Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: While requests for expedited processing have become a more common feature in FOIA requests as requesters scramble to establish their need to get records more quickly, there are still few occasions in which a district court is asked to assess an agency's decision not to provide expedited processing. Part of the reason for the scarcity of court decisions on expedited processing is likely the result of strategic decisions on the part of plaintiffs to not press forward with expedited processing claims that are no longer relevant months or years later when the court actually rules on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, Judge Amy Berman Jackson was in a position to address the issue of expedited processing recently in a case brought by CREW against the Department of Justice for records concerning what evidence was available to Attorney General William Barr when he made his public remarks downplaying the findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign on the issue of whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. Shortly after Barr made his public statement on April 18, 2019, CREW submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Legal Counsel for records related to whether the evidence developed by Mueller was sufficient to establish that Trump had obstructed justice. CREW also sent a request to the Office of Public Affairs, asking for expedited processing. OPA told CREW that is was denying its request for expedited processing because "CREW's FOIA request is not a matter in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence." CREW filed a two-count complaint. Count I alleged wrongful withholding of records while Count II alleged that DOJ had violated FOIA by denying its expedited processing request. DOJ argued that Count II should be dismissed because CREW had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Berman Jackson began by noting that judicial review of agency denials of expedited processing were subject to a different standard than the more common de novo review when an agency failed to respond within the statutory time limit. Instead, she pointed out that for denials of expedited processing "agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request for expedited processing. . .shall be subject to judicial review." She then explained that "while the D.C. Circuit has not spoken on this matter, courts in this district have interpreted that language to relieve plaintiffs of the exhaustion requirements when appealing a denial of expedited processing." Indicating that she found these district court decisions persuasive, Berman Jackson pointed out that "their reading of the statute is consistent with the purpose underlying the provision that makes expedited review available, and the express Congressional acknowledgment that time may be of the essence for certain requests. To require a requestor who has been denied expedited processing to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review would defeat the section's aim of accelerating response time." Turning to the basis of DOJ's denial of CREW's request for expedited processing, Berman Jackson found the denial wanting as well, noting that "OPA's mere recitation of the language in the DOJ provision on expedited review does not suffice as a reasoned explanation of CREW's request." Berman Jackson cited Al Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001), in which the D.C. Circuit first examined the standard to be used in assessing an agency's response to an expedited processing request, indicating that in Al Fayed the D.C. Circuit "found the review of agency action under the Administrative Procedure At to be analogous," explaining that an agency regulation "is entitled to judicial deference. . . as is each agency's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations." Applying that level of deference here, Berman Jackson indicated that "but that does not mean the Court has no say in the matter. . .Thus, in this context, as in others, an agency is required to offer an adequate explanation for its actions so that a court is able to 'evaluate the agency's rationale at the time of the decision.' Put simply, 'the agency must explain why it decided to act as it did.' And pursuant to the FOIA statute, judicial review of an agency's decision to grant or deny a request for expedited processing 'shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the determination.'" Berman Jackson printed the text of CREW's detailed three-paragraph justification for its request for expedited processing. She noted that "the agency responded with a single sentence: 'CREW's FOIA request is not a matter in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.' Since the agency did nothing more than parrot its own regulatory language, and offered no reasoning or analysis, its decision, as in the APA context, is entitled to little deference." Berman Jackson found that DOJ's rote response did not satisfactorily address CREW's justification for its expedited processing request. She pointed out that "neither FOIA nor the departmental regulations require the requester to prove wrongdoing by the government in order to obtain documents on an expedited basis. The request must simply provide grounds to support the contention that the matter is time sensitive, and that it is a 'matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government's integrity that affect public confidence.'" She observed that "CREW's submission supported an inference that at best, the Attorney General undertook to frame the public discussion on his own terms while the report itself remained under wraps, and at worst, that he distorted the truth. For these reasons, the request raised 'possible questions' about the government's integrity that could affect public confidence. And the disclosure of any material that either influenced or contradicted those public statements could very well bear upon the resolution of those questions. Since DOJ provided no explanation for its flat assertion to the contrary, it does not stand up to judicial review."
