Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: There has long been disagreement over the proper role of agencies in assessing the disclosability of business-submitted records and, ultimately, defending a decision to disclose or withhold such records in response to a FOIA request. While agencies have sometimes argued that they are not truly stakeholders and that businesses should probably play a larger role in convincing courts that records are protected by Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and relevant statutes like the Trade Secrets Act, under FOIA agencies bear the burden of persuading a court that a claimed exemption'"including any commercial-related provisions'" is applicable. To the extent that businesses are willing to trust government to adequately protect their interests they bear no legal obligation to participate in the defense of such information when a requester goes to court. However, a recent case provides an interesting discussion of the circumstances under which a company may intervene by right to protect its interests and the claims a plaintiff may make in an attempt to keep the company from participating. The case involved a request from 100Reporters, a non-profit journalism organization, to the Justice Department for records related to the compliance monitoring program established by Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in connection with its 2008 plea agreement for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. DOJ denied the request on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). After the agency upheld its decision on appeal, 100Reporters filed suit. DOJ did not inform Siemens of the request until several months after the suit was filed. Less than a week later, both Siemens and Dr. Karl Waigel, who served four years as an independent corporate compliance monitor to Siemens following the resolution of the ECPA investigation, filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Judge Rudolph Contreras explained that under Rule 24(a), an applicant wishing to intervene needed to file to intervene in a timely manner, to show an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the suit, to show that the disposition of the action might impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interests, and to show that its interests might not be adequately represented by the existing parties. Finally, the party seeking to intervene as of right must show that it had standing to participate in the lawsuit. Contreras found both Siemens and Waigel qualified under the timeliness factor, pointing out that "to date, no substantive progress has occurred in this action, and the Court finds that allowing Siemens to intervene at this time would not unduly disrupt the litigation or pose an unfair detriment to the existing parties." Contreras has little problem finding that Siemens had a legally protected interest in the records requested by 100Reporters. He pointed out that "indeed, preventing the disclosure of commercially-sensitive and confidential information is a well-established interest sufficient to justify intervention under Rule 24(a)." But 100Reporters questioned Waigel's legal interest in intervening since he was essentially arguing that disclosure would harm future compliance monitors by failing to protect the confidentiality of their reports and communications with government agencies. Contreras rejected 100Reporters' suggestion that Waigel must show an interest protected by an exemption before being allowed to intervene. Contreras noted that "such a requirement would, in fact, be putting the cart before the horse because a ruling on the merits of an intervenor's right to withhold information under a certain FOIA exemption clearly would be premature at this embryonic stage of the litigation." Instead, he observed, "it is sufficient for purposes of Rule 24(a) that the Monitor has an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of his reports and communications. . .[T[he Monitor should have an opportunity to litigate the merits of his interest, including whether the interest actually is covered by a FOIA Exemption, in a single proceeding involving all interested parties." 100Reporters argued that as long as DOJ continued to insist that all the records were protected by an exemption the government's interests were aligned with those of Siemens and Waigel. But Contreras indicated that the ruling in Appleton v. FDA 310 F. Supp 2d 194 (D.D.C. 2004) had held that "by the very nature of FOIA litigation the government entity and the private intervenor will possess fundamentally different interests�"the government is interested in fulfilling its FOIA obligations; the intervenor is interested in preventing disclosure of its confidential materials�"such that the government entity is quite unlikely to provide 'adequate representation.'" He added that "the fact that Siemens and the DOJ presently agree on a litigation posture does not mean that the DOJ necessarily will adequately represent Siemens's interests throughout this action, as the DOJ remains free to change its strategy during the course of litigation." Contreras pointed out that "Siemens's presence in this litigation will ensure that, at the very least, its Exemption 4 argument is asserted as strongly as possible because Siemens is in a unique position to articulate the need to withhold its own confidential materials under that FOIA Exemption." Contreras agreed that DOJ and Waigel also had the same basic interest in non-disclosure, but noted that "that alone, however, does not mean that DOJ will adequately represent the Monitor's interests as contemplated by Rule 24(a), especially when the Monitor intends to assert arguments under FOIA Exemption 4." Finally, Contreras found that Siemens and Waigel both had standing. He noted that "when, as here, it is clear that the FOIA requestor seeks the release of documents that are likely to contain the intervenor's confidential information, the intervenor's injury is both particularized and sufficiently imminent. It is not surprising then, that 100Reporters cannot cite a single FOIA case in which a court denied on standing grounds the application of a prospective intervenor whose own confidential materials were the clear subject of the FOIA request. Instead, though there always exists significant overlap between Rule 24(a)'s interest requirement and Article III's injury-in-fact requirement, that likely never is truer than in a situation such as this, where the imminent and concrete risk of the proposed intervenor's confidential materials being released through a successful FOIA action is obvious."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that the Justice Department properly withheld records pertaining to oversight of Siemens' corporate compliance by an independent monitor after the company pled guilty to paying bribes to foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). He accepted that some records were protected by the attorney work product privilege under Exemption 5 (privileges), but found that the agency had not justified its claims under the deliberative process privilege. He also questioned the categorical nature of the agency's claims under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). He ordered the agency to provide a representative sample of documents for in camera review. His decision provides a thoughtful discussion of the applicability of all three exemptions, including when they apply to third parties. 