "the redacted material clearly preceded any final agency determination regarding the FOIA request at issue and served to inform the agency's ultimate response." As to another ODNI redaction, she pointed out that "the redacted material, which addressed an 'open and on-going' FOIA request and comprised internal deliberations regarding the degree to which the ODNI would or would not be responsible for processing the request, is sufficient to justify the agency's decision to withhold this material as privileged."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has declined to consolidate two FOIA cases brought by National Security Counselors involving six different agencies who are part of the intelligence community after finding that NSC had not made its case for consolidation. Howell recognized that the only issue remaining to be resolved in the two cases dealt with whether or not NSC was entitled to attorney's fees. Rejecting NSC's consolidation request, Howell pointed out that "given the similarity in arguments made by the plaintiff and the defendants in connection with the pending fee petitions in both cases, regarding the applicable rate and the criticisms of, the plaintiff's eligibility and billing practices, another consolidated opinion addressing these petitions may be warranted. Nevertheless, the differences in parties and specific FOIA request issues related to individual agency defendants continue to weigh more heavily against consolidation."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to State a Claim

FOIA Project Annotation: Wrapping up two consolidated case brought by National Security Counselors against the CIA pertaining to its FOIA policies, Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that NSC is eligible for attorney's fees, but that, while it is entitled to recover its entire costs of $1,605.83, its fee request for $50,967.80 should be reduced by 25 percent in one case, and 70 percent in the other. Because Howell also concluded that the USAO Matrix, a replacement for the USAO Laffey Matrix that does a better job of accounting for specialized legal fees, should be used to calculate hourly fees, she ordered the parties to determine the final amount in light of those findings. The CIA argued that NSC was not entitled to any fees, primarily because NSC had not prevailed on enough of its claims to qualify as having substantially prevailed under FOIA's attorney's fees provisions. Howell acknowledged that NSC had prevailed on a minority of its claims, but explained that such limited success played a factor in the fee calculation but not in the threshold matter of eligibility. Assessing the degree of success in both cases, she pointed out that "without any other explanation for the CIA's declination initially to produce the records in electronic format, the litigation appears to have caused the CIA's changed policy, and the catalyst theory applies." As to another claim, she noted that the claim "alleged the CIA was using arbitrary cut-off dates in general and with respect to specific requests. Although summary judgment was granted to the CIA on this count, the grant occurred after the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the claim. The plaintiff withdrew the claim because the CIA changed its cut-off date policy, but 'at the time this case was filed, and in fact for over a year after, CIA's policy was exactly as NSC alleged. CIA did not voluntarily reverse its position on this for ten months after vigorously defending it in its Motion to Dismiss.'" However, as to the majority of the claims, Howell agreed with the agency that NSC had not prevailed. Turning to the issue of entitlement, the CIA argued that NSC had a commercial interest in the litigation because it intended to make public the records it received. Howell rejected the claim, noting that "under that logic, however, this factor would weigh against an award of attorney's fees to experienced, frequent requestors with mission driven interests in using FOIA. While the result of that approach might be to depress the use of FOIA, this would not further the public disclosure policy animating this statute." She also found the CIA did not have a reasonable basis in law for resisting NSC's requests. She observed that "the plaintiff's success in changing policies inimical to FOIA is sufficient to demonstrate that this factor weighs in favor of the plaintiff." NSC argued that the LSI Laffey Matrix, which better accounted for the going rates for specialized litigation than did the USAO Laffey Matrix, should apply. Here, however, Howell found the NSC had not provided sufficient support for the use of the LSI Laffey Matrix. She explained that "given the shortcomings of the USAO Laffey Matrix, which the government does not defend, and the availability of the newest methodology to apply to work completed prior to and after June 2015, the 2015 USAO Matrix will be applied here to determine the rates throughout the entire period of this litigation."