Issues: Expedited processing - Compelling Need

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Amy Berman Jackson has blasted the Department of Justice for intentionally misleading the public about the conclusions of the Mueller report on Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election. Ruling in litigation brought by CREW for records about the deliberations of former Attorney General William Barr in publicly announcing that then-President Donald Trump had not obstructed justice when he attempted to undermine the Mueller investigation, Berman Jackson found that one of the remaining disputed documents was protected by Exemption 5 (privileges) but that the other document was not. CREW sent a FOIA request to the Office of Legal Counsel for records that supported Barr's public conclusion that Trump could not be indicted for obstruction of justice. That request ultimately narrowed to two disputed documents. Addressing the first document, Berman Jackson, after conducting an in camera review, agreed with DOJ that the memo was protected by the deliberative process privilege. She noted that DOJ's affidavit described the document as containing "OLC legal advice and analysis, and also contains client information and descriptions of Department of Justice deliberations." Berman Jackson pointed out that "while these vague references to 'decisionmaking' and 'deliberations' did little to establish the first element of the deliberative process privilege, the in camera review of the record revealed that there was a particular, immediate decision under review to which the document pertained, that there was a particular immediate decision under review to which the document pertained, that it also addressed another specific issue that was likely to arise as a consequence of the determination made with respect to the first, and that the entire memorandum was deliberative with respect to those decisions. The Court therefore finds that it was properly withheld under Exemption 5 and the deliberative process privilege." However, DOJ did not fare nearly as well when it came to the second document. Here, Berman Jackson noted that "the memorandum is largely deliberative. But the Court cannot find the record to be 'predecisional,' because the materials in the record, including the memorandum itself, contradicts the FOIA declarants' assertions that the decision-making process they have identified was in fact underway. Moreover, the record supplies reason to question the communication preceded any decision that was made." DOJ provided affidavits from OLC and the Office of Information Policy making the case that the document was both predecisional and deliberative. To put those claims into context, Berman Jackson described the contents of the document. She explained that the document had two sections. She noted that "Section I offers strategic, as opposed to legal advice, about whether the Attorney General should take a particular course of action, and it made recommendations with respect to that determination, a subject that the agency omitted entirely from its description of the document of the justification for its withholding. This is a problem because Section I is what places Section II and the only topic the agency does identify â€" that is, whether the evidence gathered by the Special Counsel would amount to obstruction of justice â€" into its proper context. Moreover, the redacted portions of Section I reveal that both the authors and the recipient of the memorandum had a shared understanding concerning whether prosecuting the President was a matter to be considered at all. In other words, the review of the document reveals that the Attorney General was not then engaged in making a decision about whether the President should be charged with obstruction of justice; the fact that he would not be prosecuted was a given. The omission of any reference to Section I in the agency's declarations, coupled with the agency's redaction of critical caveats from what it did disclose, served to obscure the true purpose of the memorandum. Thus, the Court's in camera review leads to the conclusion that the agency has fallen far short of meeting its burden to show that the memorandum was 'prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision.'" Large portions of Berman Jackson's opinion were redacted because the memo remained under seal. But her in camera review, "which DOJ strongly resisted," "raises questions about how the Department of Justice could make this series of representations to a court in support of its 2020 motion for summary judgment." She indicated that "in sum, while CREW has never laid eyes on the document, its summary was considerably more accurate than the one supplied by the Department's declarants." She expressed disgust at DOJ's behavior, pointing out that "the affidavits are so inconsistent with evidence in the records, they are not worthy of credence. The review of the unredacted document in camera reveals that the suspicions voiced by. . . plaintiff here were well-founded, and that not only was the Attorney General being disingenuous then, but DOJ has been disingenuous to this Court with respect to the existence of a decision-making process that should be shielded by the deliberative process privilege. The agency's redactions and incomplete explanations obfuscate the true purpose of the memorandum, and the excised portions belie the notion that it fell to the Attorney General to make a prosecution decision or that any such decision was on the table at any time." She also found that the document was not predecisional. She explained that "a close review of the communications reveals that the March 24 letter to Congress describing the Special Counsel report, which assesses the strength of an obstruction-of-justice case, and the 'predecisional' March 24 memorandum advising the Attorney General that. . .the evidence does not support a prosecution, are being written by the very same people at the very same time. The emails show not only that the authors and the recipients of the memorandum are working hand in hand to craft the advice that is supposedly being delivered by OLC, but that the letter to Congress is the priority, and is getting completed first. In sum, the set of emails contained in plaintiff's Exhibit A undermines the uninformed assertions in the declarations upon which the defense relies." Berman Jackson also rejected DOJ's attorney-client privilege claim. She noted that "given the fact that the review of the document in camera reveals that there was no decision actually made as to whether the then-President should be prosecuted. . .the Court is not persuaded that the agency has met its burden to demonstrate that the memorandum was transmitted for the purpose of providing legal advice, as opposed to the strategic and policy advice that falls outside the scope of the privilege. Section I of the memo, which was entirely redacted with no separate justification, contains no legal advice at all, but it offers only. . .strategic advice, so this explanation is entirely deficient to justify the withholding of that portion of the document." She added that "along with the redacted portions of the memorandum, the chronology undermines the assertion that the authors were engaged in providing their legal advice in connection with any sort of pending prosecutorial decision, and this misrepresentation, combined with the lack of candor about what any legal advice provided was for or about, frees the Court from the deference that is ordinarily accorded to agency declarations in FOIA cases." Berman Jackson also dismissed CREW's expedited processing claim as moot. She observed that "the declarations establish that the responses provided to plaintiff on May 22, 2020, by OLC, and on June 17, 2020, by OIP constitute a complete response to the request as it was narrowed by agreement of the parties. Therefore, there is nothing further for the Court to adjudicate."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege, Expedited processing

