Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled that the Department of Justice conducted an adequate search for records concerning communications to and from the media pertaining to the activities of the FBI, the Office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and the Department of Justice during the investigation of Russian interference into the 2016 election and properly applied several exemptions to withhold or redact records in response to a FOIA request from Freedom Watch. Freedom Watch challenged the adequacy of the search, as well as withholdings under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The Office of Information Policy conducted the search for the department, locating 5,881 responsive pages. OIP disclosed 3,939 pages in full and 1,941 pages with redactions. The FBI's separate search located 320 pages, disclosing 171 pages in full, 122 pages in part, and withholding 27 pages in full. Freedom Watch argued that the agency limited its search to electronic records and did not search paper records. But Sullivan indicated that "in this case, the FBI did not find any information or leads to extend its search beyond [Office of Public Affairs] records." Freedom Watch also argued the agency failed to identity who had conducted the searches. Sullivan observed that "courts in this District have repeatedly rejected the argument that an agency's declaration must identify individuals, by name, who conducted the searches." Finally, Freedom Watch faulted the agencies for not identifying the search terms used. Sullivan pointed out that "Freedom Watch does not challenge DOJ's search terms; thus, this Court will not micro-manage DOJ's searches." Sullivan agreed with other most district court judges in the D.C. Circuit that records concerning draft discussions pertaining to how to respond to press inquiries qualified for protection under the deliberative process privilege because they were both predecisional and deliberative. Freedom Watch speculated that DOJ had used the press inquiry discussions as part of final decisions. But Sullivan pointed out that "indeed, 'courts have generally found that documents created in anticipation of press inquiries are protected even if created after the underlying event about which the press might inquire' because 'the idea is that these sorts of documents reflect deliberations about the decision of how to respond to the press.'" Sullivan found that both the FBI and OIP properly withheld third-party personally identifying information under Exemption 6. Freedom Watch argued that Simpson v. Vance, 648 F. 2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980), held that third party information disclosed to the press did not qualify as similar files for purposes of Exemption 6. Sullivan, however, pointed out that "Freedom Watch is wrong on the law, and the D.C. Circuit's decision in Simpson upon which Freedom Watch relies is no longer good law," since the Supreme Court had abrogated its ruling in Dept of State v. Washington Post, 456 U.S. 595 (1982). Instead, Sullivan noted that "the release of information connecting any individual to 'the politically charged environment surrounding the SCO's work' would subject him or her to unwarranted harassment."
Issues: Adequacy - Search, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2018-01-15	1	COMPLAINT against FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-5286627) filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 01/15/2018)
2018-01-16		Case Assigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (zsb) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-16	2	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zsb) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-16		SUMMONS Not Issued as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General.....SUMMONS NOT FILED AT THE TIME COMPLAINT WAS FILED. (zsb) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-16	3	ENTERED IN ERROR.....REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Klayman, Larry) Modified on 1/17/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 01/16/2018)
2018-01-17	4	STANDING ORDER: The parties are directed to read the attached Standing Order Governing Civil Cases Before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in its entirety upon receipt. The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives in the attached Standing Order. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 01/17/18. (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit 1) (mac) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-01-17		NOTICE OF ERROR re 3 Request for Summons to Issue; emailed to leklayman@gmail.com, cc'd 5 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Please refile document, 2. ENTERED IN ERROR; Summonses are blank; Resubmit completed summonses. (znmw, ) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-01-17	5	REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE re Notice of QC, filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. Related document: Notice of QC,. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-01-18	6	SUMMONS (2) Issued Electronically as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (znmw) (Entered: 01/18/2018)
2018-02-20	7	NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph C. Dugan on behalf of All Defendants (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-02-20	8	ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A (Order No. 3915-2017), # 3 Exhibit B (1/23/18 letter), # 4 Exhibit C (2/13/18 letter), # 5 Exhibit D (2/20/18 letter))(Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-02-20	9	ERRATA by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 8 Answer to Complaint, filed by ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Exhibit B - corrected)(Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 02/20/2018)
