Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A recent decision involving the State Department explores some interesting issues concerning when and why records may be privileged. In a case brought by journalism professor Charles Seife for records pertaining to background briefings for journalists provided off-the-record by a variety of senior officials at the department, Judge Gregory Woods of the Southern District of New York has questioned whether such discussions are privileged. Whether or not such discussions qualify under the deliberative process privilege is not yet settled, although the weight of case law certainly leans towards the conclusion that as long as such discussions are legitimately predecisional and deliberative they are eligible for the privilege. Seife made two FOIA requests to the State Department in July 2014 for records about recent background briefings, as well as briefings from December 2012 and November 2015. His second request asked for transcripts of any background briefings between January 2009 and July 2014. He indicated that he wanted to know the identity of the briefer by name. The State Department located 96 documents. It disclosed 15 documents in full, redacted another 80 documents, and withheld one document entirely under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Although the State Department transcribes such briefing sessions, the agency told Woods that the transcripts never include the name of the briefer. The agency indicated that non-identifying transcripts were publicly available on the agency's website, but concluded that it would have no records responsive to Seife's second FOIA request because it asked for identifying information. Seife argued State's interpretation of the request was too restrictive since "his request does not limit the transcripts he seeks to those that do identify the briefers by name. Rather, his use of the phrase 'should identify' expresses his expectation to receive transcripts containing the briefers' identities." Woods observed that 'because an agency responding to a FOIA request is mandated to construe the request broadly, the State Department should have interpreted the [second] request as one for unredacted transcripts. . . regardless of whether the transcripts identified by name the government official providing the briefing." The agency argued that a search for transcripts other than those on the website would require a burdensome search of a number of employees' email accounts. Woods found the explanation insufficient, noting that the agency's affidavit "provides no information regarding the total number of email accounts that would need to be searched, or the level of difficulty of, or amount of time required by, the search process itself. Absent such or similar information describing with reasonable specificity the actual burden imposed by the [second] request, the Court cannot conclude that a response to Mr. Seife's request would in fact be unduly burdensome." Most of the agency's redactions were based on Exemption 5, citing the deliberative process privilege. My own case, Access Reports v. Dept of Justice, 926 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1991), has some relevance here. In that case, the document at issue was a DOJ analysis of a Congressional Research Service report listing instances in which the media cited FOIA as the source of the information for the story. The DOJ analysis was prepared to rebut allegations that FOIA amendments that had already been introduced in Congress by the Reagan administration would further restrict access as a result of the new amendments. From my perspective, the report was intended to support the introduction of the amendments, a decision which had already taken place. Although the district court agreed with me, the D.C. Circuit found instead that the report was predecisional to DOJ's efforts to lobby Congress for passage of the legislation. To the extent that the Access Reports decision is applicable here, it underscores not only that deliberations can be a fluid, shifting process, but also that messaging efforts can be considered deliberative. Although there were a handful of district court decisions in the Second Circuit finding that discussions pertaining to how an agency should respond to press or public inquiries were not protected by the deliberative process privilege, Woods pointed out that the Second Circuit in American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept of Justice, 844 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2016), implicitly approved of coverage of such inquiries under the deliberative process privilege. Embracing the D.C. Circuit's approach, he noted that "even when an underlying decision or policy has already been established by the agency, the decision of how, and to what extent, to convey that policy to the public may require input by many working components within the agency, or even an analysis of the underlying policy itself." Having concluded that the press background records were subject to the deliberative process privilege, Woods found that in many cases they were neither predecisional nor deliberative. He noted that "while several of the emails appear to temporally pre-date the State Department announcements and background briefings that they relate to, some of the emails are dated the