Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that there remains a factual dispute on whether or not information contained in a small-business subcontracting plan submitted to the Department of Defense by GE in protected by Exemption 4 (confidential business information) which may require the court to hold a trial on the issue. Ruling in the latest of a series of suits brought by the American Small Business League seeking small-business subcontracting plans submitted by large defense contractors, the court also found that the plans were not protected by the Procurement Integrity Act, which the agency argued qualified under Exemption 3 (other statutes). The court also found that records submitted by Sikorsky during the first round of litigation over the disclosure of small-business subcontracting plans were protected by Exemption 5 (privileges), specifically the common interest doctrine. In 2013, ASBL filed suit to obtain Sikorsky's 2013 small-business subcontracting plan. That case went to the Ninth Circuit and was remanded, resulting in Sikorsky's plan being disclosed in 2018 over the company's objection. The current litigation involved a request by ASBL for GE's 2014 plan. The agency withheld records under Exemption 3, Exemption 4, Exemption 5, and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). ASBL challenged the agency's exemption claims as well as the adequacy of the search. ASBL argued that the search was inadequate because the agency found some records months after its initial disclosure. Approving the search, District Court Judge William Alsup noted that "here, the government readily acknowledged certain missing documents once notified by plaintiff and promptly took steps to address the errors, including voluntarily redoing its search for documents from custodians located within the United States Attorney's Office. . ." The agency redacted records pertaining to Sikorsky's actual subcontracting performance and compliance as "source selection information" under the PIA, which protects source selection information before a contract is awarded. Alsup rejected that claim, pointing out that "the details of [Sikorsky's] actual subcontracting performance and compliance relate to contracts already awarded to [Sikorsky]." He observed that "the government's broad assertion that it can withhold redacted information effectively ad infinitum however, eviscerates any distinction between pre- and post-award of a contract �" a distinction the PIA clearly contemplates �" thereby rendering the statutory language 'before the award' meaningless." Turning to Exemption 4, Alsup, pointing to the conflict between the agency and ASBL on the issue of whether disclosure would cause competitive harm, noted that "issues of material fact exist as to Exemption 4. . . [T]he parties have submitted competing declarations as to whether disclosure of requested information would cause competitive harm" and added that "additionally, the parties have submitted competing declarations as to whether disclosure would impede the government's information-gathering ability." Alsup did nothing more than deny the parties' summary judgment motions but without any likelihood of an informal settlement he will probably need to hold a trial on the issue. Citing the Fourth Circuit's decision in Hunton & Williams v. Dept of Justice, 590 F. 3 272 (4th Cir. 2010), in which the Fourth Circuit found that once DOJ intervened on the side of RIM, which manufactured the BlackBerry, to defend against a patent infringement claim any discussions between DOJ and RIM were privileged by the common interest doctrine, Alsup found the common interest doctrine applied here as well to protect discussions between DOD and Sikorsky on the issue of whether its information was protected by Exemption 4. In finding Hunton persuasive, Alsup rejected a more recent holding in Lucaj v. FBI, 852 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 2017), in which the Sixth Circuit rejected DOJ's claim that an international agreement to honor requests for assistance in law enforcement matters was protected by the common interest doctrine. But Alsup pointed out that the agency had to show the existence of a joint defense agreement before it could claim the privilege in this case.
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information, Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege, Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that Lockheed-Martin may intervene in litigation brought by the American Small Business League against the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice for records related to its earlier FOIA litigation pertaining to its request for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation's 2013 Comprehensive Small Business Contracting Plan. DOD withheld the records under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), but after a trip to the Ninth Circuit, the government disclosed the plan with redactions made under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). ASBL then requested all documents transmitted between the agencies and Lockheed-Martin, Sikorsky's parent company regarding the 2013 FOIA request. In 2018, the court denied the parties' motions for summary judgment pertaining to Exemption 4. The court then approved a stipulated schedule regarding pretrial and trial dates, including a list of anticipated expert witnesses on the applicability of Exemption 4. Lockheed-Martin then asked to intervene. The court granted Lockheed-Martin's motion to intervene. The court emphasized that "Lockheed-Martin will be held to the promise made in its motion to intervene and affirmed at oral argument that it will not re-litigate previously decided issues. Furthermore, any attempts by Lockheed-Martin to impede the flow of discovery between ASBL and defendants Department of Defense and Department of Justice will not be tolerated."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Standing

FOIA Project Annotation: Although acknowledging that the burden of proof had been reduced as a result of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Media Leader, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019), a federal court in California allowed the American Business League to take discovery on the issue of whether Lockheed Martin customarily kept information about their subcontractors confidential. In a case involving Lockheed Martin's subcontracting plan to hire small businesses, ASBL argued that the identities of many subcontractors were routinely publicized by the company, suggesting that such relationships were not customarily confidential. Agreeing with ASBL, Judge William Alsup noted that "according to [the company's affidavit], Lockheed Martin simultaneously keeps private its supplier names to protect against poaching and freely discloses its 'exemplary' suppliers to attract more suppliers. These explanations do not square. Vague statements and discrepancies such as these sufficiently demonstrate that certain limited discovery is warranted under Rule 56(d)."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Competitive harm, Litigation - Discovery