Issues: Litigation - Attorney's fees - Eligibility - Causal effect, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Commercial interest, Litigation - Attorney's fees - Entitlement - Calculation of award

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-02-28	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036790) 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	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. Case related to Case No. 11-443. (rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
2011-02-28	3	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	4	STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 2, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
2011-03-07	5	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)
2011-03-21	6	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS.(znmw, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
2011-03-29	7	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan Bradley Parker on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-29	8	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' 8 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading. The Defendants shall file a responsive pleading in this case by May 27, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 30, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-30		Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 5/27/2011, (cp) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
2011-05-27	9	MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/27/2011)
2011-06-08	10	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/08/2011)
2011-06-09	11	MOTION to Stay re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/09/2011)
2011-06-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 10 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff shall file its opposition by June 21, 2011. The defendants shall their reply by July 8, 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 6/21/2011 Reply due by 7/8/2011. (cp) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
2011-06-17	12	MOTION to Stay re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pending Resolution of Plaintiff's 1st Motion to Stay (Dkt. #11) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
2011-06-17	13	Memorandum in opposition to re 11 MOTION to Stay re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
2011-06-24	14	REPLY to opposition to motion re 11 MOTION to Stay re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
2011-06-27	15	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/27/2011)
2011-06-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying plaintiff's 11 Motion for a Stay of Briefing of Portions of Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff may incorporate in its Opposition to the defendants motion to dismiss any arguments concerning the need for the Court to defer ruling on certain aspects of the motion. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 28, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
2011-06-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) The plaintiff's 12 Motion for a Temporary Stay of Briefing of Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT. The plaintiff's 15 Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. The plaintiff shall have until July 8, 2011 to file its opposition to defendant's partial motion to dismiss. The defendant shall file its reply by July 15, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 28, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
2011-06-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to defendant's partial motion to dismiss due by 7/8/2011. Reply due by 7/15/2011. (zmm, ) (Entered: 06/28/2011)
2011-07-07	16	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
2011-07-07		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 16 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff shall file its opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss by July 11, 2011. The defendant shall file its reply by July 21, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 7, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
2011-07-07		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion to Dismiss due by 7/11/2011. Reply to Motion to Dismiss due by 7/21/2011. (zalg, ) (Entered: 07/08/2011)
2011-07-11	17	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Prolific requesters request, # 3 Exhibit B - Requesters by category request, # 4 Exhibit C - Congress appeal refusal, # 5 Exhibit D - HR appeal refusal, # 6 Exhibit E - NRD examples, # 7 Exhibit F - Improper requests request, # 8 Exhibit G - Cut-off date examples)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
2011-07-21	18	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2011-08-10	19	ERRATA Regarding Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 9 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 2-7, 11-16, and 21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Corrected Opposition)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
2011-12-20	20	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration A-K, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration L-S, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits to Declaration T-DD, # 5 Exhibit Vaughn Index Part 1, # 6 Exhibit Vaughn Index Part 2, # 7 Exhibit Vaughn index Part 3, # 8 Exhibit Vaughn Index Part 4, # 9 Exhibit Vaughn Index Part 5, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
2011-12-26	21	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/26/2011)
2012-01-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 21 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment by January 30, 2012. The defendant shall file a reply by February 17, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 3, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
2012-01-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/30/2012. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/17/2012. (alp) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
2012-01-26	22	Consent MOTION to Stay re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/26/2012)
2012-01-31	23	ORDER denying 22 Plaintiff's Consent Motion to Stay Briefing on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 31, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/31/2012)
2012-02-01	24	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
2012-02-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 24 Plaintiff's Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion For Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall file its opposition by February 7, 2012. The defendant shall file its reply by February 27, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 1, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
2012-02-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 2/7/2012. Reply to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 2/27/2012. (alp) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
2012-02-08	25	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-08	26	Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan MPAC correspondence, # 2 Exhibit B - MPAC MDR correspondence, # 3 Exhibit C - Judicial Watch memo, # 4 Exhibit D - Judicial Watch reply, # 5 Exhibit E - Judicial Watch opinion, # 6 Exhibit F - (b)(3) language, # 7 Exhibit G - NSA Watson correspondence, # 8 Exhibit H - Lutz 442 Decl, # 9 Exhibit I - Viscuso cut-off letter, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 25 Plaintiff's Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time. The defendant shall have until March 2, 2012 to file its reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 15, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