100Reporters, an organization specializing in investigative journalism, submitted a FOIA request to the Justice Department for copies of four annual reports prepared by Dr. Theodore Waigel, hired by Siemens to monitor its compliance with its plea agreement resulting from its FCPA violation. In a previous decision, Contreras had found that Siemens and Waigel could intervene to claim that their records were confidential. The agency initially denied the request entirely, citing Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding). The agency disclosed more than 100 pages in full and 348 pages in part, but continued to withhold 4,293 pages. Although it dropped its Exemption 7(A) claim, the agency continued to assert Exemption 4, Exemption, 5, Exemption 6, and Exemption 7(C). Contreras found the compliance materials contained commercial information. He noted that "information that is 'instrumental' to a commercial interest is sufficiently commercial for the purposes of Exemption 4. . . Because the compliance and training documents include information that is instrumental to Siemens' operations, the Court finds that the information is 'commercial' for the purposes of Exemption 4." 100Reporters argued that because the compliance materials were unique to Siemens' circumstances, their disclosure would not lead to competitive harm. Contreras disagreed. He pointed out that "of course no two companies are exactly alike, and [the plaintiff's suggestion that a company's customized compliance plan cannot be confidential] would effectively make identity a requirement before disclosure of compliance materials could constitute harm. That rule seems particularly problematic in a world of constantly changing regulatory environments and business climates, where companies must continue to invest in compliance and training to address emerging risks." Contreras observed that "the disclosure of a compliance plan constitutes a competitive harm because competitors are likely to take advantage of that plan without incurring the costs undertaken by the party who provided the documents to the government." Contreras faced a threshold issue under Exemption 5 as to whether Waigel qualified as either inter- or intra-agency for purposes of the exemption. In Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 U.S. 1 (2001), the Supreme Court ruled that a consultant could qualify for the deliberative process privilege if his or her interest was the same as that of the government, but where an adverse interest existed, such a consultant would not qualify for the privilege. Assessing whether Waigel and the government's interests were the same, Contreras pointed out that "the terms of the monitorship also explicitly required the Monitor to report to the government regarding Siemens' compliance. The Monitor was not representing his own interests or the interests of Siemens when communicating with the government. Instead, the plea and settlement agreement tasked the Monitor with the important job of exercising independent, fact-based judgment to evaluate Siemens' compliance and submit reports to the government detailing Siemens' compliance efforts." Contreras concluded that "because the Monitor was exercising independent judgment, not advocating on its behalf or on behalf of Siemens, the Court finds that the consultant corollary applies and the Monitor's documents are intra-agency documents within the meaning of Exemption 5." Having found that Waigel qualified for inclusion under Exemption 5, Contreras agreed with 100Reporters that DOJ had not sufficiently described its deliberative process claims. Recognizing that an agency's deliberations did not have to end in a final decision in order to be privileged, he pointed out that "however, an agency must establish at least what deliberative process is involved and the role that withheld documents played in that process." He explained that "DOJ and the Monitor present evidence that purportedly shows that the withheld materials were created over four years of the monitorship, and the law enforcement agencies relied on them when making decisions regarding Siemens' compliance with the plea and settlement agreement and with anti-corruption laws generally." But he observed that "accepting DOJ and Defendant Intervenors' view of the deliberative process at issue would create a four-year umbrella effectively shielding all agency action from review without accounting for any subsidiary agency decisions." He ordered the agency to provide supplemental affidavits if it intended to continue to claim the deliberative process privilege. 100Reporters argued that Waigel had waived the deliberative process privilege by sharing documents with Siemens. Contreras disagreed. He noted that "the monitorship imposed by the plea and settlement agreement called for the Monitor to carefully analyze Siemens' business practices and provide recommendations for improvements. That process would have been impossible if the Monitor could not communicate with Siemens." He added that "here, the plea and settlement agreement, which were approved by the court, required the Monitor to submit his work plans and reports to Siemens. Therefore, the Court finds that the disclosure was involuntary. Because the disclosure of information from the Monitor to Siemens was involuntary under the relevant court orders and was necessary for the purposes of the plea and settlement agreement and monitoring, the Court concludes that the disclosures did not waive the deliberative process privilege." Contreras found the records had been created for law enforcement purposes. He pointed out that "here, there is no doubt that DOJ has a duty to enforce the FCPA and Siemens committed an actual violation of federal law. The more difficult question is whether documents compiled after the entry of a guilty plea constitute a part of the investigation. . .The Court finds that the post-plea compilation in this case is part of an ongoing investigation, because DOJ had an ongoing responsibility to enforce the terms of the plea agreement and could bring additional enforcement action if Siemens failed to comply." He concluded that DOJ had not shown that Exemption 7(C) could be applied categorically to withhold names and personally-identifying information. He pointed out that many of the Siemens board members were identified on the company's website. He added that "DOJ has not done enough to differentiate the interests of various government employees in the context of this case." Because he found the agency had not sufficiently justified its Exemption 5 and Exemption 7(C) claims, Contreras indicated that the agency had failed to justify its segregability claims as well. He ordered the agency to provide one work plan and one annual report for in camera review.