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California that had shown considerable sympathy towards attempts by the American Small Business League to force disclosure of more information about defense contractors' relationships with small business subcontractors has admitted how the impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019), in which the Court rejected the substantial competitive harm test in Exemption 4 (confidential business information) as the basis for assessing whether records were protected by the exemption, has made it nearly impossible for the ASBL to overcome the defense contractors' claims that the information was customarily considered confidential. ASBL has litigated several times over the issue of whether defense contractors' small business subcontracting plans were protected under Exemption 4. Much of the focus of the litigation has been on whether the defense contractors had shown that disclosure of information about subcontractors would likely cause substantial competitive harm. The district court judge had previously ruled that neither the Defense Contract Management Agency nor the individual contractors had shown that all the information pertaining to relationships with small business subcontractors met the substantial harm test. ASBL has continued to litigate and the current litigation involves Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky Aircraft, and GE Aviation Systems. Even after the Argus Media Leader decision was announced in June 2019, District Court Judge William Allsup awarded ASBL discovery on the issue of whether the companies actually treated information about subcontractor relationships as confidential. But now that discovery has been completed, Allsup has admitted that the contractors' confidentiality claims are appropriate under the new standard. Allsup explained that in abandoning the substantial competitive test because it did not appear in the actual language of Exemption 4 the Supreme Court instead recognized a customarily confidential standard �" that a submitter treated the information as confidential and did not publicly disclose it, and that the agency had provided an assurance that the information would be kept confidential. The Supreme Court noted that an agency's failure to provide an explicit or implicit assurance of confidentiality would likely be fatal to a submitter's confidentiality claim, but pointed out that in the circumstances present in Food Marketing the government had assured the submitters that it would honor confidentiality claims, that issue had been addressed. Allsup pointed out that "ultimately, the Supreme Court held that 'at least where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is "confidential" within the meaning of Exemption 4.'" Allsup noted that "the 'bulk' of documents defendants seek to withhold are the companies' comprehensive subcontracting plans, program reports, and related correspondence. Defendants assert that these documents included 'granular details' about the companies' 'targeted small-business focused initiatives, goals broke out by program level, and the names of [their] suppliers and partners on strategic initiatives.'" However, Allsup observed that "as an initial matter, only information originating from the companies themselves can be considered information that they customarily and actually treat as private during their ordinary course of business. In the instant action, that means that government assessments and evaluations cannot be considered 'confidential' information for purposes of Exemption 4. This includes, for example, the government's evaluation of a contractor's compliance with regulatory requirements, ratings, assessments of a contractor report's accuracy, and recommendations. . .Such information stemmed from the government, not the companies. No one can reasonably argue that those evaluations by the government constituted information that belongs to the companies rather than the government. The information generated by the government must be disclosed." Having indicated that government-generated information could not be considered confidential for purposes of Exemption 4, Allsup observed that "information originating from the companies may qualify as 'confidential' information under Food Marketing. Relevant here, the comprehensive subcontracting plans Lockheed and Sikorsky annually submitted to the government contained the companies' small-business subcontracting goals, in terms of percentage categories and actual dollars spent for that particular year. . . Because the Test Program required participants to monitor and report on their subcontract awards, Lockheed and Sikorsky also submitted reports �" including summary subcontract reports, quarterly reports, and mentor-protégé semiannual reports �" to the government." Allsup then explained that "both Lockheed and Sikorsky swear that they customarily and actually kept all of the commercial information within the withheld documents confidential in the ordinary course of business . . . They used various methods to protect the information. . . When submitting the comprehensive subcontracting plans or reports, for example, the companies marked them with 'restrictive legends identifying the information contained therein as proprietary and confidential'. . ." By contrast, Allsup pointed out that "at bottom, plaintiff simply has not pointed to particular facts demonstrating that the specific information within over 2,000 pages it seeks, in all of its granularity �" including information related to how the companies intend to meet their subcontracting goals, which industries they plan to target and their strategy for such targeting, and their planned initiatives for promoting use of small businesses �" was not customarily and actually kept private by the companies." Allsup expressed sympathy for ASBL's plight. He pointed out that "under Food Marketing, it appears that defendants need merely invoke the magic words �" 'customarily and actually kept confidential' �" to prevail. And, unless plaintiff can show that the information is in fact publicly available or possibly point to other competitors who release the information, defendants can readily ward off disclosure." Offering a personal testimonial, Allsup noted that "the undersigned judge has learned in twenty-five year of practice and twenty years as a judge how prolifically companies claim confidentiality, including over documents that, once scrutinized, contain standard fare blather and even publicly available information." He lamented that "nevertheless, we are not writing on a clean slate. Food Marketing mandates this result." Allsup rejected ASBL's argument that an assurance of confidentiality must be explicit. But Allsup observed that "this order, however, does not find that Exemption 4 requires such written document or express assurances by the government. An implied assurance suffices." In discussing the level of assurance of confidentiality required, the Supreme Court in Food Marketing had referred approvingly to the discussion of confidentiality under Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources) in Dept of Justice v. Landano, 508 U.S. 165 (1993), in which the Court found that confidentiality could stem from either an explicit or implicit assurance of confidentiality. Allsup noted that "so too here. Such inference of assurance is reasonable where the context involved Lookheed and Sikorsky's voluntary participation in the Test Program and the DOD's increasing requests for more detailed commercial information." Allsup also rejected ASBL's contention that the foreseeable harm standard that was applied to all exemptions under the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 essentially restored the substantial harm standard. Allsup disagreed, noting that "ultimately, under Food Marketing, the plain and ordinary meaning of Exemption 4 indicates that the relevant interest is that of the information's confidentiality �" that is, its private nature. Disclosure would necessarily destroy the private nature of the information, no matter the circumstance. This order may not use the FOIA amendment to circumvent the Supreme Court's rejection of National Parks's reliance on the legislative history in determining the scope of the term 'confidential.'"