same date as the announcement to which they relate." He explained that "even if the emails could all be considered predecisional, the Court cannot conclude that they are deliberative. . .There is no indication in the [agency's] Vaughn index, for example, that the emails concerning the text, timing, and modalities of certain agency announcements include recommendations or proposals, or that they reflect the views of the authors rather than of the agency." The State Department withheld the names of the background briefers under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Woods noted that "the State Department has not provided evidence of a 'real' threat of harassment to the background briefers. . .The link connecting the disclosure of these briefers' identities to the alleged harassment is missing. . .The briefers appear to hold positions that are known, or knowable, to the general public. Therefore, it is not apparent from the [agency's] submission how a foreign counterpart's knowledge that the briefer �" holding an official position known to his counterpart �" delivered what became a public message would expose that briefer to unwarranted harassment in either his or her official duties or personal life." By contrast, Woods agreed that Seife had identified a public interest "in knowing that the government is deceiving the public regarding the officials who are permitted to remain anonymous in giving background briefings." While State had told Woods that such interactions with the press were rare, "Mr. Seife has affirmed that he has personal knowledge of approximately a dozen briefings for which the briefers' identities were leaked, and in each case, the briefer was an official spokesperson or was otherwise 'well-acquainted with briefing the press.'" He observed that "the evidence, submitted by sworn affidavit, suggests that the assertion in the [agency's] Declaration that the background briefers do not interact frequently with the press was not made in good faith and raises questions regarding the presumption of good faith that the Court otherwise affords to the State Department submissions." Woods agreed with the State Department that the names of low-level Defense Department employees and email addresses and phone numbers were properly withheld under Exemption 6.
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Adequacy - Search

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in New York has ruled that the Department of State has justified most of its Exemption 5 (privileges) claims concerning records on off-the-record briefings conducted by agency officials but that the agency has failed to conduct an adequate search for transcripts of briefings created by other governmental departments that involved State Department personnel. In response to NYU journalism professor Charles Seife's request for records pertaining to off-the record briefings, State provided transcripts of briefings created by the State Department but not those produced by other agencies under circumstances in which State participated but was not the lead agency. The State Department searched its database of stenographers' files and located and disclosed 452 transcripts. But the agency had no obvious repository for transcripts created by other agencies. The agency decided to search the email account of the Deputy Director of the Bureau of Public Affairs Office of Press Relations, explaining that she subscribed to White House and Defense Department releases but only kept the White House releases. The search located two transcripts. The court found this search was too limited, noting that "there is no reason to presume that the Deputy Director's email account was even indicative, let alone panoptic, of the other PA/PSR employees' accounts â€" nor has any evidence been presented suggesting that to be the case." Ordering the agency to conduct a more detailed search, the court indicated that "a 'reasonably calculated' search might, for example, include a search of all the current PA/PSR employees who were employed during the period" covered by the request. In its prior opinion, the court found that the agency's Vaughn descriptions of various deliberative process claims were insufficient. Reviewing those claims again in light of the agency's supplemental affidavits, the court agreed that court agreed that emails; talking points, anticipated questions and proposed answers, and draft open statements; and draft rollout schedules were protected by the deliberative process privilege. The court rejected a handful of claims made by the agency, including one in which the agency said that it was uncertain whether a draft edit had been accepted. The court noted that "the State Department has indicated that these documents are 'not in final form,' however, that, alone, is insufficient to demonstrate that these documents reflect continuing deliberations as to evolving policy." The State Department continued to withhold the identities of three briefers who were still working for government under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), although it had released the identities of briefers who were no longer working for the government. The court found that "the public's interest in the disclosure of the remaining withheld identities is diminished, while the serious privacy concerns at issue remain palpable."