Issues: Exemption 4 - Competitive harm, Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege, Exemption 5 - Inter- or intra-agency record, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Litigation - In camera review

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2014-07-24	1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3788880) filed by 100Reporters LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Summons, # 11 Summons, # 12 Summons)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 07/24/2014)
2014-07-24		Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (kb) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-25	2	NOTICE TO ISSUE REVISED SUMMONS by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-25	3	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(kb, ) (Entered: 07/25/2014)
2014-07-31	4	NOTICE of Appearance by Theodore David Frank on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Frank, Theodore) (Entered: 07/31/2014)
2014-08-07	5	Corporate Disclosure Statement by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-07	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 8/6/2014. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/5/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-07	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 8/4/14. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-07	8	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 8/4/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
2014-08-23	9	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 08/23/2014)
2014-08-25		MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's response to the complaint shall be filed on or before October 6, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 08/25/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 10/6/2014, (tj ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
2014-10-03	10	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
2014-10-06		MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's response is due on or before October 14, 2004. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/06/2014. (lcrc2) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
2014-10-14	11	ANSWER to Complaint by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Truong, John) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-14		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before October 29, 2014. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/14/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-20	12	NOTICE of Appearance by Raul F. Yanes on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-20	13	MOTION to Intervene by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit (Proposed Answer), # 4 Exhibit (LCvR 7.1 Certificate of Corporate Disclosures))(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-20	14	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - (212) 450-4000. Fax No. - (212) 450-6032 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3877469. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Declaration of Michael Scheinkman), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-20	15	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - (212) 450-4000. Fax No. - (212) 450-5649 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-3877475. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Declaration of Paul Spagnoletti), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-20	16	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. Case related to Case No. 08-367 and 08-2167. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-20	17	MOTION to Intervene by THEO WAIGEL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Answer)(Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
2014-10-21		MINUTE ORDER granting 14 , 15 Motions for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice : Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, it is hereby ORDERED that Michael Scheinkman and Paul Spagnoletti are admitted to represent proposed Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/21/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
2014-10-28	18	NOTICE OF OBJECTION by 100REPORTERS LLC re 16 Notice of Related Case (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-28	19	MOTION for Hearing re Order (Motion for Status Conference) by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-29	20	MOTION for Order and Status Report by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-30		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 19 Plaintiff's motion for a hearing and 20 Defendant's motion for an order and status report, it is hereby ORDERED that a Status Conference shall be held on December 3, 2014, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/30/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
2014-10-30	21	RESPONSE re 18 Notice (Other) /Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Notice of Related Case filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
2014-11-03	22	RESPONSE re 17 MOTION to Intervene , 13 MOTION to Intervene filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
2014-11-04	23	NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. Rosenberg on behalf of THEO WAIGEL (Rosenberg, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
2014-11-05		Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/3/2014 @ 11:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj ) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
2014-11-10	24	REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION to Intervene filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
2014-11-10	25	REPLY to opposition to motion re 17 MOTION to Intervene filed by THEO WAIGEL. (Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
2014-11-13	26	MOTION to Continue Consent Motion to Reschedule Status Conference by THEO WAIGEL (Sigler, Geoffrey) Modified event title on 11/14/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 11/13/2014)
2014-11-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Motion to Continue Status Conference. It is hereby ORDERED that the status conference scheduled for December 3, 2014, is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that the status conference is rescheduled for December 16, 2014, at 11:00 AM. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/18/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
2014-12-03	27	ORDER granting 13 Siemens's Motion to Intervene; and granting 17 Dr. Waigel's Motion to Intervene. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/3/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
2014-12-03	28	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 13 Siemens's Motion to Intervene; and granting 17 Dr. Waigel's Motion to Intervene. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/3/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/03/2014)
