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 - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion, Adequacy - Search, 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

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-02-28	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616036791) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(rdj) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
2011-02-28		SUMMONS (8) Issued as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, 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 ; 11-444. (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)
2011-03-05	5	ERRATA for Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 1 Complaint, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/05/2011)
2011-03-07	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY served on 3/7/2011; DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY served on 3/4/2011; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 3/2/2011; DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 3/4/2011; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY served on 3/1/2011; OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 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	7	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS.(znmw, ) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
2011-03-29	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan Bradley Parker on behalf of All Defendants (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-29	9	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
2011-03-30		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting Defendants' 9 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Responsive Pleading. The Defendants shall file a responsive pleading in this case by June 3, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 30, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
2011-03-30		Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 6/3/2011, (cp) (Entered: 03/31/2011)
2011-06-03	10	MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-08	11	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 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		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 11 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File its Opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff shall file its opposition by June 28, 2011. The defendants shall their reply by July 15, 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 6/28/2011 Reply due by 7/15/2011. (cp) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
2011-06-24	12	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
2011-06-25	13	MOTION to Stay re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/25/2011)
2011-07-05	14	Memorandum in opposition to re 13 MOTION to Stay re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-07-05	15	REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION to Stay re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Limited to Certain Portions) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-07-05		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying plaintiff's 13 Motion for a Stay of Briefing of Portions of Defendants' 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 July 5, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-07-05		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 12 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 to the defendants' motion to dismiss by July 8, 2011. The defendants shall file their reply by July 15, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 5, 2011. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-07-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion to Dismiss due by 7/8/2011, Reply due by 7/15/2011. (zalg, ) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
2011-07-07	16	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 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 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff shall file its opposition to the defendants' motion to dismiss by July 11, 2011. The defendants shall file their 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)
2011-07-12	17	ENTERED IN ERROR.....Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Sack status response, # 3 Exhibit B - F-2006-01043)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 7/12/2011 (rdj). (Entered: 07/12/2011)
2011-07-12	18	Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Corrected) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Sack status response, # 3 Exhibit B - F-2006-01043)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
2011-07-12	19	NOTICE of Filing of Corrected Document by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 18 Memorandum in Opposition, (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
2011-07-12		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 17 Memorandum in Opposition, was entered in error at the request of counsel (see entry 19 ) and counsel refiled said pleading as entry 18 . (rdj) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
2011-07-21	20	REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Counts 4, 11, and 14-21 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
2012-06-26	21	MOTION for Briefing Schedule (Bifurcated) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
2012-06-27	22	Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Briefing Schedule (Bifurcated) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
2012-06-27	23	REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION for Briefing Schedule (Bifurcated) filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Parker email correspondence)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
2012-06-27	24	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 23 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Parker email correspondence)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
2012-07-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) denying 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of a Bifurcated Briefing Schedule. Given that the government is expected to complete document production relating to the plaintiff's FOIA request to the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2012, the Court agrees with the government that the plaintiff's request for bifurcated briefing "is unlikely to significantly expedite the disposition of this case." ECF No. 22, at 1. The government shall, however, issue, by July 25, 2012, an interim release of all records already processed in response to the FOIA request at issue in Count 5. It is further ordered that the parties shall confer and file, by August 1, 2012, a proposed schedule for the filing of motions in September 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 11, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
2012-07-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Government's interim release of records already processed in response to the FOIA request at issue in Count 5 due by 7/25/12. Parties' proposed schedule for the filing of motions in September 2012 due by 8/1/2012 (tg, ) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
2012-08-01	25	NOTICE of Proposed Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 08/01/2012)
2012-08-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Upon consideration of 25 Proposed Briefing Schedule, the Court enters the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control the timing of proceedings in this matter: The defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment, if any, on or before September 28, 2012. The plaintiff shall file any opposition to that motion on or before October 16, 2012. The defendants shall file any reply to that opposition on or before October 26, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 2, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/02/2012)
2012-08-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Summary Judgment motion due by 9/28/2012; plaintiff's oppositioin to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/16/2012; defendants' Reply due by 10/26/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
2012-09-25	26	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