Issues: Adequacy - Search

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2016-09-13	1	COMPLAINT against U.S. Department of State. (Filing Fee $ 400.00, Receipt Number 465401161888)Document filed by Charles Seife.(dgo) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-09-13		SUMMONS ISSUED as to U.S. Department of State. (dgo) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-09-13		Magistrate Judge James L. Cott is so designated. (dgo) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-09-13		Case Designated ECF. (dgo) (Entered: 09/13/2016)
2016-10-03	3	PRO SE CONSENT TO RECEIVE ELECTRONIC SERVICE. The following party: Charles G. Seife consents to receive electronic service via the ECF system. Document filed by Charles Seife.(sc) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
2016-10-03	4	SUMMONS RETURNED EXECUTED Summons and Complaint served. U.S. Department of State served on 9/13/2016, answer due 11/14/2016. Service was made by Cert. Mail to U.S. Attorney's Office, One St. Andrews Plaza, New York, N.Y., and to Attorney General, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and to U.S. Dept. of State, Washington, DC 20520. Document filed by Charles Seife. (sc) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
2016-10-06	5	LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Li Yu dated 10/6/2016. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Yu, Li) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-06	6	ORDER granting 5 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Application granted. The deadline for defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended to November 16, 2016. The Court notes that Rule 12(a)(2) provides the United States 60 days to respond to a complaint in the ordinary course. SO ORDERED. U.S. Department of State answer due 11/16/2016. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/06/2016) (ama) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
2016-10-06	7	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Charles Seife dated 10/6/2016 re: I write respectfully to oppose defense counsel's request for a 30 day extension of time in which to file an answer to the complaint. Document filed by Charles Seife.(vn) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
2016-10-12	8	NOTICE OF INITIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 11/22/2016 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 12C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Gregory H. Woods. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/12/2016) (kko) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
2016-10-19	9	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Dominika Natalia Tarczynska on behalf of U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 10/19/2016)
2016-11-15	10	JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska and Charles Seife dated November 15, 2016 re: Joint Letter in advance of Initial Conference. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 11/15/2016)
2016-11-16	11	ANSWER to 1 Complaint. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
2016-11-17	12	MOTION FOR PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING; re: for Permission for Charles Seife to participate in electronic case filing in this case. Document filed by Charles Seife.(sc) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
2016-11-21	13	ORDER granting 12 Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing. Plaintiff's motion for permission for electronic case filing, Dkt. No. 12, is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to designate this matter as an ECF case. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods)(Text Only Order) (Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 11/21/2016)
2016-11-22		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gregory H. Woods: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/22/2016. (Court Reporter Steven Griffing) (Daniels, A.) (Entered: 11/23/2016)
2016-11-28	14	ORDER. As stated on the record during the conference held on November 22, 2016, the Department of State is ordered to respond to Plaintiff's first FOIA request no later than December 16, 2016. The Department of State is ordered to provide rolling responses to Plaintiff's second FOIA request, with the initial round of responsive documents, if any, to be produced no later than December 16, 2016. The Department of State is ordered to complete its response to Plaintiff's second FOIA request no later than January 20, 2017. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on November 28, 2016) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 11/28/2016)
2017-01-20	15	TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 11/22/2016 before Judge Gregory H. Woods. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Griffing, (212) 805-0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/10/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/21/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/20/2017.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
2017-01-20	16	NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERNECE proceeding held on 11/22/16 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/20/2017)
2017-03-10	17	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated March 10, 2017 re: Additional Searches. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
2017-03-10	18	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 17 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: On November 28, 2016, the Court entered an order directing the Government to complete its response to Plaintiff's second FOIA request no later than January 20, 2017. Dkt. No. 14. The Court construes this letter as a request for an extension of that deadline. The application is granted, and the deadline for the Government to complete its response to Plaintiff's second FOIA request is extended to April 17, 2017. In addition, the parties are directed to submit a joint letter no later than May 15, 2017 describing the status of this case. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/10/2017) (mro) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
2017-05-15	19	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from AUSA Anthony J. Sun dated 5/15/2017 re: Status Update. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Sun, Anthony) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