2014-12-03	29	ANSWER to Complaint by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT.(znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-03	30	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT identifying Corporate Parent SIEMENS CAPITAL COMPANY LLC, Corporate Parent SIEMENS LTD., MUMBAI, Corporate Parent SIEMENS PAKISTAN ENGINEERING CO., LTD. for SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-03	31	ANSWER to Complaint by THEO WAIGEL.(znmw, ) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-04	32	NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald G. London on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (London, Ronald) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-04	33	NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Rose Handman on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (Handman, Laura) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-04	34	NOTICE of Appearance by Adam M. Shoemaker on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (Shoemaker, Adam) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-05	35	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to 100REPORTERS LLC. Attorney Theodore David Frank and Murad Hussain terminated. (Hussain, Murad) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
2014-12-15	36	NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Spagnoletti on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-15	37	NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Scheinkman on behalf of SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Scheinkman, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-15	38	NOTICE of Appearance by Francis Joseph Warin on behalf of THEO WAIGEL (Warin, Francis) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-16		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 12/16/2014. Parties advise the court of the status of this action. (Court Reporter: Annette Montalvo.) (tj) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
2014-12-22	39	NOTICE of Proposed Order On Behalf Of All Parties by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
2014-12-29	40	CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/29/2014. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
2014-12-31		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/23/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (gdf) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
2015-03-30	41	Consent MOTION to Modify Case Management Scheduling Order (ECF No. 40) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-03-30		MINUTE ORDER granting 41 Consent Motion to Modify Scheduling Order. It is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the U.S. Department of Justice shall have up to and including June 1, 2015, to meet its obligations as set forth in Paragraph III of the 40 Case Management Scheduling Order; and (2) the April 23, 2015, Status Hearing is VACATED and rescheduled for June 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/30/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-03-31		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/10/2015@ 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj ) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
2015-04-02	42	MOTION to Continue Consent Motion to Reschedule Status Hearing by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-03		MINUTE ORDER granting 42 Siemens' consent motion to reschedule the status hearing: It is hereby ORDERED that the status hearing scheduled for June 10, 2015, is VACATED and rescheduled for June 16, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/03/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-06-15	43	MOTION to Continue / Consent Motion to Adjourn Status Hearing and Enter Briefing Schedule by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
2015-06-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 43 the motion to continue, and VACATING the status conference currently scheduled for 6/16/15 @ 10:00am. (Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/16/15). (tj) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
2015-06-17	44	SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/17/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
2015-06-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 11/19/2015. Response to Cross Motions due by 12/18/2015. Reply to Cross Motions due by 1/14/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 10/19/2015. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/19/2015. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/18/2015. Vaughn Index due by 9/17/2015 (tj) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
2015-09-16	45	Consent MOTION to Modify The Court's June 17, 2105 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 44) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
2015-09-17	46	REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/17/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
2015-10-15	47	NOTICE of Compliance of September 17, 2015 Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/15/2015)
2015-11-05	48	Consent MOTION to Modify The Court's September 17, 2015 Scheduling Order (ECF No. 46) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2015-11-06		MINUTE ORDER granting 48 Defendant's Motion to Modify: It is hereby ORDERED that 46 the Court's Scheduling Order and the deadlines for summary judgment briefing are VACATED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report on or before December 18, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/6/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-11-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/18/2015. (gdf) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
2015-12-18	49	Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Briefing Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
2015-12-22	50	SECOND REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/22/2015. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
2016-02-22	51	Consent MOTION to Modify Second Revised Scheduling Order (ECF No. 50) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
2016-02-23	52	THIRD REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 51 Motion to Modify. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/23/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-02-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 4/15/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 5/16/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/6/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 3/15/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 4/15/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/16/2016. (tj) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-03-14	53	MOTION to Modify Third Revised Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
2016-03-14	54	FOURTH REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 53 Motion to Modify. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/14/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/14/2016)