2018-03-01		MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The parties are directed to meet and confer and propose a joint scheduling order for further proceedings in this case by no later than April 1, 2018. The parties' joint proposed scheduling order shall address the following: (1) The status of plaintiff's FOIA request; (2) The anticipated number of documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request; (3) The anticipated date(s) for release of documents responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request; (4) Whether a motion for an Open America stay is likely in this case; (5) Whether a Vaughn index will be required in this case; (6) Whether this case would benefit from referral to a magistrate judge or the District Court Mediation Program for purposes of settlement; and (7) A proposed briefing schedule for dispositive motions, if applicable. If the parties are unable to agree on a joint recommendation, the joint proposed scheduling order shall include each party's individual recommendations. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/1/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Scheduling Order due by 4/1/2018. (mac) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
2018-03-23	10	MOTION for Summary Judgment by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 03/23/2018)
2018-03-30	11	Joint STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-04-02		MINUTE ORDER in view of 11 joint status report, in which the plaintiff requests an expedited status conference and the defendants request more time to complete a search for potentially responsive records, the Court finds that there is good cause to allow the defendants to continue searching for potentially responsive records. The government is therefore ordered to complete its search for potentially responsive records by the end of April 2018. Defendants shall file a status report apprising the Court of the number of responsive documents and defendants' position as to further scheduling matters by no later than May 11, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 4/2/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
2018-04-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Status Report due by 5/11/2018 (mac) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
2018-04-06	12	RESPONSE re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A (Counter-Statement of Disputed Facts), # 3 Exhibit B (Dugan Declaration), # 4 Exhibit C (Castellano Declaration), # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
2018-05-01	13	SUPPLEMENT and Update re 11 Status Report by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) Modified event title and added link on 5/8/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 05/01/2018)
2018-05-02		MINUTE ORDER directing the government to respond to 13 plaintiff's supplemental status report by no later than May 4, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/2/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
2018-05-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Government Response To 13 Plaintiff's Supplemental Status Report due by 5/4/2018 (mac) (Entered: 05/02/2018)
2018-05-04	14	RESPONSE re 13 to Plaintiff's "Supplement and Update" filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Dugan, Joseph) Modified to add link on 5/8/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 05/04/2018)
2018-05-08	15	RESPONSE re 14 Response to Document filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
2018-05-09	16	NOTICE of Third Supplement to Joint Status Report by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. re 15 Response to Document, 13 Status Report (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
2018-05-11	17	STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 05/11/2018)
2018-05-14		MINUTE ORDER directing plaintiff to respond to the timeline proposed in 17 defendants' status report by no later than May 21, 2018. If the plaintiff intends to request a production timeline that is faster than the one proposed by the government, the plaintiff is directed to support such a request with reasons beyond those included its previously-filed supplements. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/14/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-14	18	RESPONSE to May 11 17 Status Report filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 05/14/2018)
2018-05-16		MINUTE ORDER in view of 17 government's status report and 18 plaintiff's response, the Court hereby schedules a status conference for May 24, 2018 at 10:30 am in Courtroom 24A. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/16/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
2018-05-16		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/24/2018 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (mac) (Entered: 05/16/2018)
2018-05-24		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 5/24/2018. Order forthcoming from chambers. (Court Reporter: Scott Wallace.) (jl) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
2018-05-25		MINUTE ORDER. As ordered at the May 24, 2018 status conference, the government is directed to produce all non-exempt documents responsive to Freedom Watch's FOIA request by no later than September 4, 2018. The parties shall file a joint status report recommending next steps for further proceedings by no later than September 18, 2018. In light of the Court's Order, 10 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 5/25/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
2018-05-27		Set/Reset Deadline: The parties shall file a Joint Status Report recommending the next steps for further proceedings by 9/18/2018. (jth) (Entered: 05/27/2018)
2018-08-13	19	TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan held on 5-24-18; Page Numbers: 1-30. Date of Issuance:8-13-18. Court Reporter/Transcriber Scott Wallace, Telephone number 202-354-3196, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the <a href="http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/node/110">Transcript Order Form</a><P></P><P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P> NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 9/3/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/13/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/11/2018.(Wallace, Scott) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