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information

FOIA Project Annotation: When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, specifically challenging whether the substantial competitive harm test first developed in 1974 by the D.C. Circuit in National Parks & Conservation Association v. Morton, 498 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1974) was supported by the plain language of Exemption 4 (confidential business information), many FOIA observers assumed that if the Supreme Court threw out the substantial harm test it would be considerably easier for business submitters to persuade agencies to withhold such information because it was customarily treated as confidential. However, while the Supreme Court's decision last year in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Media Leader, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019), concluded that the substantial competitive harm test was not supported by the plain language of Exemption 4, the decision failed to resolve a host of other unanswered issues about what constituted commercial information and what elements were required to establish confidentiality. Two recent decisions from the Northern District of California illustrate some of the hurdles that agencies still face in convincing courts that records are both commercial and confidential for purposes of Exemption 4. While both cases focus on the confidentiality of records, they also deal with aspects of what constitutes commercial information. The first case involved FOIA requests from Jennifer Gollan, a reporter for the Center for Investigative Reporting, to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration for records contained on OSHA Forms 300, 300A, and 301 pertaining to the reporting of workplace injuries and illnesses. OSHA's search yielded 237,000 potentially responsive records. OSHA initially decided to withhold all the records on the basis of Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods or techniques), but after Gollan filed an administrative appeal of that denial claim, the agency invoked Exemption 4 instead. The agency claimed that the information was confidential because in the 2014 rulemaking process, employers and trade groups contended that they considered such information to constitute confidential commercial information. But Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu pointed out that "as Food Marketing makes clear, the court must examine whether the information actually is kept and treated as confidential, not whether the submitter considers it to be so. Food Marketing involved store-level Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data. The court concluded that the information was confidential within the meaning of Exemption 4 because the owners of the SNAP data customarily kept and treated the information as confidential." Ryu noted that "in contrast, here, the rulemaking comments relied upon by [the Department of Labor] reflect the owners' subjective view of the nature of the information, which is not the test for confidentiality under Food Marketing. The comments do not speak to how the owners keep and treat the Form 300A information; instead, they focus on the reasons why the owners oppose the release of the information. Therefore, the comments are minimally probative." Further, the Form 300As were required to be posted where employees could see them. This, Ryu observed, meant that "there are no restrictions on further dissemination of Form 300A information. . .Therefore, the Form 300A information is both readily observable by and shared with employees, who have the right to make the information public." While OSHA argued that it had changed its policy on posting, meaning the data was not readily available, Ryu pointed out that guidance on how to apply the Food Marketing standards posted by the Office of Information Policy in October 2019 indicated that "information loses its character of confidentiality where there is an express agency notification that submitted information will be publicly disclosed." Ryu explained that "even if DOL had established that the Form 300A information is 'customarily treated as private by its owners,' the information ceased to be confidential upon submission to the government pursuant to Department of Justice guidelines." The other case involved continuing litigation by the American Small Business League for records pertaining to plans submitted by defense contractors to hire small business subcontractors as part of Defense Department contracts. ASBL had asked District Court Judge William Alsup to review three compliance reviews submitted by Sikorsky in camera to determine if Exemption 4 claims made by Sikorsky and the agency were appropriate. Alsup indicated that "plenty of information within the compliance reports does appear to be bare company information. . .The government appropriately redacted this information." He observed that "Sikorsky's fiscal year 2013 review appropriately redacts several pages plainly reciting Sikorsky's internal procedures for accomplishing its small business subcontracting goals, though disclosing the resulting government evaluations. It also appropriately redacts tables listing specific subcontracts and subcontracting in various categories year-over-year." However, throughout the ASBL litigation, Alsup had distinguished between the confidentiality of information submitted by defense contractors pertaining to their small business subcontracting plans and the government's subsequent analysis of that information. In this instance, Alsup pointed out that "recall that evaluations â€" e.g., a finding 'that an SB goal was not met because the company failed to meet the SB goal by a certain percentage' â€" remains the government's." Alsup provided an example of a paragraph which Sikorsky had heavily redacted. Explaining why the redactions were inappropriate, Alsup pointed out that "though the conclusions of the government's own evaluations have been disclosed, it appears that the government's analysis remains redacted. This cannot be." He added that "the quantitative values, the amount of money flowing through Sikorsky to small businesses (whether given in absolute dollars or percentages of total revenue) remains company information. But the qualitative assessments of hard data remain the government's evaluation of Sikorsky. So, the current redactions unnecessarily shield valuable qualitative government assessments. The November order's recognition that the government need not painstakingly redact word by word did not invite lackadaisical over-redaction. . .The company's numbers and the government's analysis remain segregable with reasonable effort." Alsup also rejected DOD's claim that because a joint-defense agreement existed with Sikorsky as of 2015, discussions of the joint defense were protected under Exemption 5 (privileges). Instead, he indicated that the joint-defense agreement did not exist until 2017. He noted that "the two must have reached an agreement to jointly appeal. And, once again, the government points to no offer to jointly appeal and no acceptance of the offer. Without both, no agreement can exist."
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2018-03-30	1	COMPLAINT against Department of Defense ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-12236017.). Filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 3/30/2018) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-04-02	2	Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 4/16/2018. (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2018) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
2018-04-02	3	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 6/21/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/28/2018 10:00 AM. (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2018) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
2018-04-02	4	Summons Issued as to Department of Defense, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (hdjS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2018) (Entered: 04/02/2018)
2018-04-06	5	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by American Small Business League (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/6/2018) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
2018-04-16	6	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Department of Defense.. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 4/16/2018) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
2018-04-16	7	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by American Small Business League.. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/16/2018) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
2018-04-16	8	MOTION to Relate Case filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/16/2018) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
2018-04-17	9	CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2018) (Entered: 04/17/2018)
2018-04-18	10	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case Reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Signed by Executive Committee on 4/18/18. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
2018-04-18	11	CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER - Case Management Conference set for 6/19/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 6/12/2018. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 04/18/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2018) (Entered: 04/18/2018)
2018-04-19	12	Proposed Order re Motion to Relate Case by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/19/2018) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
2018-04-20	13	RESPONSE to 8 Administrative Motion to Relate Case by Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 4/20/2018) Modified on 4/23/2018 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/20/2018)
2018-04-20	14	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by American Small Business League re 11 Case Management Scheduling Order, (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/20/2018) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
2018-04-25	15	RESPONSE to re 13 Response ( Non Motion ) Reply Brief in Support of Administrative Motion to Relate Case by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/25/2018) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-30	16	ORDER RELATING CASE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/30/2018. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2018) (Entered: 04/30/2018)