2016-03-17	55	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Gerard McCarthy, :Firm- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, :Address- 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017. Phone No. - 212-450-4000. Fax No. - 212-450-5586 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090-4450625. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gerard McCarthy, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Yanes, Raul) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
2016-03-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 55 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice : Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.2, it is hereby ORDERED that Gerard McCarthy is admitted to represent Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft pro hac vice in this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/18/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-03-21	56	NOTICE of Appearance by Peter Claude Sprung on behalf of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Sprung, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
2016-03-22	57	MOTION for Summary Judgment by THEO WAIGEL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of F. Joseph Warin, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sigler, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-22	58	MOTION for Summary Judgment by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Joel Kirsch in Support of Siemens' Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Spagnoletti, Paul) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-22	59	MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Affidavit of Suzanna Moberly and Exhs A to E, # 4 Exhibit F (Amended Vaughn Index), # 5 Exhibit G (Table of Documents), # 6 Affidavit of Tarek Helou, # 7 Affidavit of Joey Lipton, # 8 Affidavit of Tracy Price)(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/22/2016)
2016-03-23	60	NOTICE by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to E)(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
2016-03-23	61	NOTICE of Corrected Memorandum of Points and Authorities by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support (Corrected))(Truong, John) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
2016-04-22	62	MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-22	63	Memorandum in opposition to re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-22	64	RESPONSE to Defendants' Jt. Statement of Facts filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-05-10	65	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file its Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-05-10		MINUTE ORDER granting 65 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment and their respective oppositions to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before June 16, 2016. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a single consolidated reply brief in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment on or before July 22, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/10/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
2016-06-10	66	MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order and extend the briefing deadlines by 60 days by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-10	67	ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION for Leave to File the Declaration of John C. Truong Under Seal by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) Modified on 6/13/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-10	68	SEALED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A)(Truong, John) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
2016-06-13		NOTICE OF ERROR re 67 Motion for Leave to File; emailed to john.truong@usdoj.gov, cc'd 21 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Entered in Error; Duplicative motion; In future, only the Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal entry is required. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
2016-06-15		MINUTE ORDER granting 68 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal: It is hereby ORDERED that Attachment A to 68 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal shall be accepted as filed under seal. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/15/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
2016-06-15		MINUTE ORDER granting 66 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment and their respective oppositions to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before August 16, 2016. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a single consolidated reply brief in support of its cross-motion for summary judgment on or before September 22, 2016. The Court observes that 44 the Court's initial Scheduling Order called for summary judgment briefing to conclude on January 14, 2016. Prior to the unanticipated medical issue of counsel for Defendant, the Court granted multiple motions to extend the briefing schedule and issued four Revised Scheduling Orders. It is therefore FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not grant any further extensions absent extraordinary circumstances. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/15/2016. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
2016-06-15	69	SEALED DOCUMENT (Sworn Declaration) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. re 66 MOTION to Modify the Scheduling Order and extend the briefing deadlines by 60 days filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)(znmw) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
2016-08-16	70	REPLY to opposition to motion re 57 MOTION for Summary Judgment , filed by THEO WAIGEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sigler, Geoffrey) Modified link on 8/17/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-16	71	Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spagnoletti, Paul) Modified link on 8/17/2016 (znmw). (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-16	72	Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts)(Truong, John) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-16	73	REPLY to opposition to motion re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Reply Regarding Defendants' Joint Statement of Material Facts)(Truong, John) (Entered: 08/16/2016)
2016-08-16	74	Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by THEO WAIGEL. (See Docket Entry 70 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
2016-08-16	75	REPLY to opposition to motion re 58 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT. (See Docket Entry 71 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/17/2016)
2016-09-22	76	REPLY to opposition to motion re 62 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum in Support, and Statement of Facts filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (London, Ronald) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