2017-05-19	20	ORDER. The Court will hold an in-person pre-motion conference to discuss the parties' proposed cross-motions for summary judgment on May 22, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. The conference will take place at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Court House, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, in Courtroom 12C. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on May 19, 2017) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
2017-05-22		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Gregory H. Woods: Pre-Motion Conference held on 5/22/2017. (Court Reporter Kristen Carannante) (Daniels, Anthony) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
2017-05-22	21	ORDER. As stated on the record during the conference held on May 22, 2017, the parties are granted leave to file cross-motions for summary judgment. The State Department's motion for summary judgment is due no later than June 5, 2017. Plaintiff's combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the State Department's motion is due no later than June 26, 2017. The State Department's combined opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion and reply in support of its motion is due no later than July 17, 2017. Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion is due no later than August 7, 2017. The parties are granted leave to proceed at this time without the submission of a Local Rule 56.1 statement. The Court may reconsider that decision after reviewing the parties' submissions. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on May 22, 2017) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
2017-06-02	22	CONSENT LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Motions addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated June 2, 2017. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
2017-06-05	23	ORDER granting 22 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application granted. The summary judgment briefing schedule entered by the Court on May 22, 2017 (Dkt. No. 21) is adjourned. The parties are directed to submit a joint letter no later than June 15, 2017 describing the status of the additional searches and productions as well as a new proposed schedule for summary judgment briefing. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter motion at Dkt. No. 22. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/5/2017) (anc) Modified on 6/16/2017 (anc). (Entered: 06/05/2017)
2017-06-15	24	ORDER. By order dated June 5, 2017, the parties were directed to submit a joint status letter no later than June 14, 2017. Dkt. No. 23. The Court has not received that letter. The parties are directed to comply with the Court's June 5, 2017 letter forthwith. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge Gregory H. Woods on June 15, 2017) (Text Only Order)(Woods, Gregory) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
2017-06-15	25	JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated June 15, 2017 re: Case Status and Proposed Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
2017-06-16	26	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 25 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: The Court thanks the parties for their explanation with respect to the timeliness of their joint status report. The Court adopts the following briefing schedule for the parties cross-motions for summary judgment: The State Department's motion for summary judgment is due no later than July 27, 2017. Plaintiff's combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the State Department's motion is due no later than August 17, 2017. The State Department's combined opposition to Plaintiff's motion and reply in support of its motion is due no later than September 11, 2017. Plaintiff's reply in support of his cross-motion is due no later than October 2, 2017. The parties are granted leave to proceed at this time without the submission of a Local Rule 56.1 statement. The Court may reconsider that decision after reviewing the parties' submissions. ( Cross Motions due by 8/17/2017., Motions due by 7/27/2017., Responses due by 9/11/2017, Replies due by 10/2/2017.) (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/16/2017) (mro) (Entered: 06/16/2017)
2017-07-27	27	MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
2017-07-27	28	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
2017-07-27	29	DECLARATION of Eric F. Stein in Support re: 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Vaughn Index), # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
2017-08-17	30	CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Charles Seife. Responses due by 9/11/2017(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
2017-08-17	31	DECLARATION of Charles Seife in Support re: 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
2017-08-17	32	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Supplement)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
2017-08-17	33	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Supplement)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/17/2017)
2017-09-11	34	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
2017-09-11	35	DECLARATION of Eric F. Stein in Support re: 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 19 (Updated Vaughn Index), # 2 Exhibit 20)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
2017-09-25	36	LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in reply due Oct. 2, 2017 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Charles Seife dated 9/25/2017. Document filed by Charles Seife.(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 09/25/2017)
2017-09-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 10/2/2017. (mro) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
2017-09-25		Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 10/2/2017. (mro) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
2017-09-26	37	ORDER granting 36 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages Application granted. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a reply brief in support of his cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 30) of up to, but not to exceed, fifteen pages in length. Plaintiff's reply brief remains due no later than October 2, 2017, in accordance with the Court's June 16, 2017 order (Dkt. No. 26). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 9/25/2017) (mro) Modified on 11/2/2017 (mro). (Entered: 09/26/2017)