2018-08-29	20	MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete FOIA Production by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A (E-mail chain), # 3 Exhibit B (Declaration), # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
2018-08-30	21	RESPONSE re 20 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete FOIA Production and Request for Emergency Limited Evidentiary Hearing filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
2018-09-03		MINUTE ORDER granting in part 20 defendants' opposed motion for an extension of time to complete FOIA production. The defendants shall produce to the plaintiff the responsive, non-exempt records it identifies in paragraph 2 of its motion by no later than September 4, 2018. The defendants shall thereafter file a status report updating the Court on the status of its remedial search efforts by no later than September 12, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/3/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 09/03/2018)
2018-09-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Status Report due by 9/12/2018. (mac) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
2018-09-12	22	STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
2018-09-14	23	RESPONSE to 22 Defendants' Status Report filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Klayman, Larry) Modified on 9/19/2018 to add linkage. (ztd). (Entered: 09/14/2018)
2018-09-17		MINUTE ORDER in view of 22 the government's status report and 23 the plaintiff's response, the Court hereby directs the government to file another status report by no later than September 26, 2018. The status report should inform the Court how many additional records, if any, must be processed and should provide an estimate as to how long it will take to produce those records to the plaintiff. The status report should also describe the technical issue the government discovered and explain why the government did not discover the issue earlier. The Court declines to schedule a hearing at this time, in light of the government's timely production of all non-exempt records as of September 4, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 9/17/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
2018-09-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Government Status Report due by 9/26/2018. (mac) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
2018-09-26	24	STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
2018-10-01		MINUTE ORDER in view of 24 defendants' status report, the defendants are hereby directed to finalize production of the additional responsive, non-exempt records by no later than November 1, 2018. Requests for additional time will be viewed with disfavor. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/1/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
2018-10-09	25	NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley P. Humphreys on behalf of All Defendants (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
2018-10-12	26	NOTICE of Change of Address by Joseph C. Dugan (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 10/12/2018)
2018-11-02		MINUTE ORDER directing the parties to file a joint status report to update the Court on the defendants' production and to provide recommendations for further proceedings by no later than November 19, 2018. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/2/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
2018-11-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/19/2018. (mac) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
2018-11-19	27	Joint STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/19/2018)
2018-11-26		MINUTE ORDER. The Court has considered the parties' positions, as set forth in 27 joint status report. The Court is not inclined to agree with plaintiff that good cause exists for allowing discovery regarding the adequacy of the defendants' search. That said, the Court will allow plaintiff to file a brief, no longer than 8 pages, regarding the propriety of allowing discovery by no later than December 7, 2018. The government is directed to respond by no later than December 21, 2018. The government's response shall not exceed 8 pages. The Court declines to set a summary judgment briefing schedule at this time. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/26/2018. (lcegs3) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
2018-11-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Brief due by 12/7/2018. Government Response due by 12/21/2018 (mac) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
2018-12-04	28	ENTERED IN ERROR.....MOTION for Discovery and Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Minute Order of November 26, 2018 Concerning the Allowance of Discovery by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Klayman, Larry) Modified on 12/4/2018 (jf). (Entered: 12/04/2018)
2018-12-04		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Document No. re 28 MOTION for Discovery and Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Minute Order of November 26, 2018 Concerning the Allowance of Discovery was entered in error and counsel was instructed to refile said pleading using the court event. (jf) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
2018-12-04	29	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
2018-12-21	30	RESPONSE re 29 Response to Order of the Court filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
2018-12-26	31	REPLY re: 29 to Defendants' Memorandum in Response to Plaintiff's Response to Order of the Court filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Klayman, Larry) Modified on 12/27/2018 (ztd). (Entered: 12/26/2018)