2012-02-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 3/2/2012. (alp) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
2012-03-02	27	REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit FOIA Request F-2012-00522)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-12	28	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Parker-McClanahan email, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
2012-03-13		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 28 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. The plaintiff shall file a sur-reply, if needed, by March 19, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 13, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
2012-03-13		Reset Deadlines: Sur-Reply due by 3/19/2012. (tj ) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
2012-03-20	29	SURREPLY to re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-03-20	30	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-03-20	31	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 29 Surreply filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-03-20		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 30 Plaintiff's Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Sur-reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 20, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-09-30	32	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintff's First Amended Complaint, and staying this action until further briefing is completed in related Civil Case Nos. 11-443 and 11-445. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 30, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/30/2012)
2012-09-30		Case Stayed. (tg, ) Modified date of filing on 10/1/2012 (tg, ). (Entered: 10/01/2012)
2012-10-17	33	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 9 Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	34	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-11-21	35	MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2012-12-01	36	NOTICE of New Factual Development by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 26 Memorandum in Opposition,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit J - Meeks-McClanahan letter)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2012)
2012-12-10	37	Memorandum in opposition to re 35 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2012-12-14	38	REPLY to opposition to motion re 35 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Parker email)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
2013-01-10		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) In accordance with the Scheduling Order entered in the related Civil Case No. 11-443, see Minute Order dated Jan. 10, 2013, No. 11-cv-443, the Court hereby enters the following SCHEDULING ORDER to regulate the timing of proceedings in these related actions. 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)
2013-03-05	39	STATUS REPORT by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
2013-03-05	40	NOTICE of New Factual Development by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 20 MOTION for Summary Judgment (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
2013-03-12	41	RESPONSE re 40 Notice (Other) of New Factual Development filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
2013-03-14	42	ORDER denying 35 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 14, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
2013-03-18	43	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/18/2013)
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)
2013-03-22	44	MOTION for Leave to File Additional Evidence by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K - 11-442 Lutz Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
2013-04-04	45	Memorandum in opposition to re 44 MOTION for Leave to File Additional Evidence filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
2013-04-05	46	Memorandum in opposition to re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Viscuso letter, # 2 Exhibit B - Vance Declaration, # 3 Exhibit 1 to Vance Declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
2013-04-15	47	REPLY to opposition to motion re 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
2013-04-17	48	MOTION to Clarify Scope of Stay by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
2013-04-18		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 48 Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification Regarding Stay. The stay imposed in this action, see Minute Order dated Mar. 21, 2013, does not toll the deadline for the filing of any motion for reconsideration, nor does it "affect the deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order entered on January 10, 2013," see id. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 18, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
2013-04-19	49	MOTION for Reconsideration re 42 Order on Motion for Leave to File by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
2013-04-20	50	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2013)
2013-04-20	51	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Email chain, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2013)
2013-04-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One; and granting nunc pro tunc 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Accordingly, the 46 Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One, and the 49 Motion for Reconsideration, were timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 22, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
2013-04-24	52	Memorandum in opposition to re 49 MOTION for Reconsideration re 42 Order on Motion for Leave to File filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-28	53	REPLY to opposition to motion re 49 MOTION for Reconsideration re 42 Order on Motion for Leave to File filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/28/2013)
2013-04-28	54	MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Renewed) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Proposed Second Amended Complaint (new), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/28/2013)
2013-04-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying 49 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration; and denying 54 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. As the defendant correctly points out, see ECF No. 52, at 3-4, the Court erroneously granted the plaintiff's 51 Motion for Extension of Time because Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2) prohibits the Court from extending the time to act under both Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Therefore, the Court denies the 49 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as untimely. Had the 49 Motion for Partial Reconsideration been timely filed, it would have been denied in any event on the merits because the plaintiff has raised no valid grounds for reconsideration of the Court's 42 Order. The plaintiff's 54 Motion for Leave to File appears to be an attempt to circumvent the prohibition contained in Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), and it is denied for the same reasons the Court denied the 35 Motion for Leave to File because, as the plaintiff openly concedes, the arguments in its 54 Motion for Leave to File "are qualitatively identical to the arguments originally made in Plaintiffs previous amendment motion." See ECF No. 54, at 1 n.1. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 29, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