2017-09-27	38	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . and opposed to defendant's motion for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D, # 2 Exhibit E, # 3 Exhibit F, # 4 Supplement)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
2017-09-27	39	DECLARATION of Charles Seife in Support re: 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Seife, Charles) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
2018-03-26	40	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of State, 30 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Charles Seife. For the reasons stated above, the State Department's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without prejudice. Mr. Seife's cross-motion is DENIED. The denial of the Mr. Seife's motion is without prejudice to the extent that the motion challenges the State Department's response to the 12997 request, the withholding of documents and information under Exemption 5, and the withholding of the identities of the background briefers under Exemption 6. The State Department is directed to submit revised Vaughn submissions addressing the State Department's response to the 12997 request, the information and document claimed exempt under Exemption 5, the identities of background briefers claimed exempt under Exemption 6, as well as a segregability analysis addressing the Category 15 document, along with a renewed motion for partial summary judgment no later than April 30, 2018. Mr. Seife may file a renewed cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to the State Department's response to the 12997 request and its withholding of information and documents under Exemptions 5 and 6 no later than thirty (30) days from the date of service of the State Department's renewed motion. Any oppositions to the motion(s) for summary judgment are due no later than twenty-one (21) days following service of the motions, and any replies are due no later than fourteen (14) days following service of the oppositions. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 27 and 30. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/24/2018) (mro) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
2018-04-23	41	FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time Letter Motion for 2-week Stay of Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated April 23, 2018. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
2018-04-23	42	COUNTER LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time in opposition to Docket #41 addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Charles Seife dated 4/23/2018. Document filed by Charles Seife.(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 04/23/2018)
2018-04-24	43	ORDER terminating 41 Letter Motion for Extension of Time; granting in part 42 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Application granted in part. The Court grants Defendant's request for an extension of the briefing deadlines, but agrees with Plaintiff's argument in his opposition (Dkt. No. 42) that a blanket stay of the deadlines is inappropriate. The deadline for Defendant's renewed summary judgment motion and revised Vaughn index, in accordance with the Court's March 26, 2018 memorandum opinion and order (Dkt. No. 40), is extended to May 30, 2018. In the event that Defendant elects to voluntarily produce additional information in response to FOIA Request No. 12996, Defendant is directed to do so no later than May 21, 2018 and to file a letter informing the Court of the fact of the production. In the event that Defendant decides against an additional voluntary production in response to that request, it is directed to file a letter advising the Court of that decision no later than May 21, 2018. The Court also expects that Defendant will promptly produce any disclosable information that its search in response to FOIA Request No. 12997 may uncover. Except as expressly modified by this order, the briefing schedule established by the Court's March 26, 2018 order remains in place. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 41 and 42. Motions due by 5/30/2018. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/24/2018) (mro) (Entered: 04/24/2018)
2018-05-21	44	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated May 21, 2018 re: FOIA Request No. F-2014-12996 Voluntary Production. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 05/21/2018)
2018-05-29	45	SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File updated Vaughn submission & renewed motion for summary judgment addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated May 29, 2018. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
2018-05-29	46	ORDER granting 45 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. Application granted. The deadline for the filing of the Government's updated Vaughn index and renewed summary judgment motion is extended to June 6, 2018. The Government should expect no further extensions of this deadline. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/29/2018) (mro) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
2018-05-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 6/6/2018. (mro) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
2018-06-06	47	CONSENT LETTER MOTION to Seal Document Application Seeking Leave to File Ex Parte Declaration Under Seal addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated June 6, 2018. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
2018-06-06	48	MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
2018-06-06	49	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
2018-06-06	50	DECLARATION of Eric F. Stein in Support re: 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21 (Vaughn Index), # 2 Exhibit 22, # 3 Exhibit 23, # 4 Exhibit 24)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
2018-06-12	51	SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(rz) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
2018-07-02	52	CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Charles Seife. Responses due by 7/23/2018(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
2018-07-02	53	DECLARATION of Charles Seife in Support re: 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Seife, Charles) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