2019-01-03		MINUTE ORDER denying 29 Freedom Watch's request for discovery and/or in camera review. Freedom Watch's request is based on mere conjecture and is premature. As this Court stated in Judicial Watch v. Department of State, "[d]iscovery is rare in FOIA cases." ECF No. 73 at 8-9, 13-cv-1363 (citing Thomas v. FDA, 587 F. Supp. 2d 114, 115 (D.D.C. 2008)(noting that "discovery is an extraordinary procedure in a FOIA action")(allowing discovery because the plaintiff had raised a sufficient question as to the adequacy of the government's search). That said, discovery "should be permitted... when a plaintiff raises a sufficient question as to the agency's good faith" in responding to the FOIA request. Id. at 9 (citations omitted). Here, Freedom Watch has not raised a sufficient question as to the agency's good faith in responding to its FOIA request. Instead, it offers two speculative accusations. First, it suggests that a spokesperson for the Special Counsel's Office has been leaking grand jury information because he "secretly met" with a member of the press, as evidenced by the "chumminess" in emails between the spokesperson and the member of the press (that were produced to Freedom Watch). This accusation is unfounded. The Court has reviewed the emails and they do not corroborate Freedom Watch's claim. Indeed, friendliness in professional emails does not raise a sufficient question as to the agency's good faith. Second, Freedom Watch accuses the Department of Justice of bad faith for "conveniently" discovering a "technical glitch" at the last minute, causing it to re-run its search of responsive documents. However, there is no basis in reality to believe that this disclosure was, as Freedom Watch puts it, an "attempt to shield themselves from the public seeing evidence of their routinely leaking grand jury information to the media and other disclosures for their tactical motivations." When the government disclosed that it had discovered a problem that required it to re-run a search to ensure that it had found all responsive documents, the Court ordered the defendant to file a declaration explaining what happened and why the government had not discovered it earlier. See Sept. 17, 2018 Minute Order. The government filed a sworn declaration that satisfied the Court that the reason for the delay in production was benign. Moreover, as a result of the government discovering the technical difficulty, Freedom Watch may have received additional records to which it was entitled. Because the government's declarations must be "accorded a presumption of good faith, which cannot be rebutted by purely speculative claims," SafeCard Servs. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1991)(quotations omitted), the Court will not permit discovery at this stage of the proceedings. Additionally, in camera review is premature. Typically, discovery in the absence of bad faith or in camera review is permitted after summary judgment briefing. If Freedom Watch believes the government improperly withheld or redacted documents, it can explain its argument in its opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment. "If the Court agrees with Plaintiff that [the defendant] is not entitled to summary judgment, the Court shall reconsider Plaintiff's requests for discovery. However, the Court shall not permit any discovery to be taken until it has considered [the defendant's]... motion for summary judgment." North v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 729 F. Supp. 2d 74, 7778 (D.D.C. 2010). In light of this Order, the parties are directed to file a joint status report recommending a summary judgment briefing schedule by no later than February 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 1/3/2019. (lcegs3) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
2019-01-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/4/2019. (mac) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
2019-02-04	32	STATUS REPORT of Defendants by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
2019-02-05		MINUTE ORDER. In view of 32 defendants' status report that states "[c]ounsel for Plaintiff... has not responded to the [government's] repeated attempts to contact him by email and telephone," the Court directs Mr. Larry E. Klayman, Esq. to file a status report by no later than February 8, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/5/2019. (lcegs3) Modified on 2/7/2019 (lcegs3, ). (Entered: 02/05/2019)
2019-02-05	33	RESPONSE to 32 Status Report and Proposed Schedule filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. (Klayman, Larry) Modified on 2/6/2019 to add docket link (jf). (Entered: 02/05/2019)
2019-02-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Larry E. Klayman, Esq Status Report due by 2/8/2019. (mac) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
2019-02-07		MINUTE ORDER. In view of 32 Defendants' status report and 33 Plaintiff's response to defendant's status report and proposed schedule, the parties are directed to adhere to the following briefing schedule: (1) Defendants shall file their Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than March 29, 2019; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than April 29, 2019; (3) Defendants shall file their Combined Reply in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary judgment by no later than May 29, 2019; and (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than June 19, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 2/7/2019. (lcegs3) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
2019-02-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment due by 3/29/2019. Plaintiff Combined Opposition To Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment And Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment due by 4/29/2019. Defendants Combined Reply In Support Of Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment And Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment due by 5/29/2019. Plaintiff Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment due by 6/19/2019. (mac) (Entered: 02/08/2019)