2018-05-01	17	Case reassigned to Judge Judge William Alsup. Judge William H. Orrick no longer assigned to the case. This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2018) (Entered: 05/01/2018)
2018-05-03	18	ANSWER to Complaint byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
2018-05-03	19	CLERK'S NOTICE SCHEDULING INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ON REASSIGNMENT: Initial Case Management Conference set for 6/28/2018 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 6/21/2018. Judge Alsup's standing orders may be downloaded from the Court's web page at: www.cand.uscourts.gov/whaorders. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2018) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
2018-05-24	20	AMENDED COMPLAINT against Department of Defense. Filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/24/2018) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
2018-06-07	21	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
2018-06-07	22	ANSWER to Amended Complaint Defendant's Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
2018-06-12	23	NOTICE by Department of Defense of government action (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/12/2018) (Entered: 06/12/2018)
2018-06-14	24	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 6/14/2018) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
2018-06-21	25	CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Department of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/21/2018) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
2018-06-28	26	CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Further Case Management Conference set for 7/19/2018 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 7/12/2018. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 6/28/2018. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2018) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
2018-06-28	27	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Initial Case Management Conference held on 6/28/2018. Counsel states that all documents should be produced in roughly 3 months. The Court sets a further case management conference for 7/19/2018 at 11:00 a.m. to monitor the progress. Total Time in Court: 2 Minutes. Court Reporter: Belle Ball. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson. Defendant Attorney: Ellen London. (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/28/2018) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
2018-06-29	28	Letter from Ellen London regarding DOJ FOIA request . (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/29/2018) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
2018-07-12	29	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/12/2018) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
2018-07-12	30	CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Department of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/12/2018) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
2018-07-17	31	ORDER GRANTING 29 STIPULATION RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND AMENDMENT OF COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2018) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
2018-07-18	32	CLERK'S NOTICE VACATING AND RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE: Further Case Management Conference set for 7/19/2018 at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED and RESET for 10/4/2018 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 9/27/2018.If the parties have resolved all issues before the CMC date, then the parties may file a stipulated dismissal and then CMC will be vacated. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2018) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
2018-07-27	33	NOTICE by Department of Defense Notice of Agency Action (London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/27/2018) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
2018-07-31	34	ANSWER to Complaint Defendants' Answser and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/31/2018) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
2018-08-10	35	STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Department of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 8/10/2018) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
2018-09-04	36	NOTICE by Department of Defense Notice of Agency Action (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/4/2018) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
2018-09-14	37	NOTICE by Department of Defense (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/14/2018) (Entered: 09/14/2018)
2018-09-21	38	NOTICE by Department of Defense re 37 Notice (Other) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/21/2018) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
2018-09-25	39	NOTICE by Department of Defense re 38 Notice (Other) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/25/2018) (Entered: 09/25/2018)
2018-09-27	40	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT ; Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Adjourning Case Management Conference filed by Department of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/27/2018) (Entered: 09/27/2018)
2018-10-01	41	ORDER ADJOURNING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE (as modified) (re 40 ). Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/1/2018. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2018) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
2018-10-01		Set/Reset Hearing (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/1/2018) (Entered: 10/01/2018)
2018-10-02		Set/Reset Deadlines:, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 41 Order., ***Deadlines terminated. 41 Order. Government's Summary Judgment Motion due by 11/16/2018. Plaintiff's Opposition /Cross Motions due by 12/7/2018. Government's Reply / Cross-Opposition due by 12/20/2018. Plaintiff's cross-reply due 1/3/2019. Cross- Motion(s) for Summary Judgment Hearing set for 1/24/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2018) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
2018-10-03	42	*** NOTICE OF APPEARANCE *** MOTION for Leave to Appear Notice of Appearance of Counsel filed by American Small Business League. (Field, Aaron) (Filed on 10/3/2018) Modified on 10/3/2018 (fff, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2018)
2018-10-03	43	NOTICE by American Small Business League of Change of Firm Name (Field, Aaron) (Filed on 10/3/2018) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
2018-11-16	44	MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion filed by Department of Defense. Motion Hearing set for 1/24/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 11/30/2018. Replies due by 12/7/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Janice Buffler, # 2 Declaration of Mark Herrington, # 3 Declaration of Ellen London, # 4 Declaration of Hirsh Kravitz, # 5 Declaration of Kimberly Friday, # 6 Declaration of Abraham Simmons, # 7 Affidavit of Susannah Raheb, # 8 Affidavit of Martha Crawford, # 9 Declaration of Bethani Clever, # 10 Declaration of Harry Nahatis, # 11 Declaration of Aleksander Lamvol, # 12 Proposed Order)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 11/16/2018) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
2018-11-30	45	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE BRIEF OF NO MORE THAN THIRTY-FIVE (35) PAGES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 11/30/2018) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
2018-12-03	46	ORDER GRANTING 45 STIPULATED REQUEST TO FILE BRIEF OF NO MORE THAN THIRTY-FIVE (35) PAGES. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2018) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
2018-12-07	47	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Karl Olson in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, # 2 Exhibit A - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 3 Exhibit B - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 4 Exhibit C - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 5 Exhibit D - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 6 Exhibit E - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 7 Exhibit F - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 8 Exhibit G - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 9 Exhibit H - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 10 Exhibit I - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 11 Exhibit J - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 12 Exhibit K - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 13 Exhibit L - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 14 Exhibit M - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 15 Exhibit N - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 16 Exhibit O - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 17 Exhibit P - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 18 Exhibit Q - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 19 Exhibit R - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 20 Exhibit S - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 21 Exhibit T - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 22 Exhibit U - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 23 Exhibit V - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 24 Exhibit W - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 25 Exhibit X - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 26 Exhibit Y - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 27 Exhibit Z - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 28 Exhibit AA - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 29 Exhibit BB - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 30 Exhibit CC - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 31 Exhibit DD - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 32 Exhibit EE - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 33 Exhibit FF - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 34 Exhibit GG - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 35 Exhibit HH - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 36 Exhibit II - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 37 Exhibit JJ - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 38 Exhibit KK - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 39 Exhibit LL - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 40 Exhibit MM - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 41 Exhibit NN - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 42 Exhibit OO - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 43 Exhibit PP - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 44 Exhibit QQ - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 45 Exhibit RR - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 46 Exhibit SS - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 47 Exhibit TT - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 48 Exhibit UU - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 49 Exhibit VV - to Declaration of Karl Olson, # 50 Declaration Declaration of Charles Tiefer in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, # 51 Declaration Declaration of David Downey in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, # 52 Exhibit A - to Declaration of David Downey, # 53 Declaration Declaration of Lloyd Chapman in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, # 54 Exhibit A - to Declaration of Lloyd Chapman, # 55 Exhibit B - to Declaration of Lloyd Chapman, # 56 Exhibit C - to Declaration of Lloyd Chapman, # 57 Exhibit D - to Declaration of Lloyd Chapman, # 58 Declaration Declaration of William Shook in Support of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement and Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement, # 59 Appendix Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement, # 60 Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement and Granting Plaintiff Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 12/7/2018) (Entered: 12/07/2018)
2018-12-20	48	REPLY (re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion ) and Opposition to Cross-Motion filed byDepartment of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Janice Buffler, # 2 Declaration of Mark H. Herrington, # 3 Declaration of Kimberly Friday, # 4 Declaration of Ellen London)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 12/20/2018) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
2018-12-26	49	MOTION Defendants' Administrative Motion to Continue the Hearing on the Parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Defense. Responses due by 1/9/2019. Replies due by 1/16/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ellen London, # 2 Proposed Order)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 12/26/2018) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
2018-12-28	50	ORDER RE 49 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup. Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2018) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
2019-01-03	51	REPLY (re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration REPLY DECLARATION OF KARL OLSON IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUES CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
2019-01-03		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
2019-01-03		Set/Reset Hearing (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2019) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
2019-01-24	52	NOTICE by Department of Defense (London, Ellen) (Filed on 1/24/2019) (Entered: 01/24/2019)
2019-01-28	53	STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 1/28/2019) Modified on 1/28/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/28/2019)
2019-01-31	54	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Motion Hearing re 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment held on 1/31/2019. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. (Total Time in Court: 28 minutes.) Court Reporter: Katherine Sullivan. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson, Aaron Field, Qwalyne Lawson. Defendant Attorney: Ellen London. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/31/2019) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
2019-03-01	55	NOTICE by Department of Defense (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Mark H. Herrington)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
2019-03-01	56	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 1/31/2019 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
2019-03-08	57	Transcript of Proceedings held on 1/31/19, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Sullivan, Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 56 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 3/29/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/8/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/6/2019. (Related documents(s) 56 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 3/8/2019) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
2019-03-08	58	ORDER ON 44 47 CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2019) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
2019-03-19	59	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Pursuant to ECF 58 filed by American Small Business League and Department of Defense. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 3/19/2019) Modified on 3/19/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/19/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2019)
2019-03-25	60	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Scheduling of Pretrial and Trial Dates filed by Department of Defense and American Small Business League. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 3/25/2019) Modified on 3/26/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/25/2019)
2019-04-09	61	ORDER ON 60 STIPULATED SCHEDULE RE PRETRIAL AND TRIAL DATES. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/9/2019) (Entered: 04/09/2019)
2019-04-17	62	NOTICE of Appearance by Savith Iyengar (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 4/17/2019) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
2019-04-18	63	NOTICE of Appearance by Therese Yvonne Cannata (Cannata, Therese) (Filed on 4/18/2019) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
2019-04-26	64	NOTICE by Department of Defense re 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment of Further Release of Documents (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Mark H. Herrington, # 2 Declaration Hirsh D. Kravitz, # 3 Declaration Ellen London)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 4/26/2019) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
2019-05-03	65	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re Amendment to Pretrial Schedule filed by Department of Defense and American Small Business League. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 5/3/2019) Modified on 5/6/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2019)
2019-05-03	66	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Evidence of FOIA Requests and Responses filed by American Small Business League and Department of Defense. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/3/2019) Modified on 5/6/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/03/2019)
2019-05-07	67	*** DISREGARD. ERROR IN FILING. PLEASE SEE 68 FOR UPDATED MOTION *** MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum of Points & Authorities filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 6/13/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 5/21/2019. Replies due by 5/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Answer to Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Lockheed Martin's Motion to Intervene)(Chun, A.) (Filed on 5/7/2019) Modified on 5/8/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/07/2019)
2019-05-07	68	MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 67 filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 6/13/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 5/21/2019. Replies due by 5/28/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Answer to Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Lockheed Martin's Motion to Intervene)(Chun, A.) (Filed on 5/7/2019) (Entered: 05/07/2019)
2019-05-08	69	ORDER RE AMENDMENT TO PRETRIAL ORDER (pursuant to 65 ). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2019) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
2019-05-08	70	ORDER RE EVIDENCE OF FOIA REQUESTS AND RESPONSES (pursuant to 66 ). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2019) (Entered: 05/08/2019)
2019-05-09	71	CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING MOTION HEARING: Motion Hearing re 68 MOTION to Intervene previously set for 6/13/2019 8:00 AM is rescheduled to 6/20/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/9/2019) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
2019-05-09	72	Supplemental Brief re 64 Notice (Other), Response and Objection to Defendants' "Notice of Further Release of Documents" filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 *** SEE CORRECTED FILING 78 *** Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Karl Olson, # 2 Proposed Order RE Defendants' Continued Withholdings Under Exemption 5)(Related document(s) 64 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/9/2019) Modified on 5/22/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/09/2019)
2019-05-09	73	MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (Civil L.R. 7-9) filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/9/2019) (Entered: 05/09/2019)
2019-05-13	74	ORDER GRANTING 73 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (AS MODIFIED). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2019) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
2019-05-17	75	Rule 7.1 Disclosures by Lockheed Martin Corporation identifying Other Affiliate State Street Corporation, Other Affiliate Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Other Affiliate State Street Bank and Trust Company for Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 5/17/2019) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
2019-05-20	76	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Daniel W. Wolff ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13362631.) filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing)(Wolff, Daniel) (Filed on 5/20/2019) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
2019-05-21	77	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 68 MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 67 ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karl Olson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/21/2019) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
