Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled that the EPA failed to show that it conducted an adequate search for records responsive to parts of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's multi-part FOIA request concerning its 2009 Endangerment Finding that greenhouse gases posed a danger to public health and welfare and that, while it properly withheld certain records under Exemption 5 (privileges), it has not yet justified its invocation of attorney-client privilege. Shurtleff's case was initially referred to Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson and Sullivan adopted almost all of her recommendations except for her conclusion that the agency's search had been adequate. Instead, Sullivan found that where the agency had separated subparts of the request into phases its search had been adequate. For these subparts, EPA identified the individuals likely to have responsive information and set forth search parameters that included the subsections of the request at issue, files to be searched, time period covered by the search, and substantive instructions for individual subsections. He rejected Shurtleff's contention that the phased searches were inadequate because they only set forth specific search terms with respect to one subsection. He noted that "it would elevate form over substance to deem a search inadequate because the phrase 'search term' or 'keyword' is not used, particularly in a situation such as this, where the request sought extensive records regarding an enormous scientific and regulatory undertaking, and required the participation of hundreds of people with diverse roles, backgrounds, and expertise within the agency." But for those portions of Shurtleff's request that were not subject to the phased search, Sullivan found the agency's justifications lacking. He pointed out that the descriptions of those searches "fall far short of the adequacy standards set forth by this Circuit, as they lack detail and make no reference to the types of searches, search terms, methods or processes used." Shurtleff argued that the inclusion of staffers whose records were not searched in extensive email chains suggested that the agency should have searched those staffers' emails as well. Sullivan, however, observed that "plaintiff does not point to anything within the emails that suggests the existence of documents that the EPA could not have located without expanding the scope of its search. . .The fact that a few EPA employees were not instructed to search their files were involved in a total of twenty-four email chains (among 13,000 documents produced) is insufficient, without more, to raise a 'substantial doubt' about the adequacy of the search that was performed." Shurtleff argued that some emails were not deliberative because they did not pertain to any EPA policy-making process. But Sullivan pointed out that "although the EPA may not have initiated the policy development process, there can be no serious dispute that the comments relate to the formulation of climate change policy by the Executive Branch." Sullivan agreed that the agency had failed to justify a claim made under the attorney-client privilege. He indicated that "the declarations are too conclusory to grant summary judgment to the Agency. The EPA has not provided information which clearly delineates either (1) the individuals who received the communication, or (2) whether those individuals, by virtue of their responsibilities, 'are authorized to act or speak for the organization in relation to the subject matter of the communication.'" He affirmed the agency's attorney work-product claim for an email from an agency attorney concerning responses to public comments. He noted that "in such a situation, the Agency's response to comments is the type of document that clearly anticipates legal challenges to the Agency's finding and seeks to preemptively defend against them by crafting the strongest possible counter arguments in the Response to Comments." Sullivan rejected Shurtleff's contention that it was improper for the agency to respond to parts of his request by directing him to publicly available records. He observed that "plaintiff has cited no cases, and the Court is aware of none, that impose the additional requirement that the agency then search through those available records to pinpoint the specific documents of most use to the requester. The EPA has fulfilled its obligation by directing plaintiff to publicly available records which specifically relate to the Endangerment Finding and are responsive to four subsections of his request."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege

FOIA Project Annotation: Addressing the remaining issues stemming from a massive FOIA request submitted to the EPA by Utah's Attorney General for records pertaining to the agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases endangered public health, Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled the agency properly withheld several documents under Exemption 5 (attorney-client privilege) and that it has now justified the adequacy of its search for records pertaining to a number of subparts of the request. Sullivan originally found the agency had failed to substantiate its attorney-client privilege claims because it had not shown that the confidentiality of the records had been maintained and that individuals who received the advice had been authorized to act on behalf of the agency. This time around, Sullivan indicated the agency had justified the privilege. He noted that "the senders and recipients were limited to EPA attorneys, scientists, analysts, support staff, or senior executives who were responsible for developing EPA's position on the underlying environmental issues." Utah's Attorney General argued the agency's interpretation of his request was too narrow leading to "the self-serving result that no search was even attempted" for some subparts. But Sullivan indicated that "the EPA's explanation, derived from multiple planning meetings by EPA and [Climate Control Division] staff to determine how to respond to Plaintiff's broad and complex request, demonstrates that EPA appropriately approached Plaintiff's requests, and that searches for documents that it never had or no longer possessed would be futile." The EPA explained that it had conducted specific searches for records pertaining to how it used certain data from non-agencies and that it had used the results of a recent similar request to respond to one subpart of the Utah request. Reviewing the agency's supplemental affidavit, Sullivan noted that "taken together, the [agency's affidavits] provide detailed descriptions of the EPA's search for documents responsive to [various] subparts, including the methodology used for determining how to respond to the FOIA request, the manner in which relevant individuals and offices were identified as possessing responsive documents and the reasons for such identification, the filing systems and files searched, and the search terms used." He observed that "moreover, plaintiff does not identify other files, search terms, documents, offices, or individuals which would likely possess responsive records to these subparts."