2013-07-05		ENTERED IN ERROR .....In the March 18, 2013 declaration of Martha Lutz, Ms. Lutz states that she attaches two exhibits, which are referred to as Exhibits A and B. See ECF No. 43-1, at 4-5. Those exhibits, however, have not been filed on the docket. The CIA is hereby directed to file, by July 8, 2013, Exhibits A and B that are cited in the March 18, 2013 Lutz Declaration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 5, 2013. (lcbah1) Modified on 7/8/2013 (tg, ). (Entered: 07/05/2013)
2013-07-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Exhibits A and B that are cited in the March 18, 2013 Lutz Declaration due by 7/8/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
2013-07-05		AMENDED MINUTE ORDER (paperless) In the March 18, 2013 declaration of Martha Lutz, Ms. Lutz states that she attaches two exhibits, which are referred to as Exhibits A and B. See ECF No. 43-1, at 4-5. Those exhibits, however, have not been filed on the docket. The CIA is hereby directed to file, by July 8, 2013, Exhibits A and B that are cited in the March 18, 2013 Lutz Declaration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 5, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
2013-07-05	55	NOTICE of Filing of Exhibits A and B to the Lutz Declaration by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A and B to the Lutz Declaration dated March 18, 2013)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/05/2013)
2013-07-08		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: A docket entry with no title filed by the Court on 7/5/2013 was entered in error and an AMENDED MINUTE ORDER was filed instead on the same date. (tg, ) Modified text on 7/8/2013 (tg, ). (Entered: 07/08/2013)
2013-07-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 44 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Additional Evidence. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
2013-07-15	56	EXHIBIT K - 11-442 Lutz Declaration re 26 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (rdj) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
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	57	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding the 20 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and the 43 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
2013-08-15	58	ORDER granting the 43 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Eight and Twenty-One and granting in part and denying in part the 20 defendant'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 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	59	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-04		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 59 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. 57 , 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	60	MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration from 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	61	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 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 61 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition. The plaintiff shall, by April 3, 2014, file any opposition to the defendants' 60 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	62	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	63	MOTION to Stay re 60 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 62 Motion to Consolidate Cases and 63 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 62 Motion to Consolidate and 63 Motion to Stay and Motion to Bifurcate due by 12:00 PM on 4/2/2014 (tg, ) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
2014-04-02	64	RESPONSE re 63 MOTION to Stay re 60 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	65	RESPONSE re 62 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 62 Motion to Consolidate Cases and GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the plaintiff's 63 Motion to Stay Briefing or, in the alternative, to Bifurcate Briefing. The 62 Motion to Consolidate Cases 11-443 and 11-444 is GRANTED and those cases are consolidated for all purposes; insofar as the 62 Motion also seeks to consolidate Case No. 11-445 with Case Nos. 11-443 and 11-444, the 62 Motion is DENIED. All further briefing and filings in those two cases shall be filed in 11-444 ONLY. The plaintiff's 63 Motion to Stay Briefing is DENIED and its 63 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)
2014-04-02	66	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 66 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition to Defendant's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by April 14, 2014, file any opposition/cross-motion for summary judgment to the defendant's 59 Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall, by May 12, 2014, file any reply/opposition. The plaintiff shall, by May 22, 2014, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 2, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/14/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/12/2014; Cross Motions due by 4/14/2014. Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 5/22/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
2014-04-07		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) LIFTING the stay on briefing imposed in this Court's Minute Order of April 2, 2014, in light of the resolution of the electronic records production issue in Scudder v. CIA , Case No. 12-807. See Joint Status Report, ECF No. 47, Case No. 12-807. Briefing on all issues in these consolidated cases shall proceed according to the schedule set forth in this Court's Minute Order of April 2, 2014. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 7, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
2014-04-14	67	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
2014-04-14		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 67 Consent Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time. The plaintiff shall, by April 17, 2014, file any opposition to the defendant's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 14, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
2014-04-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Cross Motion and Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/17/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
2014-04-15	68	MOTION to Bifurcate , MOTION for Briefing Schedule by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