2019-05-21	78	NOTICE by American Small Business League re 72 Supplemental Brief, of Errata (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Corrected Declaration of Karl Olson)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/21/2019) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
2019-05-23	79	ORDER by Judge William Alsup denying 76 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Daniel W. Wolff. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2019) (Entered: 05/23/2019)
2019-05-24	80	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Daniel W. Wolff ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 26HJ6O3J.) Filing fee previously paid on May 20, 2019 filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing)(Wolff, Daniel) (Filed on 5/24/2019) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
2019-05-28	81	REPLY (re 68 MOTION to Intervene ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 67 ) filed byLockheed Martin Corporation. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 5/28/2019) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
2019-05-29	82	ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 80 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Daniel W. Wolff. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2019) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
2019-05-29	83	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Anuj Vohra ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13387478.) filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing)(Vohra, Anuj) (Filed on 5/29/2019) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
2019-05-29	84	ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 83 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Anuj Vohra. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2019) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
2019-05-30	85	MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/30/2019) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
2019-06-05	86	NOTICE of Agency Action by Department of Defense (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/5/2019) Modified on 6/6/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/05/2019)
2019-06-11		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 85 MOTION for Reconsideration: Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
2019-06-13	87	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment ) filed byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
2019-06-13	88	Request for Judicial Notice re 87 Opposition/Response to Motion filed byDepartment of Defense. (Related document(s) 87 ) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
2019-06-13	89	NOTICE by Department of Defense (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
2019-06-19	90	NOTICE by Department of Defense re 87 Opposition/Response to Motion (London, Ellen) (Filed on 6/19/2019) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
2019-06-20	91	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Motion Hearing re 68 MOTION to Intervene held on 6/20/2019. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. (Total Time in Court: 13 minutes.) Court Reporter: Marla Knox. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson, Aaron Field. Defendant Attorney: Ellen London, Savith Iyengar. Intervenor Attorney: Anuj Vohra, A. Marisa Chun. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/20/2019) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
2019-06-20	92	REPLY (re 85 MOTION for Reconsideration re 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 6/20/2019) (Entered: 06/20/2019)
2019-06-23	93	ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (re 85 ). Signed by Judge Alsup on 6/23/2019. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2019) (Entered: 06/23/2019)
2019-06-24	94	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 6/20/19 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Marla Knox. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
2019-06-24	95	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 06/20/2019 before Judge William Alsup by Lockheed Martin Corporation, for Court Reporter Marla Knox. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
2019-06-24	96	ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO INTERVENE by Judge William Alsup [granting 68 Motion to Intervene]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2019) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
2019-07-01	97	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Set Status Conference; Declaration of Ellen London filed by Department of Defense. Responses due by 7/5/2019. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/1/2019) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
2019-07-03	98	Transcript of Proceedings held on June 20, 2019, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter, Marla F. Knox, RPR, CRR, telephone number (602) 391-6990. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2019. (mfk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2019) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
2019-07-05	99	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 97 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To Set Status Conference; Declaration of Ellen London ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Aaron R. Field in support of Plaintiff American Small Business League's Opposition to Administrative Motion to Set Status Conference, # 2 Proposed Order Denying Administrative Motion to Set Status Conference)(Field, Aaron) (Filed on 7/5/2019) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
2019-07-16	100	ORDER RE 97 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SET STATUS CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge William Alsup. Further Case Management Conference set for 7/31/2019 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/16/2019) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-07-23	101	Supplemental Brief re 100 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11 filed byDepartment of Defense. (Related document(s) 100 ) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 7/23/2019) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
2019-07-23	102	Supplemental Brief re 100 Order on Administrative Motion per Civil Local Rule 7-11 filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Related document(s) 100 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 7/23/2019) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
2019-07-31	103	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Further Case Management Conference held on 7/31/2019. Defendant and Intervenor to file Joint Motion for Summary Judgment by 8/15/2019. (Total Time in Court: 41 minutes.) Court Reporter: Belle Ball. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson, Aaron Field. Defendant Attorney: Ellen London, Savith Iyengar. Intervenor Attorney: Anuj Vohra (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/31/2019) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
2019-07-31	104	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 7/31/2019 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Belle Ball. (Field, Aaron) (Filed on 7/31/2019) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
2019-07-31	105	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 07/31/2019 before Judge William Alsup by Lockheed Martin Corporation, for Court Reporter Belle Ball. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 7/31/2019) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
2019-08-06	106	Transcript of Proceedings held on July 31, 2019, before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter Belle Ball, CSR, CRR, RDR, telephone number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 104 Transcript Order, 105 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/4/2019. (Related documents(s) 104 , 105 ) (ballbb15S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/6/2019) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
2019-08-15	107	MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 9/19/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 8/29/2019. Replies due by 9/5/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Janice Buffler, # 2 Declaration of Bethani T. Clever, # 3 Declaration of Martha L. Crawford, # 4 Declaration of Nancy H. Deskins, # 5 Declaration of Susannah L. Raheb, # 6 Request for Judicial Notice, # 7 Proposed Order)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 8/15/2019) Modified on 8/16/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/15/2019)
2019-08-16	108	ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Continuance of Hearing re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by American Small Business League. Responses due by 8/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/16/2019) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
2019-08-20	109	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 108 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Continuance of Hearing re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byDepartment of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 8/20/2019) Modified on 8/20/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/20/2019)
2019-08-20	110	Letter from Defendants Requesting Discovery Relief . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-7)(London, Ellen) (Filed on 8/20/2019) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
2019-08-21	111	Letter Brief re 110 Letter from Plaintiff re Discovery Dispute filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Related document(s) 110 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/21/2019) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
2019-08-22	112	ORDER ON 108 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION RE CONTINUANCES AND 110 DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2019) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
2019-08-23		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment previously set for 9/19/2019 08:00 AM is rescheduled to 9/18/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2019) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