2018-07-02	54	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . . Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit G, # 2 Exhibit H part 1, # 3 Exhibit H part 2, # 4 Exhibit H part 3, # 5 Exhibit H part 4, # 6 Exhibit H part 5, # 7 Exhibit H part 6, # 8 Exhibit H part 7, # 9 Exhibit H part 8, # 10 Exhibit H part 9, # 11 Exhibit H part 10, # 12 Exhibit H part 11, # 13 Exhibit H part 12, # 14 Exhibit H part 13, # 15 Exhibit H part 14, # 16 Exhibit I, # 17 Exhibit J part 1, # 18 Exhibit J part 2, # 19 Exhibit K, # 20 Exhibit L, # 21 Exhibit M)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 07/02/2018)
2018-07-09	55	FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Peter Aronoff dated 7/9/2018. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Aronoff, Peter) (Entered: 07/09/2018)
2018-07-10	56	ORDER granting 55 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Peter Aronoff dated 7/9/2018. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. Application granted. The deadline for Defendant's combined opposition to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion and reply in support of its summary judgment motion is extended to August 3, 2018. So ordered. (Responses due by 8/3/2018. Replies due by 8/3/2018). (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/10/2018) (rjm) (Entered: 07/10/2018)
2018-08-03	57	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment . and In Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment . Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
2018-08-03	58	DECLARATION of Eric F. Stein in Support re: 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 25, # 2 Exhibit 26, # 3 Exhibit 27)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
2018-08-14	59	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated August 14, 2018 re: Filing of Redacted Version of Declaration Previously Submitted Under Seal. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Previously Submitted Ex Parte Declaration of Eric F. Stein)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
2018-08-15	60	REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment . and opposed to defendant's motion for Summary Judgment . Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N, # 2 Exhibit O, # 3 Exhibit P)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
2018-08-15	61	DECLARATION of Charles Seife in Support re: 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
2018-08-15	62	DECLARATION of Charles Seife in Support re: 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Seife, Charles) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
2018-08-17	63	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 59 Letter denying 47 Motion to Seal Document. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. On June 6, 2018 the Defendant submitted the ex parte declaration of Eric Stein ("the declaration") to the Court, and requested that the Court place the declaration under seal. Dkt. No. 47. On August 14, 2018 the Defendant submitted a redacted version of the declaration, and applied for leave to file the redacted declaration on the docket. Dkt. No. 59. That application is granted. Whether the Government may ultimately withhold the redacted information is at issue in this case, and the Court reserves judgment on that issue. Defendant's June 6, 2018 letter motion (Dkt. No. 47) is denied as it is no longer germane. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 47. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 8/17/2018) (mro) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
2018-12-20	64	NOTICE of Supplemental Authority. Document filed by Charles Seife. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Q)(Seife, Charles) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
2019-03-06	65	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 48 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of State, 52 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Charles Seife. For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and the State Department's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court provides the following summary of the outcome of Defendant's motion for summary judgment: REQUEST F-2014-12997: Summary judgment is granted in favor of the State Department as to the search for State-Department produced transcripts, and denied as to the search for non-State-Department-Produced-Transcripts. Exemption 5: Summary judgment is granted in favor of the State Department as to all applications of Exemption 5 in the Revised Vaughn Index, except for Categories 5 (subject to footnote nine, above), 13, and 18 for which summary judgment is denied. Exemption 6: Summary judgment is granted in favor of the State Department, except as to the individual discussed in footnote four of the Fourth Declaration of Eric F. Stein. The remaining issues are discrete, and the Court expects that they may be resolved by conferral amongst the parties. The Court directs the parties to so confer, and to submit a joint status letter to the Court describing what, if any, issues remain in this case no later than three weeks following the date of this opinion and order. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at docket numbers 48 and 52. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/6/2019) (anc) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
2019-03-28	66	JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated March 28, 2019 re: Joint Status Letter. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
2019-03-29	67	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 66 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The parties are directed to submit the joint status letter described above no later than April 12, 2019. Also no later than April 12, 2019, Defendant is directed to submit the Category 13 and 18 documents referenced above for in camera review. To the extent Defendant proposes to release any documents in those categories subject to redactions, the Court requests that the documents be marked to visually demonstrate which portions of the documents are subject to the proposed redactions without obscuring the text for example, via highlighting. To the extent Defendant proposes to withhold any document in full, the document should be marked accordingly. By that same date, the parties are granted leave to submit letter briefs as to any issues pertinent to the Court's in camera review. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/29/2019) (anc) Modified on 4/2/2019 (anc). (Entered: 03/29/2019)