2012-09-25		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 26 Defendants' Consent Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Their Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall file, by October 2, 2012, any motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff shall file, by October 23, 2012, any opposition to that motion, and the defendants shall file, by November 2, 2012, any reply to the plaintiff's opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 25, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
2012-09-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 10/2/2012; oppositions to Motions for Summary Judgment due by 10/23/2012; Replies due by 11/2/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
2012-09-30	27	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 30, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/30/2012)
2012-10-01	28	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
2012-10-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 28 Defendants' Consent Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File Their Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall file, by October 3, 2012, their Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 2, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
2012-10-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 10/3/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
2012-10-03	29	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration CIA, # 2 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2010-00467, # 3 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2010-00599, # 4 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2010-00666 Part I, # 5 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2010-00666 Part II, # 6 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2010-00667, # 7 Exhibit CIA Vaughn Index F-2011-00768, # 8 Declaration ODNI, # 9 Declaration DOS, # 10 Exhibit Exhibits to DOS Declaration, # 11 Declaration OLC, # 12 Declaration DIA, # 13 Declaration NSA, # 14 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
2012-10-17	30	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 10 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	31	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 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)
2012-10-23	32	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
2012-10-24		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 32 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall file, by October 25, 2012, any opposition to 29 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall file any reply by November 8, 2012. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 24, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Oppositions to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/25/2012; Replies due by 11/8/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-26	33	Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Statement of Facts Response, # 20 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-10-26	34	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (Nunc Pro Tunc) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-10-26		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 34 Plaintiff's Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 26, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-11-08	35	REPLY to opposition to motion re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
2012-11-21	36	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)
2012-11-26	37	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Proposed sur-reply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/26/2012)
2012-11-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 37 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13. The plaintiff shall file, by November 30, 2012, its sur-reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 29, 2012. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
2012-11-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Surreply due by 11/30/2012. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
2012-11-29	38	SURREPLY to re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (rdj) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
2012-12-10	39	Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2012-12-14	40	REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 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)
2013-03-21		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)
2013-04-28	41	ERRATA for Proposed Second Amended Complaint by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 36 MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/28/2013)
2013-04-29	42	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
2013-05-17	43	Memorandum in opposition to re 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
2013-05-17	44	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 20 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
2013-05-28	45	REPLY to opposition to motion re 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) Modified on 5/29/2013 (rdj). (Entered: 05/28/2013)
2013-05-28	46	Memorandum in opposition to re 44 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 20 filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (See docket entry 45 to view document)(rdj) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
2013-05-29		NOTICE OF ERROR re 45 Reply to opposition to Motion; emailed to ryan.parker@usdoj.gov, cc'd 3 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two-part docket entry, 2. Counsel is reminded to docket the opposition as a separate entry IN THE FUTURE. NO ACTION required (zrdj, ) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
2013-06-07	47	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 20 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
2013-06-10		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 47 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Its Reply in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count 20. The plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by June 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 06/10/2013. (lcbah2) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
2013-06-10		Set/Reset Deadline: The plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of Its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by 6/10/2013. (ad) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
2013-06-11	48	REPLY to opposition to motion re 44 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Count 20 filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
2013-06-11	49	NOTICE of Recent Development Regarding Count 9 by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 13 (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
2013-06-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Upon consideration of the plaintiff's 49 Notice, the State Department is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, by June 19, 2013, why the Court should not deny the State Department summary judgment regarding the adequacy of its search in response to the FOIA request listed in Count Nine in the 7 First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 12, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-12	50	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Show Cause due by 6/19/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-13		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 50 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 13, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
2013-06-18	51	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by DEPARTMENT OF STATE . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 06/18/2013)
2013-06-21		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Although no response is necessary, the plaintiff may file, by June 26, 2013, any response to the State Department's 51 Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 21, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