2014-04-16		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the defendant to, by noon on April 18, 2014, file any opposition to the plaintiff's 68 Motion to Bifurcate Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 16, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to 68 Motion to Bifurcate Briefing Schedule due by noon on 4/18/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-16	69	Memorandum in opposition to re 68 MOTION to Bifurcate MOTION for Briefing Schedule filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-16	70	REPLY to opposition to motion re 68 MOTION to Bifurcate MOTION for Briefing Schedule filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-16		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, over the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff's 68 Motion to Bifurcate Briefing. The briefing schedule of April 2, 2014, as amended by this Court's Minute Order of April 14, 2014, shall remain in effect except for briefing as to Count Three in the former Case No. 11-443 and Counts Seventeen and Eighteen in Case No. 11-444. Briefing as to those counts, pertaining to whether the defendant is required to produce responsive records to the plaintiff in an electronic format, is hereby STAYED. The plaintiff shall, by April 23, 2014, arrange for any declaration, which the plaintiff plans to submit in opposition to the defendant's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and which requires pre-publication review, to be submitted to the defendant for pre-publication review. The defendant shall, on April 30, 2014, and on every Monday thereafter until the review is complete, file a status report with the Court describing (1) the status of the review and (2) the expected date of completion of the review. The plaintiff shall, within seven days of the completion of the pre-publication review, file any opposition and/or cross-motion for summary judgment regarding Count Three in the former Case No. 11-443 and Counts Seventeen and Eighteen in Case No. 11-444. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 16, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-17	71	Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Articles request, # 3 Exhibit B - Articles release letter, # 4 Exhibit C - Articles appeal, # 5 Exhibit D - Articles appeal amendment, # 6 Exhibit E - McClanahan-Parker email, # 7 Exhibit F - Summer 1973 Suppl. TOC, # 8 Exhibit G - Burnes Koch declaration, # 9 Exhibit H - Dennett Dorn declaration, # 10 Exhibit I - Interrogation of an Alleged CIA Agent, # 11 Exhibit J - Montague search tasker)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
2014-04-18	72	Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Articles request, # 3 Exhibit B - Articles release letter, # 4 Exhibit C - Articles appeal, # 5 Exhibit D - Articles appeal amendment, # 6 Exhibit E - McClanahan-Parker email, # 7 Exhibit F - Summer 1973 Suppl. TOC, # 8 Exhibit G - Burnes Koch declaration, # 9 Exhibit H - Dennett Dorn declaration, # 10 Exhibit I - Interrogation of an Alleged CIA Agent, # 11 Exhibit J - Montague search tasker)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 4/18/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/18/2014)
2014-04-18	73	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 71 Memorandum in Opposition,, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
2014-04-30	74	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
2014-05-05	75	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
2014-05-05		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 75 Consent Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time to File its Second Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims. The plaintiff shall, by May 6, 2014, file any opposition as to the electronic records production issue, as required by this Court's Minute Order of April 16, 2014. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 5, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
2014-05-05		Set/Reset Deadline: The plaintiff shall, by 5/06/2014, file any opposition as to the electronic records production issue, as required by this Court's Minute Order of 4/16/2014. (ad) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
2014-05-07	76	Memorandum in opposition to re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 12-16-11 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B - 1st Scudder declaration, # 3 Exhibit C - 2d Scudder declaration, # 4 Exhibit D - 3d Scudder declaration, # 5 Exhibit E - FOIA Litigation slide, # 6 Exhibit F - McClanahan declaration, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-07	77	WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO 86 NOTICE FILED 11/1/2014.....MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial, Regarding Electronic Records) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 12-16-11 Transcript, # 2 Exhibit B - 1st Scudder declaration, # 3 Exhibit C - 2d Scudder declaration, # 4 Exhibit D - 3d Scudder declaration, # 5 Exhibit E - FOIA Litigation slide, # 6 Exhibit F - McClanahan declaration, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 11/3/2014 (rdj). (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-07	78	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial, Regarding Electronic Records) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS, 76 Memorandum in Opposition, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-07	79	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims , Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Electronic Records by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-07		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 79 Consent Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time. The plaintiff's 76 Opposition to the defendant's 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and 77 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment are deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 7, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-09	80	Consent MOTION for Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 74 Consent Motion for Entry of a New Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule and AMENDING the Scheduling Order of April 2, 2014, as follows: the defendant shall, by June 5, 2014, file any reply in support of its 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition to the plaintiff's 72 and 77 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by June 24, 2014, file any reply in support of its 72 and 77 Cross-Motions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 9, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-09		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of 60 Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to 72 and 77 Cross Motions due by 6/5/2014; Reply in support of 72 and 77 Cross-Motions due by 6/24/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-23	81	Joint MOTION to Modify the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
2014-05-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 81 Joint Motion to Amend the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. The defendant shall, by August 21, 2014, file any reply in support of its 60 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims and any opposition to the plaintiff's 72 and 75 Cross Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by September 16, 2014, file any reply in support of its motions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 27, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-05-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Cross-Motions due by 8/21/2014. Reply in Support of Cross-Motions due by 9/16/2014. (tg, ) Modified on 5/27/2014 (tg, ). (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-08-15	82	Joint MOTION to Modify the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