2019-04-12	68	MOTION for Summary Judgment . Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-12	69	MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Letter Brief In Support of Motion Regarding Category 13 and 18 documents . Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-12	70	DECLARATION of Eric F. Stein in Support re: 68 MOTION for Summary Judgment .. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 28)(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-12	71	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated April 12, 2019 re: Cover Letter Transmitting Documents for In Camera Review. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-12	72	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated April 12, 2019 re: Status of FOIA Request F-2014-12997 Search Parameters. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 04/12/2019)
2019-04-18	73	ORDER granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment is GRANTED to the Defendants as to the Category 13 and 18 documents. No later than May 10, 2019, the parties are directed to submit a joint status letter updating the Court as to what, if any, disputes remain in this case. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 68. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/18/2019) (anc) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
2019-05-10	74	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated May 10, 2019 re: Status Letter. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 05/10/2019)
2019-05-13	75	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 74 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The parties are directed to submit a supplemental status letter no later than June 12, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 5/13/2019) (anc) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
2019-06-12	76	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated June 12, 2019 re: Status Report. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
2019-06-13	77	MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 76 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: Application granted. The parties are directed to submit a supplemental status letter no later than July 15, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 6/13/2019) (ama) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
2019-07-15	78	LETTER addressed to Judge Gregory H. Woods from Dominika Tarczynska dated July 15, 2019 re: Status Report. Document filed by U.S. Department of State.(Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 07/15/2019)
2019-07-16	79	MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 78 Letter filed by U.S. Department of State. ENDORSEMENT: The Court understands from this letter that there may no longer be any unresolved substantive dispute amongst the parties. Accordingly, the parties are directed to submit a status letter, no later than July 26, 2019 articulating what, if any, such disputes remain in this case. To the extent that no unresolved substantive disputes remain, the parties are directed to indicate their respective positions regarding the appropriate next steps in this litigation. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/16/2019) (ne) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-07-24	80	SEALED DOCUMENT placed in vault.(rz) (Entered: 07/24/2019)
2019-07-25	81	PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER. Document filed by U.S. Department of State. (Tarczynska, Dominika) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
2019-07-28	82	STIPULATION AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Seife and the State Department, and subject to endorsement by the Court, that: The State Department shall pay to Seife the sum of four hundred sixty-eight dollars ($468.00) for litigation costs (the "Costs Amount"). This payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of any and all claims by Seife for litigation costs in this matter, and is inclusive of any interest. Payment shall be made by electronic funds transfer, and Seife will provide the necessary information for the State Department to effectuate the transfer. The State Department shall effectuate the transfer as soon as reasonably practicable after entry of this Stipulation and Order by the Court. In consideration for, and effective upon, payment of the Settlement Amount, this release and discharge includes any and all claims that Seife asserted, or could have asserted, in this litigation, and as further set forth in this Stipulation and Order. The effect of the Court's March 26, 2018 and March 6, 2019 opinions was to grant Plaintiff increased access to requested documents. The parties have notified the Court, by this stipulation, that no further dispute remains in this case. The Clerk of Court is, therefore, directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and to close this case. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 7/27/2019) (rjm) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing. (Entered: 07/29/2019)
2019-07-29	83	CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: 82 Stipulation and Order. in favor of Charles Seife against U.S. Department of State. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Stipulation and Order dated July 27, 2019, the effect of the Court's March 26, 2018 and March 6, 2019 opinions was to grant Plaintiff increased access to requested documents; the parties have notified the Court, by Stipulation, that no further dispute remains in this case; judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and this case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 07/29/2019) (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Right to Appeal)(dt) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. (Entered: 07/29/2019)
2019-07-29		Terminate Transcript Deadlines (dt) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
2019-07-29		Mailed a copy of 83 Clerk's Judgment, 82 Stipulation and Order, with Notice of Right to Appeal to Charles Seife 2 Washington Sq. VLG #2R New York, NY 10012 (aea) (Entered: 07/29/2019)
Hide Docket Events