2013-06-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to 51 response, if any, due by 6/26/2013 (tg, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-07-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) In the September 26, 2012 declaration of Martha M. Lutz, Ms. Lutz states that she attaches eleven exhibits, which are referred to as Exhibits A through K. See ECF No. 29-1, at 4-9. Although not denominated as a lettered exhibit, the CIA's Vaughn index (referred to as Exhibit K in the Lutz Declaration) is contained in the documents located at ECF No. 29-2 through 29-7. Exhibits A through J referenced in Ms. Lutz's declaration, however, have not been filed on the docket. The CIA is hereby directed to file, by July 3, 2013, Exhibits A through J that are cited in the September 26, 2012 Lutz Declaration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 1, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
2013-07-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Exhibits A through J that are cited in the September 26, 2012 Lutz Declaration due by 7/3/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
2013-07-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) In the October 1, 2012 declaration of Alesia Y. Williams, Ms. Williams states that she attaches nine exhibits, which are referred to as Exhibits A through I. See ECF No. 29-12, at 2-4. Those exhibits, however, have not been filed on the docket. The DIA is hereby directed to file, by July 5, 2013, Exhibits A through I that are cited in the October 1, 2012 Williams Declaration. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 2, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
2013-07-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Exhibits A through I that are cited in the October 1, 2012 Williams Declaration due by 7/5/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
2013-07-03	52	NOTICE of Filing by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY re Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through J to the Lutz Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
2013-07-03	53	NOTICE of Filing by DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY re Order, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A through I to the Williams Declaration)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
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	54	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION regarding the defendant's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13; the plaintiff's 36 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint; the defendant's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty and the plaintiff's 44 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Twenty. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 15, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
2013-08-15	55	ORDER granting in part and denying in part the defendant's 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying the plaintiff's 36 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part the defendant's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts Twelve and Twenty and granting the plaintiff's 44 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment on Count Twenty. 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	56	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-04		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 56 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. 54 , 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)
2014-01-08	57	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
2014-01-08		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the Defendants' 57 Consent Motion for an Enlargement of Time to File their Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendants shall, by February 7, 2014, file any renewed motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff shall, by February 24, 2014, file any cross-motion for summary judgment and any opposition to the defendants' motion. The defendants shall, by March 13, 2014, file any opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion and any reply to the plaintiff's opposition. The plaintiff shall, by March 31, 2014, file any reply to the defendants' opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 8, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
2014-01-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Renewed Summary Judgment motion due by 2/7/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/24/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/13/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 3/31/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
2014-02-06	58	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
2014-02-06		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING in part and DENYING in part the defendants' 58 Second Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The Court ISSUES the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this matter: the defendants shall, by March 3, 2014, submit any motion for summary judgment on all outstanding claims in this action. The plaintiff shall, by March 27, 2014, submit any opposition to the defendants' motion and any cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendants shall, by April 14, 2014, submit any reply to the plaintiff's opposition and any opposition to the plaintiff's cross-motion. The plaintiff shall, by May 5, 2014, file any reply to the defendants' opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 6, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
2014-02-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 3/3/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/27/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply in Support to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/14/2014; Reply in Support to Cross Motion due by 5/5/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/06/2014)
2014-03-04	59	MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (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: 03/04/2014)
2014-03-04	60	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Their Motion for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
2014-03-05		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the defendants' 60 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment is deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 5, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
2014-03-27	61	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining 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' 59 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 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining 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 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims MOTION to Bifurcate Briefing of Defendants' Motion filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/02/2014)
2014-04-02	65	RESPONSE re 62 MOTION to Consolidate Cases filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (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	66	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining 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 Defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by April 14, 2014, file any opposition/cross-motion for summary judgment to the defendants' 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)
2014-04-02		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; Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 5/22/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
2014-04-14	67	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining 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 defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment and/or any 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) DENYING the plaintiff's 68 Motion to Bifurcate Briefing Schedule. When the Court consolidated former Case No. 11-443 into Case No. 11-444, "[t]he briefing schedule in Case No. 11-445 remain[ed] the same" since Case No. 11-445 did not involve any issues related to the production of records in an electronic format. See Minute Order (Apr. 2, 2014). Consequently, the plaintiff's 68 Motion is unnecessary as to this matter. The briefing schedule for this matter will continue in accord with the briefing schedule entered on April 2, 2014, as amended on April 14, 2014. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 16, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/16/2014)