2014-08-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 76 Second Joint Motion to Amend the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. The defendant shall, by October 7, 2014, file any reply in support of its 59 motion for summary judgment and any opposition to the plaintiff's 70 first and 73 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff shall, by October 28, 2014, file any reply in support of its 70 first and 73 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties shall, by October 28, 2014 file jointly a supplement to the 59 Status Report filed on September 4, 2013, detailing (1) any disputed documents described in the parties' first 56 Status Report that are no longer at issue; and (2) any documents that remain in dispute, by providing the Bates Number, Vaughn Index entry number, the FOIA exemption(s) relied upon, and the agency asserting the exemption. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
2014-08-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: The defendant shall, by 10/07/2014, file any reply in support of its 59 motion for summary judgment and any opposition to the plaintiff's 70 first and 73 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff shall, by 10/28/2014, file any reply in support of its 70 first and 73 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties shall, by 10/28/2014 file jointly a supplement to the 59 Status Report filed on 9/04/2013, detailing (1) any disputed documents described in the parties' first 56 Status Report that are no longer at issue; and (2) any documents that remain in dispute, by providing the Bates Number, Vaughn Index entry number, the FOIA exemption(s) relied upon, and the agency asserting the exemption. (ad) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
2014-10-07	83	REPLY to opposition to motion re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
2014-10-28	84	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 72 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 84 Consent Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time to File Its Reply in Support of Its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and AMENDING the Court's scheduling order of August 15, 2014, as follows: the plaintiff shall, by October 31, 2014, file any reply in support of its 72 first and 75 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties shall, by October 31, 2014 file jointly a supplement to the 59 Status Report filed on September 4, 2013, detailing (1) any disputed documents described in the parties' first 59 Status Report that are no longer at issue; and (2) any documents that remain in dispute, by providing the Bates Number, Vaughn Index entry number, and the FOIA exemption(s) relied upon. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in Support of First and Second Cross Motions for Summary Judgment due by 10/31/2014. Joint Supplement to Status Report filed on 9/4/2013 due by 10/31/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-11-01	85	STATUS REPORT (Joint Supplemental) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/01/2014)
2014-11-01	86	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 77 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial, Regarding Electronic Records) , 72 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/01/2014)
2014-11-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties to clarify their 85 Joint Supplemental Status Report as follows: the parties shall, by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2014, submit jointly to the Court a status report stating whether the continuing dispute over the six documents listed in the parties' 85 Joint Supplemental Status Report, which are at issue in the defendant's pending 60 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims, is ripe for decision, in light of the parties' statements that "the parties are still in negotiations regarding these documents" and the documents "may be the subject of future briefing." 85 Joint Suppl. Status Report at 1. If the parties do not believe the dispute is ripe for decision, the parties shall, by November 6, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., file jointly a motion (1) to stay consideration of this matter until a date certain on which the parties agree the dispute will be ripe for decision; and (2) to set a briefing schedule for any "additional formal argument" to supplement the briefing pertaining to the pending 60 Motion for Summary Judgment that the parties believe is necessary. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 3, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5:00 PM on 11/6/2014. Joint Motion to Stay, if necessary, due by 5:00 PM on 11/6/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-06	87	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,,, (Joint) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
2015-03-16		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) STAYING this matter and DIRECTING the parties, by April 2, 2015, to submit jointly to the Court an updated status report and the following documents, in order to assist the Court in clarifying the remaining issues in dispute and to ensure that all outstanding issues between the parties in these related cases may be resolved finally in a complete manner: (1) a single, updated Vaughn index listing only those documents that remain in dispute in this matter or the related matters National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-445 and/or National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 12-284, regardless of the agency asserting exemptions regarding those documents; (2) a chart identifying, for each document that remains at issue in this matter or the related matters National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-445 and/or National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 12-284, (a) the updated single Vaughn Index number(s) of the document; (b) the Bates stamp number(s) of the document; (c) the FOIA request to which the document(s) is responsive; (d) the count in the operative Complaint or Amended Complaint to which the document(s) is responsive; (e) the exemptions being claimed and challenged for the responsive document(s); (f) the agency asserting the exemptions; and, if applicable, (g) the pages in the Federal Supplement publication of National Security Counselors v. CIA , 960 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2013), referencing the document(s), counts, and/or FOIA requests in dispute; (3) a summary of any other remaining disputes between the parties not otherwise identified in the foregoing documents. In addition to filing the aforementioned documents on the public docket, the parties shall, by April 2, 2015, email the aforementioned documents in a Microsoft Word or Excel compatible format (.doc,.docx,.xls, or.xlsx) to Howell_Chambers@dcd.uscourts.gov. Any document and/or claim not identified as in dispute in these supplemental filings, shall be deemed resolved and summary judgment granted to the defendants as conceded. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 16, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
2015-03-16		Case Stayed. Joint Status Report due by 4/2/2015. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
2015-03-16		Case Stayed. Joint Status Report due by 4/2/2015. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