2019-08-29	113	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF KARL OLSON IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 2 Declaration DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESS; DECLARATION OF DAVID A. DOWNEY, # 3 Declaration DECLARATION OF CHARLES TIEFER IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 4 Declaration DECLARATION OF WILLIAM A. SHOOK IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 5 Proposed Order (PROPOSED) ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/29/2019) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
2019-08-29	114	MOTION to Continue HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d) filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration DECLARATION OF KARL OLSON IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d), # 2 Proposed Order [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF PLAINTIFF AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS LEAGUE FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d))(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/29/2019) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
2019-08-30	115	NOTICE of Appearance by Townsend KatieLynn (KatieLynn, Townsend) (Filed on 8/30/2019) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
2019-08-30	116	MOTION to File Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Responses due by 9/13/2019. Replies due by 9/20/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(KatieLynn, Townsend) (Filed on 8/30/2019) (Entered: 08/30/2019)
2019-09-03	117	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 114 MOTION to Continue HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d) filed by American Small Business League and Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 9/3/2019) Modified on 9/3/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/03/2019)
2019-09-03	118	ORDER GRANTING 117 STIPULATED REQUEST TO SHORTEN BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND ADVANCE HEARING RE 114 RULE 56(D) MOTION (AS MODIFIED). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2019) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
2019-09-04		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 114 MOTION to Continue Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment to Allow for Discovery Under Rule 56(d) : Motion Hearing re 114 MOTION to Continue previously set for 10/3/2019 08:00 AM is rescheduled to 9/18/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/4/2019) (Entered: 09/04/2019)
2019-09-05	119	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 61 Order on Stipulation re Deadline for Parties to Make Expert Disclosures filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 9/5/2019) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
2019-09-05	120	ASSOCIATION of Counsel Zachary Colbeth by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 9/5/2019) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
2019-09-05	121	ORDER GRANTING 119 STIPULATED REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE RE EXPERT DISCLOSURES. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2019) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
2019-09-05	122	REPLY (re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/5/2019) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
2019-09-06	123	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 114 MOTION to Continue HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d) ) Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to Allow for Discovery Under Rule 56(d) filed byDepartment of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/6/2019) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
2019-09-09	124	ORDER GRANTING 116 Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief BY REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2019) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
2019-09-10	125	REPLY (re 114 MOTION to Continue HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO ALLOW FOR DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 56(d) ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 9/10/2019) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
2019-09-15	126	ORDER ON 114 MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 56(d). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2019) (Entered: 09/15/2019)
2019-09-18		Set/Reset Deadlines re 126 Order: Motion Hearing re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment previously set for 9/18/2019 08:00 AM is rescheduled to 11/14/2019 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2019) (Entered: 09/18/2019)
2019-09-24	127	Letter: Discovery Dispute . (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/24/2019) Modified on 9/24/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/24/2019)
2019-09-25	128	Letter Brief re 127 Letter re Discovery Dispute filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Related document(s) 127 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 9/25/2019) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
2019-09-25	129	ORDER ON 127 DEFENDANTS' DISCOVERY LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 24. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/25/2019. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/25/2019) (Entered: 09/25/2019)
2019-09-30	130	Letter from Defendants Requesting Discovery Relief . (London, Ellen) (Filed on 9/30/2019) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
2019-09-30	131	ORDER RE DEFENDANTS' LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 30 (re 130 ) Responses due by 10/2/2019. Discovery Hearing set for 10/3/2019 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Signed by Judge Alsup on 9/30/2019. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2019) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
2019-10-01	132	Letter Brief re 130 Letter re Discovery Dispute filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Related document(s) 130 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 10/1/2019) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
2019-10-02	133	ERRATA re 132 Letter Brief re Discovery Dispute by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 10/2/2019) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
2019-10-03	134	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Discovery Hearing held on 10/3/2019.Defendant may substitute witness. Plaintiff get's extra deposition. Total Time in Court: 7 minutes. Court Reporter: Ruth Ekhaus. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson. Defendant Attorney: Savith Iyengar/ A. Marisa Chun. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/3/2019) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
2019-10-03	135	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/03/2019 before Judge William Alsup by Lockheed Martin Corporation, for Court Reporter Ruth Ekhaus. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 10/3/2019) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
2019-10-03	136	ORDER FOLLOWING DISCOVERY HEARING (re 130 ). Signed by Judge Alsup on 10/3/2019. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/3/2019) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
2019-10-04	137	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 10/03/2019 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Ruth Ekhaus. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 10/4/2019) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
2019-10-04	138	Transcript of Proceedings held on 10/03/19, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter Ruth Levine Ekhaus, RDR, FCRR, CSR No. 12219, telephone number (415)336-5223/ruth_ekhaus@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 137 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/2/2020. (Related documents(s) 137 ) (rreS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/4/2019) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
2019-10-08	139	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice of Monica Sterling ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-13773692.) filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing)(Sterling, Monica) (Filed on 10/8/2019) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
2019-10-09	140	ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE by Judge William Alsup granting 139 Motion for Pro Hac Vice for attorney Monica Sterling.(tlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)
2019-10-18	141	Supplemental Brief re 126 Order on Motion to Continue Hearing on Defendants' Motion For Summary Judgment Under Rule 56(d) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Related document(s) 126 ) (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 10/18/2019) (Entered: 10/18/2019)
2019-10-25	142	Supplemental Brief re 126 Order on Motion to Continue filed byDepartment of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ellen London (Exhibits A-F))(Related document(s) 126 ) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 10/25/2019) (Entered: 10/25/2019)
2019-11-01	143	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re. Scheduling of Pre-Trial and Trial Dates filed by Department of Defense and Lockheed Martin Corporation. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 11/1/2019) Modified on 11/4/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2019)
2019-11-05	144	ORDER RE SCHEDULING OF PRE-TRIAL AND TRIAL DATES (adopting 143 ). Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019) (Entered: 11/05/2019)
2019-11-08	145	NOTICE RE HEARING. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/8/2019. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019) (Entered: 11/08/2019)
2019-11-13	146	RESPONSE re 145 Order (Declaration of Janice Buffler) by Department of Defense. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 11/13/2019) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
2019-11-13	147	NOTICE by Lockheed Martin Corporation re 145 Order (Notice of Vaughn Index Review) (Chun, A.) (Filed on 11/13/2019) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
2019-11-14	148	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Motion Hearing re 107 MOTION for Summary Judgment held on 11/14/2019. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. (Total Time in Court: 40 minutes.) Court Reporter: Katherine Sullivan. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson, Aaron Field. Defendant Attorney: Ellen London, Savith Iyengar. Intervenor: Anuj Vohra, Monica Sterling. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/14/2019) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