Issues: Exemption 5, Adequacy - Search

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2010-11-24	1	COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616034468) filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (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 Exhibit S, # 20 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
2010-11-24		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (jf, ) (Entered: 11/30/2010)
2010-12-20	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 12/3/2010. (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-20	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY served on 12/2/2010 (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-20	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on Attorney General. Date of Service Upon Attorney General 11/29/2010. (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-22	2	NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Lo on behalf of UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-22	3	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, or Otherwise Respond by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-23	7	RESPONSE re 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, or Otherwise Respond filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nagle, Mark) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2010-12-23	8	REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint,, or Otherwise Respond filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2010-12-23		MINUTE ORDER granting, over objection, 3 defendant's motion for extension of time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint. Defendant shall respond to the complaint by no later than January 28, 2011. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 23, 2010. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2010-12-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 1/28/2011, (clv, ) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2011-01-28	9	ANSWER to 1 Complaint,, by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
2011-02-01		MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to submit a proposed scheduling order by no later than February 18, 2011. In the event that counsel are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, each party shall file an individual recommendation by that time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 1, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
2011-02-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Scheduling Order due by 2/18/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
2011-02-18	10	MOTION for Order Entering Defendant's Proposed Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
2011-02-18	11	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, and Proposed Scheduling Order filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Nagle, Mark) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
2011-02-24	12	RESPONSE re 11 Response to Order of the Court filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
2011-02-24		MINUTE ORDER. The Court has considered the parties' proposed scheduling orders. The parties agree that given the volume of responsive documents and redactions anticipated in this case, use of a sample index pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen is likely appropriate, and they further agree to meet and confer regarding the contents of a sample index. They disagree, however, over whether plaintiff should be permitted discovery, which plaintiff asserts he needs in order "to inform the forthcoming discussion with EPA counsel regarding the potential suitability of a sample Vaughn index in this case, and its appropriate design and content." Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Order, Doc. No. 11 at 1. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to propound fifteen pages of discovery requests, including requests for admission, interrogatories and requests for production of documents regarding any and all actions EPA has taken regarding plaintiff's FOIA request since the date it was filed. After careful consideration of plaintiff's request for discovery, the request is DENIED. Typically, FOIA actions are resolved without discovery. Voinche v. FBI, 412 F.Supp.2d 60, 71 (D.D.C.2006). See also Pub. Citizen Health Research Group v. FDA, 997 F.Supp. 56, 72 (D.D.C.1998) (Discovery is to be sparingly granted in FOIA actions.). However, discovery may be granted when plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the agency acted in bad faith, Carney v. DOJ, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir.1994), has raised a sufficient question as to the agency's good faith, Judicial Watch Inc. v. Export-Import Bank, 108 F.Supp.2d 19, 25 (D.D.C.2000), or when a factual dispute exists and the plaintiff has called the affidavits submitted by the government into question, Pub. Citizen Health Research Group, 997 F.Supp. at 72-73. Plaintiff has not made any of these arguments in support of his discovery requests, nor has he cited any authority that discovery should proceed in the absence of one or more of these exceptions. Accordingly, the request for discovery is DENIED. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties are to confer by April 15, 2011 on the contents of a sample Vaughn index containing a reasonable set of documents to be included in the Vaughn index, and to submit a proposed briefing schedule on the issues to be litigated. If the parties cannot agree on the contents of the sample Vaughn index, defendant shall file a motion by no later than April 15, 2011 seeking to submit a sample Vaughn index along with a proposed methodology for sampling, and shall include with its motion a proposed briefing schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 24, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
2011-02-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties are to confer by 4/15/2011 on the contents of a sample Vaughn index containing a reasonable set of documents to be included in the Vaughn index. Motion seeding to submit a sample Vaughn Index along with a proposed methodology for sampling by 4/15/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
2011-04-14	13	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File A Proposed Sample Vaughn Index and Briefing Schedule by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
2011-04-25		MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 13 defendant's unopposed motion to extend time to submit the parties' proposed sample Vaughn index and briefing schedule. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties are to confer by April 29, 2011 on the contents of a sample Vaughn index containing a reasonable set of documents to be included in the Vaughn index; provided the parties are able to reach agreement, the parties are to submit to the Court on April 29, 2011 a proposed briefing schedule on the issues to be litigated, and it is further ORDERED that if the parties are unable to reach agreement on the contents of the sample Vaughn index, Defendant is to file a motion on April 29, 2011 seeking to submit a sample Vaughn index along with a proposed methodology for sampling, and will include with its motion a proposed briefing schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 25, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/25/2011)