2015-04-02	88	STATUS REPORT Filed Jointly by Plaintiff and by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Combined Vaughn and Chart)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) EXTENDING the stay in this matter in light of the parties' 88 Joint Status Report, wherein the plaintiff indicates that it will be filing two Rule 54(b) motions "within a week." 88 Joint Status Report at 2 n.1. Consequently, the stay in this matter is EXTENDED until such time as the plaintiff's Rule 54(b) Motions are fully briefed to allow for a comprehensive resolution of all outstanding claims. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 3, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-04-30	89	MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Memorandum & Opinion, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, (Partial) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 4th McClanahan declaration, # 2 Exhibit B - Electronic TOCs, # 3 Exhibit C - Scudder request list, # 4 Exhibit D - Westerfield excerpt, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
2015-04-30	90	Vaughn Index (Supplemental Combined) from Plaintiff National Security Counselors. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
2015-05-18	91	Memorandum in opposition to re 89 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Memorandum & Opinion, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, (Partial) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
2015-05-28	92	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 89 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Memorandum & Opinion, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, (Partial) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
2015-05-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 92 Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Reply. The plaintiff shall, by June 1, 2015, file any reply to the defendant's 91 Opposition to the plaintiff's 89 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 28, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
2015-05-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration due by 6/1/2015. (zg) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
2015-06-02	93	REPLY to opposition to motion re 89 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Memorandum & Opinion, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, (Partial) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2015-06-02	94	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 89 MOTION for Reconsideration re 57 Memorandum & Opinion, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,,,,, (Partial) (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2015-06-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , the plaintiff's 94 Motion for Enlargement of Time. The plaintiff's 93 Reply to the defendant's 91 Opposition to the plaintiff's 89 Motion for Reconsideration is deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 3, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/03/2015)
2016-05-10		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING, upon consideration of the plaintiff's [89-1] Fourth Declaration of Kelly McClanahan, Esq., which describes, in paragraphs 49 and 11, certain discrepancies between the defendant's electronic production in October 2014 and its earlier hardcopy production, the defendant to file, by May 17, 2016, an explanation for any such discrepancies and any steps taken by the defendant since these discrepancies were identified to remedy them. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 10, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's response to Order of the Court due by 5/17/2016. (tg) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-16	95	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to the Court's May 10, 2016 Minute Order by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
2016-05-17		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 95 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Court's May 10, 2016 Minute Order, and DIRECTING the defendant to comply, by May 31, 2016, with the Court's May 10, 2016 Minute Order. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 17, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
2016-05-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Response to Order of the Court due by 5/31/2016. (tg) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
2016-05-31	96	NOTICE of Response to the Court's Minute Order Dated May 10, 2016 by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Antoinette B. Shiner, # 2 Exhibit Part I, # 3 Exhibit Part II, # 4 Exhibit Part III, # 5 Exhibit Part IV, # 6 Exhibit Part V, # 7 Exhibit Part VI)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
2016-09-06	97	ORDER GRANTING the defendants' 60 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims in Civil Action Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445; and DENYING the plaintiff's 89 Motion for Partial Reconsideration in Civil Action No. 11-444 and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 11-445. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 6, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
2016-09-06	98	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants' 60 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims in Civil Action Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445; and the plaintiff's 89 Motion for Partial Reconsideration in Civil Action No. 11-444 and Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 11-445. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 6, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
2016-09-30	99	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Bill of Costs and Fee Petition by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
2016-09-30		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the defendants to respond, by October 4, 2016, at 5:00pm, to the plaintiff's 99 Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Bill of Costs and Fee Petition. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 30, 2016. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
2016-10-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Response to plaintiff's 99 Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Bill of Costs and Fee Petition due by 5:00 p.m. on 10/4/2016. (tg) (Entered: 10/03/2016)
2016-10-04	100	Memorandum in opposition to re 99 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Bill of Costs and Fee Petition filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
2016-10-05	101	REPLY to opposition to motion re 99 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Bill of Costs and Fee Petition filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
2016-10-05	102	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 101 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