2019-11-14	149	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 11/14/2019 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 11/14/2019) (Entered: 11/14/2019)
2019-11-15	150	Transcript of Proceedings held on 11-14-19, before Judge William H. Alsup. Court Reporter Katherine Powell Sullivan, Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 149 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/13/2020. (Related documents(s) 149 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 11/15/2019) (Entered: 11/15/2019)
2019-11-18	151	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 11/14/2019 before Judge William Alsup by Lockheed Martin Corporation, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Chun, A.) (Filed on 11/18/2019) (Entered: 11/18/2019)
2019-11-22	152	NOTICE by Department of Defense (London, Ellen) (Filed on 11/22/2019) (Entered: 11/22/2019)
2019-11-24	153	ORDER ON 107 JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2019) (Entered: 11/24/2019)
2019-12-02	154	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Extending Time To File Motion For Attorneys Fees Under Local Rule 54-5 filed by American Small Business League and Department of Defense. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 12/2/2019) Modified on 12/2/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/02/2019)
2019-12-03	155	NOTICE of Agency Action by Department of Defense re 152 Notice (Other) (London, Ellen) (Filed on 12/3/2019) Modified on 12/3/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/03/2019)
2019-12-04	156	ORDER DENYING 154 STIPULATION TO EXTENSION. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2019) (Entered: 12/04/2019)
2019-12-05	157	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Referring the Issue of Attorney's Fees and Costs to Magistrate Judge filed by Department of Defense and American Small Business League. (London, Ellen) (Filed on 12/5/2019) Modified on 12/6/2019 (amgS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/05/2019)
2019-12-09	158	ORDER DENYING 157 STIPULATED REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE. Signed by Judge Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2019) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
2019-12-09	159	MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by American Small Business League. Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2020 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 12/23/2019. Replies due by 12/30/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karl Olson, # 2 Declaration of Lloyd Chapman, # 3 Declaration of Thomas R. Burke, # 4 Declaration of Gay Crosthwait Grundelf, # 5 Declaration of Michael F. Ram)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 12/9/2019) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
2019-12-09	160	Proposed Order re 159 MOTION for Attorney Fees by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 12/9/2019) (Entered: 12/09/2019)
2019-12-23	161	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 159 MOTION for Attorney Fees ) filed byDepartment of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Ellen London (Exhibits A - T))(London, Ellen) (Filed on 12/23/2019) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
2019-12-30	162	REPLY (re 159 MOTION for Attorney Fees ) Brief In Support of Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karl Olson)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 12/30/2019) (Entered: 12/30/2019)
2020-02-03	163	NOTICE of Settlement by American Small Business League re 159 MOTION for Attorney Fees (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 2/3/2020) Modified on 2/4/2020 (mclS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/03/2020)
2020-04-13	164	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 153 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/13/2020) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
2020-04-14	165	ORDER GRANTING (AS MODIFIED) 164 LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO COMPEL. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2020) (Entered: 04/14/2020)
2020-04-23	166	First MOTION to Compel Compliance filed by American Small Business League. Motion Hearing set for 5/28/2020 08:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 12, 19th Floor before Judge William Alsup. Responses due by 5/7/2020. Replies due by 5/14/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Karl Olson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 4/23/2020) (Entered: 04/23/2020)
2020-05-07	167	OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 166 First MOTION to Compel Compliance ) filed byDepartment of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Savith Iyengar (Exhibits A-K), # 2 Declaration of Susannah L. Raheb, # 3 Declaration of Martha L. Crawford, # 4 Proposed Order)(Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 5/7/2020) (Entered: 05/07/2020)
2020-05-14	168	REPLY (re 166 First MOTION to Compel Compliance ) filed byAmerican Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/14/2020) (Entered: 05/14/2020)
2020-05-22	169	ORDER RE HEARING DUE TO PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERN. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/22/2020. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
2020-05-22	170	CLERK'S NOTICE RE 5/28/2020 HEARING: Motion Hearing re 166 MOTION to Compel set for 5/28/2020 08:00 AM before Judge William Alsup will be held by telephone. The Court circulates the following dial-in information to allow the equivalent of a public hearing: Teleconference Number: 888-684-8852 Access Code: 3707514 Please allow adequate time to check-in with the courtroom deputy by connecting to the teleconference line 10 minutes prior to the scheduled start time. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2020) (Entered: 05/22/2020)
2020-05-28	171	NOTICE by Department of Defense of Agency Action (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 5/28/2020) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
2020-05-28	172	Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William Alsup: Telephonic Motion Hearing re 166 First MOTION to Compel Compliance held on 5/28/2020. Matter taken under submission. Court to issue written order. (Total Time in Court: 43 minutes.) Court Reporter: Belle Ball. Plaintiff Attorney: Karl Olson, Aaron Field. Plaintiff Representative: Lloyd Chapman. Defendant Attorney: Savith Iyengar. Intervenor: Anuj Vohra, Daniel Wolff. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (tlhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 5/28/2020) (Entered: 05/28/2020)
2020-05-29	173	TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 5/28/2020 before Judge William Alsup by American Small Business League, for Court Reporter Belle Ball. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 5/29/2020) (Entered: 05/29/2020)
2020-06-05	174	ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 166 MOTION TO COMPEL. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2020) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
2020-06-05	175	Transcript of Proceedings held telephonically on May 28, 2020, before Judge William Alsup. Court Reporter Belle Ball, CSR, CRR, RDR, telephone number (415)373-2529, belle_ball@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 173 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/3/2020. (Related documents(s) 173 ) (ballbb15S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/5/2020) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
2020-06-09	176	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 174 Order on Motion to Compel filed by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 6/9/2020) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
2020-06-10	177	ORDER GRANTING 176 STIPULATED EXTENSION. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2020) (Entered: 06/10/2020)
2020-07-02	178	NOTICE by Department of Defense of Agency Action (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 7/2/2020) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
2020-07-06	179	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 174 Order on Motion to Compel filed by American Small Business League. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(Olson, Karl) (Filed on 7/6/2020) (Entered: 07/06/2020)
2020-07-07	180	ORDER GRANTING 179 STIPULATED EXTENSION OF DEADLINE. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2020) (Entered: 07/07/2020)
2020-07-22	181	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 174 Order on Motion to Compel filed by Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Savith Iyengar)(Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 7/22/2020) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
2020-07-22	182	ORDER GRANTING 181 STIPULATED EXTENSION. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2020) (Entered: 07/22/2020)
2020-08-12	183	STIPULATION of Settlement of Second Attorney's Fees Claim filed by American Small Business League. (Olson, Karl) (Filed on 8/12/2020) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
2020-08-14	184	NOTICE by American Small Business League re 183 Stipulation (Field, Aaron) (Filed on 8/14/2020) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
2022-01-11	185	CLERK'S NOTICE: In light of denial of cert in Rojas v. FAA , parties are to submit joint Status Report by 1/27/2022. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (afm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2022) (Entered: 01/11/2022)
2022-01-27	186	STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Department of Defense. (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 1/27/2022) (Entered: 01/27/2022)
2022-02-08	187	MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney / Motion for Withdrawal and Substitution of Counsel filed by Lockheed Martin Corporation. Responses due by 2/22/2022. Replies due by 3/1/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bualat, Nathaniel) (Filed on 2/8/2022) (Entered: 02/08/2022)
2022-02-09	188	ORDER by Judge William Alsup granting 187 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Nathaniel P. Bualat is substituted as counsel of record for Defendant-Intervenor. (afm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2022) (Entered: 02/09/2022)
2022-02-25	189	STIPULATION of Dismissal filed by Department of Defense. (Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on 2/25/2022) (Entered: 02/25/2022)
Hide Docket Events