2014-04-17	69	Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Scroll bars, # 2 Exhibit B - Missing comments, # 3 Exhibit C - Unknown manual, # 4 Exhibit D - Privacy Act Branch Orientation, # 5 Exhibit E - Tasking Overview, # 6 Exhibit F - Referral and Coordination Workshop, # 7 Exhibit G - Wrath of QA, # 8 Exhibit H - Privacy Act Internal Business Procedure, # 9 Exhibit I - Internal PIPD Policies, # 10 Exhibit J - Sack Reply, # 11 Exhibit K - Doc. 48, # 12 Exhibit L - Doc. 46, # 13 Exhibit M - Doc. 157, # 14 Exhibit N - Unredacted search terms, # 15 Exhibit O - Redacted search terms, # 16 Exhibit P - Redacted search results, # 17 Exhibit Q - Doc. 324, # 18 Exhibit R - A-C privilege, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
2014-04-17	70	Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Scroll bars, # 2 Exhibit B - Missing comments, # 3 Exhibit C - Unknown manual, # 4 Exhibit D - Privacy Act Branch Orientation, # 5 Exhibit E - Tasking Overview, # 6 Exhibit F - Referral and Coordination Workshop, # 7 Exhibit G - Wrath of QA, # 8 Exhibit H - Privacy Act Internal Business Procedure, # 9 Exhibit I - Internal PIPD Policies, # 10 Exhibit J - Sack Reply, # 11 Exhibit K - Doc. 48, # 12 Exhibit L - Doc. 46, # 13 Exhibit M - Doc. 157, # 14 Exhibit N - Unredacted search terms, # 15 Exhibit O - Redacted search terms, # 16 Exhibit P - Redacted search results, # 17 Exhibit Q - Doc. 324, # 18 Exhibit R - A-C privilege, # 19 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 4/18/2014 (jf, ). (Entered: 04/17/2014)
2014-04-18	71	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 69 Memorandum in Opposition,,, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
2014-05-07	72	Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining 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	73	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) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-09	74	Consent MOTION for Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendants' 74 Consent Motion for Entry of a New Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule and AMENDING the Scheduling Order of April 2, 2014, as follows: the defendants shall, by June 5, 2014, file any reply in support of their 59 Motion for Summary Judgment and any opposition to the plaintiff's 70 and 73 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by June 24, 2014, file any reply in support of its 70 and 73 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 59 Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to 70 and 73 Cross Motions due by 6/5/2014; Reply in support of 70 and 73 Cross-Motions due by 6/24/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
2014-05-23	75	Joint MOTION to Modify the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
2014-05-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the parties' 75 Joint Motion to Amend the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. The defendants shall, by August 21, 2014, file any reply in support of their 59 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Outstanding Claims and any opposition to the plaintiff's 70 and 73 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: Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/21/2014. Reply in Support of Cross-Motions due by 9/16/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-08-15	76	Joint MOTION to Modify the Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (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 defendants shall, by October 7, 2014, file any reply in support of their 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 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 defendants shall, by 10/07/2014, file any reply in support of their 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 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	77	REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration from CIA, # 2 Declaration from DIA, # 3 Exhibit Corrected Record from ODNI)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
2014-10-28	78	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 70 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 78 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 70 first and 73 second cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties shall, by October 31, 2014 file jointly a supplement to the 56 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 October 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to 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	79	REPLY to opposition to motion re 70 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit S, # 2 Exhibit T, # 3 Exhibit U, # 4 Exhibit V, # 5 Exhibit W, # 6 Exhibit X, # 7 Exhibit Y)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/01/2014)
2014-11-01	80	Consent MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Proposed sur-reply, # 2 Exhibit S, # 3 Exhibit T, # 4 Exhibit U, # 5 Exhibit V, # 6 Exhibit W, # 7 Exhibit X, # 8 Exhibit Y, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/01/2014)
2014-11-01	81	STATUS REPORT (Joint Supplemental) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/01/2014)
2014-11-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 80 Consent Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 3, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the plaintiff to submit a clarification stating whether the plaintiff's Notice of Withdrawal of Its Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Document No. 86 in National Security Counselors v. CIA , Case No. 11-cv-444, affects the plaintiff's 73 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Case No. 11-cv-445. The plaintiff's Notice in Case No. 11-cv-444 states that "by providing electronic copies of the requested records, Defendant [CIA] has rendered moot the dispute over electronic records production." Pl.'s Notice at 1, Doc. No. 86, Case No. 11-cv-444. Since the plaintiff's 73 Cross-Motion in Case No. 11-cv-445 also pertains to Defendant CIA's electronic records production, the plaintiff shall, by November 6, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., inform the Court whether the plaintiff's 73 Cross-Motion in Case No. 11-cv-445 should be withdrawn. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 3, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-03	82	SURREPLY to re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (See docket entry 80 to view exhibits)(rdj) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-04	83	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,,, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
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. 11-444 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. 11-444 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)
2015-04-02	84	STATUS REPORT Jointly Filed by Plaintiff and by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Combined Vaughn Index 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' 84 Joint Status Report, wherein the plaintiff indicates that it will be filing two Rule 54(b) motions "within a week." 84 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)
2015-06-02	85	NOTICE of Non-Filing of Rule 54(b) Motion by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re Order,, (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2016-02-16	86	NOTICE of New Factual Development by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 70 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment, 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment On All Remaining Claims (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Z - MuckRock Lutz declaration)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
2016-07-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DENYING, as moot, the plaintiff's 73 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, upon consideration of the plaintiff's 83 Response to the Court's 3 November 2014 Order, which indicates that the defendants' "change in position effectively moots" the plaintiff's motion. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 15, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