2016-10-06		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART the plaintiff's 99 Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Bill of Costs and Fee Petition ("Pl.'s Mot."), upon consideration of the parties' submissions. A nunc pro tunc extension of time of short duration equitably balances the interests of the plaintiff and defendant in this matter and is well within this Court's discretion to extend deadlines after the time to act has expired where "excusable neglect" is shown. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). That standard is satisfied when counsel proffers reasons for the delay and acted in good faith, even though counsel is not "faultless" and may have been careless, plus the risk of prejudice to the other side, the length of the delay and the potential impact on judicial proceedings is minimal. See Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 479 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (discussing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)); Yesudian ex rel. United States v. Howard Univ., 270 F.3d 969, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (applying the Pioneer factors). Here, no issue is raised regarding the counsel's good faith in making his concededly "tardy" request less than two weeks late. Cf. Mobley v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 908 F. Supp. 2d 42, 45 (D.D.C. 2012) (denying fee petition filed more than six months after case was voluntarily dismissed and closed). Additionally, plaintiff counsel's proffered reason for the delay stemming from work in other cases, including "time-sensitive discovery" and "multiple rounds of briefing," resulting in him losing "track of this deadline," Pl.'s Mot. at 2, is a sufficient, albeit weak, excuse for neglecting the deadline. More importantly, an extension of short duration poses little risk of prejudice to the defendants, who understandably wish for this long-standing case to be concluded, see 100 Defs.' Opp'n at 1, 3, and will have no detrimental impact on the proceedings, since no appeal has been filed, the deadline for the filing of any appeal has not yet been reached, and any appeal of any fees decision may be joined with any appeal of the underlying merits. Accordingly, the plaintiff's motion is denied to the extent it requests an extension until December 2, 2016, and granted to the extent it requests an extension of any duration. The plaintiff shall, by October 21, 2016, file any fee petition. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 6, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's fee petition, if any, due by 10/21/2016. (tg) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-18	103	Unopposed MOTION to Classify Fee Petition as Rule 59(e) Motion by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
2016-10-21	104	MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	105	BILL OF COSTS by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	106	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Fee Petition by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-26	107	MOTION for Attorney Fees by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Kavanaugh declaration, # 2 Exhibit B - McClanahan resume, # 3 Exhibit C - McClanahan declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
2016-11-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) resolving as follows two of the four motions pending in this matter: (1) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , as consented to, the plaintiff's 106 Unopposed Motion for Brief Extension of Time Within With [sic] to File Its Fee Petition. Accordingly, the plaintiff has until October 26, 2016, to file a timely fee petition, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). In addition, since such fee petition was timely filed on October 26, 2016, before the deadline for, or the filing of, a notice of appeal, in order to allow appeals from both the merits judgment and the fee judgment to be taken at the same time, the Court finds that the timely motion for attorney fees should be given the same effect on postponing the deadline for filing a notice of appeal as a timely new-trial motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(e), and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A)(iii), see 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2785 (3d ed. 2012); and (2) DENYING the plaintiff's 103 Unopposed Motion to Classify Its Forthcoming Fee Petition as a Rule 59(e) Motion, as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 3, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
2016-11-07	108	Memorandum in opposition to re 104 MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-07	109	RESPONSE re 105 Bill of Costs filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-14	110	Memorandum in opposition to re 107 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plf's Chart from Case No. 11-442, # 2 Exhibit Laffey Matrix, # 3 Exhibit USAO Matrix, # 4 Exhibit LSI Laffey Matrix)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
2016-11-17	111	REPLY re 105 Bill of Costs filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
2016-11-18	112	NOTICE of Non-Filing of Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 104 MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
2016-11-28	113	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 107 MOTION for Attorney Fees by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2016-11-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiff's 113 Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Reply in Support of Its Petition for Attorneys' Fees. The plaintiff shall, by November 30, 2016, file any reply to the defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's petition for attorneys' fees. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 29, 2016. (lcbah2) Modified on 11/29/2016 (tg). (Entered: 11/29/2016)
2016-11-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's reply to defendant's opposition to petition for attorneys' fees due by 11/30/2016. (tg) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
2016-12-01	114	REPLY to opposition to motion re 107 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D - 2d McClanahan declaration)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-01	115	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 114 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-01	116	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 107 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 116 Unopposed Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Brief Extension of Time Within Which to File Reply in Support of Its Fee Petition. Accordingly, the plaintiff's 114 Reply in Support of Its Petition for Attorneys' Fees is deemed timely filed. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 2, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
2017-08-21	117	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING the plaintiff's 104 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 21, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
2017-09-10	118	Unopposed MOTION to Expedite Consideration of Bill of Costs and Fee Petition by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/10/2017)
2017-09-10	119	SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - 2d McClanahan declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/10/2017)
2017-11-21	120	ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part plaintiff's 107 Petition for Attorneys' Fees. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 21, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
2017-11-21	121	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's 107 Petition for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 21, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/21/2017)
2017-11-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint submission regarding amounts of the plaintiff's fees and costs due by 12/11/2017. (tg) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
2017-12-11	122	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 120 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - 3d McClanahan declaration)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
2017-12-12	123	ORDER DIRECTING that the plaintiff be awarded attorney's fees and costs from the defendant, within 45 days of this Order, in the total amount of $31,119.03. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 12, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
Hide Docket Events