2017-03-31	77	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 57 Defendant-Intervenor Theo Waigel's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 58 Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 59 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying 62 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2017-03-31	78	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 57 Defendant-Intervenor Theo Waigel's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 58 Defendant-Intervenor Siemens Aktiengesellschaft's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 59 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying 62 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/31/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
2017-07-31	79	Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
2017-07-31		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 79 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall submit any renewed motions for summary judgment on or before September 19, 2017; Plaintiff shall submit its opposition to those renewed motions on or before October 17, 2017; and Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall submit their replies, if any, in support of their renewed motions on or before October 31, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 7/31/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
2017-09-13	80	NOTICE of Appearance by Patrick John Curran on behalf of 100REPORTERS LLC (Curran, Patrick) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
2017-09-18	81	Unopposed MOTION to Modify the Court's July 31, 2017 Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
2017-09-19		MINUTE ORDER granting 81 Motion to Modify Scheduling Order: It is hereby ORDERED that Federal Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file any renewed motions for summary judgment on or before September 26, 2017; Plaintiff shall file any opposition to those renewed motions on or before October 24, 2017; and Federal Defendant and Defendant-Intervenors shall file their replies, if any, in support of their motions on or before November 7, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 9/19/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
2017-09-20	82	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to 100REPORTERS LLC. Attorney Adam M. Shoemaker terminated. (Curran, Patrick) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
2017-09-26	83	MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration of Mark Mendelsohn, # 4 Declaration of Charles Duross, # 5 Gov. Exh. A, # 6 Gov. Exh. B)(Truong, John) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
2017-10-16	84	NOTICE of Corrected Memorandum of Law and Authorities by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support (Corrected))(Truong, John) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
2017-10-16	85	Consent MOTION to Modify The Courts September 19, 2017 Scheduling Order by 100REPORTERS LLC (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Curran, Patrick) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
2017-10-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 85 Consent Motion For Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its opposition to the Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on or before October 27, 2017; Federal Defendant and Defendant Intervenors shall file their replies on or before November 10, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/16/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
2017-10-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/27/2017; Replies to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/10/2017. (tj) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
2017-10-27	86	Memorandum in opposition to re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Curran, Patrick) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
2017-10-27	87	RESPONSE re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) Response to DOJ's Statement of Material Facts filed by 100REPORTERS LLC. (Curran, Patrick) (Entered: 10/27/2017)
2017-11-01	88	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 11/01/2017)
2017-11-02		MINUTE ORDER granting 88 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on or before December 1, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/2/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
2017-11-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/1/2017. (tj) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
2017-11-27	89	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
2017-11-27		MINUTE ORDER granting 89 Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment on or before December 8, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/27/2017. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
2017-11-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/18/2017. (ztj) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
2017-12-08	90	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
2017-12-11	91	REPLY to opposition to motion re 83 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed) (Corrected Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment Dkt. No. 84-1) filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 DOJ Attachment A)(Truong, John) (Entered: 12/11/2017)
2018-01-08		MINUTE ORDER granting 90 Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that 91 Defendant Department of Justice's Reply in support of its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is deemed timely filed. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/8/2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
2018-06-13	92	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 83 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting in part and denying in part 86 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on June 13, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
2018-06-13	93	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 83 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting in part and denying in part 86 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on June 13, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 06/13/2018)
2018-07-13	94	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Joint Status Report by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
2018-07-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 94 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a status report on July 16, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on July 16, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
2018-07-16	95	Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 07/16/2018)
2018-08-06	96	NOTICE Regarding Federal Defendant's Appeal Decision by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 08/06/2018)
2018-08-07		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status hearing on August 16, 2018, at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 7, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
2018-08-07		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 8/16/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (hs) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