2016-09-06	87	ORDER GRANTING the defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims in Civil Action Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445; and DENYING the plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration in Civil Action No. 11-444 and 70 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	88	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims in Civil Action Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445; and the plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration in Civil Action No. 11-444 and 70 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	89	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 89 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 89 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	90	Memorandum in opposition to re 89 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Bill of Costs and Fee Petition filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/04/2016)
2016-10-05	91	MOTION for Reconsideration re 87 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, 88 Memorandum & Opinion, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
2016-10-05	92	REPLY to opposition to motion re 89 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	93	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 92 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 89 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 90 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)
2016-10-06	94	Memorandum in opposition to re 91 MOTION for Reconsideration re 87 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, 88 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-17	95	REPLY to opposition to motion re 91 MOTION for Reconsideration re 87 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment,, 88 Memorandum & Opinion, filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
2016-10-18	96	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	97	MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	98	MOTION to Stay re Order,,,,,,,,,, by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	99	BILL OF COSTS by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 10/21/2016)
2016-10-21	100	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	101	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: 10/27/2016)
2016-11-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) resolving as follows four of the six motions pending in this matter: (1) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , as consented to, the plaintiff's 100 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 96 Unopposed Motion to Classify Its Forthcoming Fee Petition as a Rule 59(e) Motion, as moot; and (3) DENYING the plaintiff's 91 Motion for Partial Reconsideration ("Pl.'s Mot."), since the plaintiff has proffered no reason warranting reconsideration of the September 6, 2016, decision. "A district court need not grant a Rule 59(e) motion unless there is an 'intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.'" Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran , 782 F.3d 9, 17 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp. , 683 F.3d 397, 403 (D.C. Cir. 2012)); see also Messina v. Krakower , 439 F.3d 755, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2006). As support for its motion, the plaintiff notes that "in the interim period between the briefing of these matters and the Court's opinion, Congress added a provision to FOIA requiring the Government to demonstrate that 'the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption.'" Pl.'s Mot. at 1 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i)(I)). According to the plaintiff, "further briefing on the applicability of the foreseeable harm standard" to "the Court's judgment regarding the Exemption (b)(5) withholdings" in the present matter is warranted. Id. at 12. The defendants counter that the invoked FOIA provision, enacted as part of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, "applies only to FOIA requests that were filed after... June 30, 2016," while "the requests at issue in this case were submitted to the defendant agencies before the case was filed in February 2011." Defs.' Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Partial Reconsideration ("Defs.' Opp'n") at 1, ECF No. 94. Indeed, the plain language of the Improvement Act states, "This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and shall apply to any request for records under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, made after the date of enactment of this Act." PL 114-185, 130 Stat. 538. The plaintiff acknowledges that "the statute does include this sentence," but nevertheless contends that "Congress intended... that statements of 'what the legal standard is' would 'take effect on the date of the enactment of the Act.'" Pl.'s Reply Supp. Mot. Partial Reconsideration ("Pl.'s Reply") at 12, ECF No. 95. The plaintiff, however, offers no support for this contention, which is contrary to the plain language of the Improvement Act and the strong presumption against retroactive legislation. See Gersman v. Group Health Ass'n , 975 F.3d 886, 895 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ("The first rule of construction is that legislation must be considered as addressed to the future, not to the past...." (emphasis in original) (quoting Greene v. United States , 376 U.S. 149, 160 (1964))). Accordingly, the Court finds that statute's provisions do not constitute a "change in controlling law" applicable to the FOIA requests at issue in this case. Mohammadi , 782 F.3d at 17. Moreover, as the defendants aptly note, and the plaintiff does not dispute, the Improvement Act went into effect more than two months prior to entry of judgment in the present matter but was never raised as an issue to the Court. See Defs.' Opp'n at 3; Pl.'s Reply at 2. Rule 59(e) "may not be used... to raise arguments... that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker , 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995)). Thus, even assuming the Improvement Act applied, it would not provide a basis upon which the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration could be granted; and (4) DENYING the plaintiff's 98 Motion to Stay Briefing, as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 3, 2016. (lcbah2) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
2016-11-07	102	Memorandum in opposition to re 97 MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-07	103	RESPONSE re 99 Bill of Costs filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
2016-11-14	104	Memorandum in opposition to re 101 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plf's Hours 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	105	REPLY re 99 Bill of Costs filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/17/2016)
2016-11-18	106	NOTICE of Non-Filing of Reply by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS re 97 MOTION to Consolidate Cases (Renewed) (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
2016-11-28	107	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 101 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 107 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) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
2016-12-01	108	REPLY to opposition to motion re 101 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D - 15-5117 addendum excerpt, # 2 Exhibit E - 2d McClanahan declaration)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2016-12-01	109	ERRATA by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS 108 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
2017-08-21	110	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING the plaintiff's 97 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 21, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
2017-09-10	111	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	112	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	113	ORDER GRANTING in part and DENYING in part plaintiff's 101 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	114	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's 101 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	115	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 113 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	116	ORDER DIRECTING that the plaintiff be awarded attorney's fees and costs from the defendants, within 45 days of this Order, in the total amount of $3,678.14. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 12, 2017. (lcbah2) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
Hide Docket Events