2011-04-26		Set/Reset Deadlines: parties to confer by due by 4/29/2011; parties briefing schedue due by 4/29/11; Motion due by 4/29/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
2011-04-29	14	MOTION to Permit A Sample Vaughn Index by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Lo, Michelle) Modified on 5/2/2011 to correct docket text (jf, ). (Entered: 04/29/2011)
2011-05-13	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION to Permit A Sample Vaughn Index filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Nagle, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
2011-05-13	16	NOTICE of Proposed Order by MARK L. SHURTLEFF re 15 Memorandum in Opposition (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nagle, Mark) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
2011-05-20	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Permit A Sample Vaughn Index filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 05/20/2011)
2011-05-25	18	ORDER granting 14 Motion to Permit Sample Vaughn Index and setting briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 25, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
2011-05-26		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 8/8/2011. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/6/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/27/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/26/2011)
2011-07-13	19	NOTICE of Additional Disclosures and Correction of Numbers Identified in Defendant's 14 Motion to Permit A Sample Vaughn Index by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) Modified on 7/14/2011 to add docket link (jf, ). (Entered: 07/13/2011)
2011-08-04	20	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
2011-08-08		MINUTE ORDER granting 20 defendant's unopposed motion for enlargement of time to file its motion for summary judgment. Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment by no later than 10/7/11; plaintiff shall file his response by no later than 11/7/11; defendant shall file its reply by no later than 11/28/11. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 8, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
2011-08-09		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 10/7/2011. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/7/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/28/2011. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
2011-10-07	21	MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Elizabeth Craig, # 4 Declaration of Elizabeth Craig Ex. BB (Withheld in Full Vaughn), # 5 Declaration of Elizabeth Craig Ex. CC (Withheld in Part Vaughn), # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
2011-10-28	22	NOTICE of Appearance by Prashant K. Khetan on behalf of MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2011-10-28	23	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2011-10-31		MINUTE ORDER granting 23 plaintiff's consent motion for extension of time. Plaintiff shall file his response to defendant's motion for summary judgment by no later than December 22, 2011 and defendant shall file its reply by no later than January 26, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 31, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
2011-11-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/22/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/26/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 11/01/2011)
2011-11-04	24	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to MARK L. SHURTLEFF. Attorney Mark E. Nagle terminated. (Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
2011-12-22	25	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
2011-12-22		ORDER granting 25 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to defendant's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall file his response by no later than December 29, 2011, and defendant shall file its reply by no later than February 2, 2012. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 22, 2011. (lcegs4) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
2011-12-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/29/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/2/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
2011-12-29	26	Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Statement of Facts Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute, # 10 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 12/29/2011)
2012-01-27	27	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 01/27/2012)
2012-02-09		MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 27 consent motion for extension of time for EPA to file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. EPA shall file its reply by no later than February 14, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on February 9, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 02/09/2012)
2012-02-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/14/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-14	28	REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Elizabeth Craig, # 2 Declaration of Dr. Kristie Ebi, # 3 Reply to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 02/14/2012)
2012-03-08		MINUTE ORDER. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.3(a)(3), the Court hereby refers 21 the United States Environmental Protection Agency's pending motion for summary judgment to a magistrate judge for a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 8, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
2012-03-13	29	CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson for report and recommendation. (kb) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
2012-04-12		Telephone Conference set for 4/16/2012 at 04:00 PM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Counsel shall jointly call chambers at the specified time. (lcdar3) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
2012-04-16		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson: Status Conference (Telephone) held on 4/16/2012. (lcdar3) (Entered: 04/17/2012)
2012-04-18		MINUTE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 04/18/2012: Status conference conducted; for the reasons set forth during the conference, and in accordance with the court's oral ruling, it is ORDERED that no later than April 30, 2012, Plaintiff shall supplement his opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 21) by filing a statement of genuine issues in accordance with the requirements of Local Civil Rule 7(h). It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall supplement its reply to address Plaintiff's 7(h) statement by no later than May 9, 2012. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall appear for oral argument with respect to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 11, 2012 in Courtroom 4 before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. (lcdar3) Modified on 4/18/2012 (lcdar3, ). (Entered: 04/18/2012)
2012-04-30	30	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings,,,,,, Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Material Facts As to Which There is a Genuine Dispute filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits H-EE)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 04/30/2012)