2019-02-23	34	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Attorney Joseph C. Dugan terminated. (Dugan, Joseph) (Entered: 02/23/2019)
2019-03-28	35	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgmetn and to Otherwise Amend Briefing Schedule by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
2019-03-29		MINUTE ORDER granting 35 Defendants' Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment and to Otherwise Amend Briefing Schedule. The parties are directed to adhere to the following revised schedule: (1) Defendants shall file their Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than April 8, 2019; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than May 9, 2019; (3) Defendants shall file their Combined Reply in Support of Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary judgment by no later than June 10, 2019; and (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than July 1, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/29/2019. (lcegs3) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
2019-04-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant Motion For Summary Judgment due by 4/8/2019. Plaintiff Combined Opposition To Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment due by 5/9/2019. Defendants Combined Reply In Support Of Defendants Motion For Summary Judgment And Opposition Tp Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment due by 6/10/2019. Plaintiffs Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Summary Judgment due by 07/01/2019. (zmac) (Entered: 04/01/2019)
2019-04-08	36	MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Index, # 3 Exhibit 1 (Declaration of Vanessa R. Brinkmann), # 4 Exhibit 2 (Declaration of David M. Hardy), # 5 Statement of Facts, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
2019-05-09	37	Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Statement of Disputed Facts)(Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
2019-06-10	38	REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ROBERT S. MUELLER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts (Reply))(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
2020-03-23	39	ORDER granting 36 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/23/2020. (lcegs3) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23	40	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/23/2020. (lcegs3) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23	41	FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/23/2020. (lcegs3) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23		MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff's counsel shall show cause in writing why monetary sanctions should not be imposed on him for his reliance on the D.C. Circuit's decision in Simpson v. Vance, 648 F.2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1980), which was abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in United States Department of State v. Washington Post Company, 456 U.S. 595 (1982). See Pl.'s Opp'n, ECF No. 37 at 9-10. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an attorney certifies in his or her submissions to the Court that "to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances," among other things, "the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). Furthermore, an attorney practicing in this Court is subject to the District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct. See LCvR 83.15(a). Under those rules, an attorney has ethical obligations. See D.C. Rules of Prof'l Conduct r. 3.3(a)(1) (attorney shall not knowingly making a false statement of law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of law previously made to the tribunal by the attorney); see also id. r. 3.3(a)(3) (attorney must disclose to a tribunal any and all adverse controlling authority). These requirements mean that an attorney cannot carry out the practice of law like an ostrich with his or her head in the sand, ignoring his or her duties to conduct a reasonable inquiry, acknowledge adverse controlling authority, adhere to binding precedent, and assert legal arguments based on existing law. Roeder v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 195 F. Supp. 2d 140, 184 (D.D.C. 2002) (Sullivan, J.), aff'd, 333 F.3d 228 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Had Plaintiff's counsel merely Shepardized the cited cases in the opposition brief, Plaintiff's counsel would have discovered that the D.C. Circuit's decision in Simpson was abrogated by the Supreme Court's decision in Washington Post Company. Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel shall show cause in writing, by no later than April 2, 2020, why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 11(b) and (c), or the Court's inherent authority. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Ali v. Tolbert, 636 F.3d 622, 627 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/23/2020. (lcegs3) Modified on 3/23/2020 (lcegs3). (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff Show Cause In Writing due by 4/2/2020. (mac) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23	42	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 39 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 40 Memorandum & Opinion, Order,,,,,,,,,, 41 Judgment by FREEDOM WATCH, INC.. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number ADCDC-6946171. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Klayman, Larry) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-23	43	Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (jf) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
2020-03-26	44	CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 03/26/20. (mac) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
2020-03-26		USCA Case Number 20-5071 for 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by FREEDOM WATCH, INC. (zsb) (Entered: 03/26/2020)
Hide Docket Events