2018-08-16		Minute Entry; for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 8/16/2018. Scheduling Order to issue via chambers. (Court Reporter Crystal Pilgrim) (hs) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
2018-08-16	97	SCHEDULING ORDER. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 16, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
2018-08-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Government's Work Plan, the accompanying Annual Report, and all accompanying exhibits due by 10/1/2018. (hs) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
2018-10-16	98	Consent MOTION to Modify August 16, 2018 Scheduling Order by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2018-10-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 98 Defendant DOJ's Consent Motion to Modify 97 the Court's Scheduling Order. It is hereby ORDERED that the government shall release non-exempt information according to the following schedule: the government shall release the three remaining Work Plans on or before November 9, 2018; the government shall release one Report and one set of Exhibits on or before December 20, 2018; the government shall release one Report and one set of Exhibits on or before January 29, 2019; the government shall release one Report and one set of Exhibits on or before March 1, 2019; and the government shall release all other miscellaneous documents and videos on or before May 1, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on October 16, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/16/2018)
2019-01-22	99	Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings Due to Lapse in Appropriations by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
2019-01-22		MINUTE ORDER granting 99 Defendant Department of Justice's Unopposed Motion to Stay: It is hereby ORDERED that within 14 days of Congress appropriating funds for the Department of Justice, the parties shall confer and submit a proposed document production schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on January 22, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
2019-02-12	100	NOTICE of Restored Government Funding and Proposed Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
2019-02-12		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 100 the parties' Notice and Proposed Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern the remaining document productions in this case: The government shall release one Report and its attending Exhibits on or before March 11, 2019; the government shall release one Report and its attending Exhibits on or before April 11, 2019; and the government shall release all other miscellaneous materials on or before June 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on February 12, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
2019-03-06	101	Unopposed MOTION to Modify Document Production Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
2019-03-06		MINUTE ORDER granting 101 the government's Unopposed Motion to Modify Production Schedule. It is hereby ORDERED that the following schedule shall govern the remaining document productions in this case: The government shall produce one Report and its attending exhibits on or before April 11, 2019; the government shall produce one Report and its attending exhibits on or before May 10, 2019; and the government shall produce all remaining miscellaneous materials on or before July 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 6, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
2019-05-07	102	Unopposed MOTION to Modify March 6, 2019 Production Schedule by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
2019-05-07	103	MINUTE ORDER granting 102 Unopposed Motion to Modify March 6, 2019 Document Production Schedule: It is hereby ORDERED that the current document production schedule shall be modified in the following ways: all deadlines shall be extended by 30 days such that the Federal Defendant is to produce one report and its attending exhibits by June 10, 2019 and produce the remaining miscellaneous items by August 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on May 7, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
2019-08-12	104	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Document Production by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
2019-08-12		MINUTE ORDER granting 104 Federal Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that the document production schedule is extended to September 12, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Joint Status Report by October 12, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on August 12, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
2019-08-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 10/12/2019 (tj) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
2019-10-11	105	Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
2019-10-11		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 105 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further status report on December 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on October 11, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
2019-10-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/11/2019. (zgdf) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
2019-12-11	106	Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
2019-12-11		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 106 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further status report on February 11, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on December 11, 2019. (lcrc3) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
2019-12-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/11/2020 (tj) (Entered: 12/12/2019)
2020-02-11	107	Joint STATUS REPORT by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
2020-02-11		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 107 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further status report by March 31, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on February 11, 2020. (lcrc3) (Entered: 02/11/2020)
2020-02-19		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/31/2020. (tj) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
2020-03-31	108	NOTICE of Settlement in Principle by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Truong, John) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
2020-04-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 108 the Parties' notice of settlement in principle, it is hereby ORDERED that the Parties shall submit a further joint status report by May 1, 2020, if the matter is not resolved by that date. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on April 1, 2020. (lcrc3) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
2020-04-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/1/2020 (zj) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
2020-05-01	109	STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Truong, John) (Entered: 05/01/2020)
Hide Docket Events