2012-05-09	31	REPLY re 30 Supplemental Memorandum, filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 05/09/2012)
2012-06-11		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 6/11/2012: Hearing with respect to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Document No. 21 ) conducted; Defendant's motion taken under advisement. (Court Reporter: Bowles Reporting Service) (lcdar3) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
2012-09-25	32	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION regarding Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 21 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson on 9/25/2012. (lcdar1) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
2012-09-27		MINUTE ORDER. On September 25, 2012, Magistrate Judge Robinson issued her 32 Report and Recommendations regarding 21 defendant's motion for summary judgment. Rule 72(b)(2) provides that the parties may file objections to the report and recommendations within 14 days after being served. Because the time allowed for filing objections has not expired, the court will hereby HOLD IN ABEYANCE 21 defendant's motion for summary judgment until expiration of the time period in which the parties may file objections. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 27, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
2012-10-09	33	Appeal of Magistrate Judge re 32 Decision to District Court by MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Khetan, Prashant) . (Entered: 10/09/2012)
2012-10-09	34	Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY re 32 Report and Recommendation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 10/09/2012)
2012-10-24	35	MOTION for Extension of Time to File EPA's Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-26		MINUTE ORDER granting 35 defendant's motion for extension of time to respond to Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations. Both defendant and plaintiff shall file their responses to each party's Objections by no later than October 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 26, 2012. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-10-31		Set/Reset Deadlines: parties responses to each party's objections due by 10/30/2012 (clv, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-10-31	36	OBJECTION to 32 Report and Recommendations filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-10-31	37	RESPONSE re 33 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-11-09	38	REPLY re 37 Response to Document, 36 Objection to Report and Recommendations REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 11/09/2012)
2012-11-13	39	REPLY re 34 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
2012-12-04	40	MOTION to Supplement Summary Judgment Record by MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 6-8)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
2012-12-19	41	Memorandum in opposition to re 40 MOTION to Supplement Summary Judgment Record filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 12/19/2012)
2013-09-30	42	ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, denying plaintiff's motion to supplement the record, and directing the parties to file a joint recommendation for further proceedings by no later than October 21, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 30, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
2013-09-30	43	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on September 30, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
2013-09-30	44	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report Pursuant to the Court's Order of September 30, 2013 by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 09/30/2013)
2013-10-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Recommendation due by 10/21/2013. (mac) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-01		MINUTE ORDER granting 44 the government's consent motion for extension of time to file joint status report. The parties shall file a joint status report, including recommendations for further proceedings, by no later than November 4, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 1, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/4/2013 (mac) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
2013-11-04	45	STATUS REPORT (Joint) by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
2013-11-06		MINUTE ORDER adopting 45 the parties' joint recommendation for further proceedings. The EPA shall file its supplemental motion for summary judgment by no later than December 11, 2013; plaintiff shall file his response by no later than January 10, 2014; defendant shall file its reply by no later than January 24, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 6, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
2013-11-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Supplemental Summary Judgment motion due by 12/11/2013. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/10/2014. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/24/2014. (gdf) (Entered: 11/06/2013)
2013-12-11	46	Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Second Supplemental Declaration of Elizabeth Craig, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
2014-01-10	47	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 46 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARK L. SHURTLEFF (Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
2014-01-13		MINUTE ORDER granting 47 consent motion for extension of time. Plaintiff shall file its reply to 46 EPA's renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than January 17, 2014; EPA shall file its reply by no later than January 31, 2014. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 13, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
2014-01-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/17/2014. Defendant's Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/31/2014. (mac) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
2014-01-17	48	Memorandum in opposition to re 46 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Opposition To Defendant's Renewed Motion For Summary Judgment filed by MARK L. SHURTLEFF. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response To Defendant's Statement Of Material Facts Not In Genuine Dispute, # 2 Text of Proposed Order proposed Order)(Khetan, Prashant) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
2014-01-31	49	REPLY to opposition to motion re 46 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (Lo, Michelle) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
2014-06-06	50	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Claire M. Whitaker on behalf of UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Substituting for attorney Michelle Lo (Whitaker, Claire) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
2014-06-13	51	ORDER granting 46 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 13, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
2014-06-13	52	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 13, 2014. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/13/2014)
Hide Docket Events