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2019-05-28	1	COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-6147874) filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Department of Justice, # 3 Summons U.S. Attorney, # 4 Summons Attorney General)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
2019-05-28	2	LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 05/28/2019)
2019-05-31		Case Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (zef, ) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
2019-05-31	3	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zef, ) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
2019-06-12	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 6/7/2019, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 6/7/19., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 6/7/2019. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 7/7/2019.) (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
2019-07-08	5	Partial MOTION to Dismiss by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
2019-07-19	6	Memorandum in opposition to re 5 Partial MOTION to Dismiss filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
2019-07-23	7	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 Partial MOTION to Dismiss by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
2019-07-25		MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time. It is ORDERED that defendant shall file its reply in support of Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss by August 2, 2019. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/25/19. (DMK) (Entered: 07/25/2019)
2019-08-02	8	REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 Partial MOTION to Dismiss filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
2020-01-31	9	ORDER. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12 and 58, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss 5 is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/31/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
2020-01-31	10	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/31/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
2020-02-14	11	ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 02/14/2020)
2020-02-20		MINUTE ORDER. Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. The requirements of Local Civil Rule 16.3 and Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure appear to be inapplicable. Defendant shall file a dispositive motion or, in the alternative, a report setting forth the schedule for the completion of its production of documents to plaintiff, on or before March 20, 2020.SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 2/20/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
2020-02-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file a dispositive motion or, in the alternative, a report setting forth the schedule for the completion of its production of documents to plaintiff, on or before 3/20/2020. (jth) (Entered: 02/21/2020)
2020-03-20	12	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
2020-03-20		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' 12 joint status report, the parties must submit another status report by June 5, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/20/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
2020-06-05	13	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
2020-06-09		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' 13 joint status report, the parties must file another status report by June 24, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/9/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 06/09/2020)
2020-06-24	14	Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Scheduling Order by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 06/24/2020)
2020-07-02		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' 14 joint status report, it is ORDERED that: 1) defendant's motion for summary judgment must be submitted by August 12, 2020; plaintiff's cross-motion and opposition must be submitted by September 2, 2020; defendant's cross-opposition and reply must be submitted by September 23, 2020; and plaintiff's cross-reply must be submitted by October 7, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/2/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
2020-07-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary judgment motion due by 8/12/2020; cross-motion and opposition to motion for summary judgment due by 9/2/2020; opposition to cross-motion and reply to opposition to motion for summary judgment due by 9/23/2020; reply to opposition to cross-motion due by 10/7/2020. (ztg) (Entered: 07/02/2020)
2020-08-12	15	MOTION for Summary Judgment , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Renewed) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum in Support, # 3 Declaration of Paul P. Colborn (with exhibits), # 4 Declaration of Vanessa R. Brinkmann (with exhibit), # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
2020-09-02	16	Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Renewed) filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
2020-09-02	17	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 09/02/2020)
2020-09-03	18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Renewed) , 17 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 09/03/2020)
2020-09-08		MINUTE ORDER. In light of defendant's 18 Agreed Motion for an Enlargement of Time, it is ORDERED that defendant must file its opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment and reply in support of its motion for summary judgment by October 7, 2020, and plaintiff must file its reply in support of its cross-motion by October 21, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/8/2020. (lcabj3) (Entered: 09/08/2020)
2020-10-07	19	Memorandum in opposition to re 17 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Second) of Paul P. Colborn, # 2 Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
2020-10-07	20	REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Renewed) filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Second) of Paul P. Colborn)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
2020-10-20	21	REPLY to opposition to motion re 17 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 10/20/2020)
2021-03-01		MINUTE ORDER. In order to assist the Court in making a responsible de novo determination, defendant is directed to deliver to chambers for in camera inspection, on or before March 8, 2021, the documents that remain in dispute in this case, specifically, the documents designated as Documents 6 (undated, untitled draft memorandum mentioned in the Colborn Declaration [15-3]) and 15 (March 24, 2019 Memorandum, found in redacted form as part of Exhibit A to the Brinkmann Declaration [15-4]). See Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/1/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 03/01/2021)
2021-03-08	22	NOTICE OF DELIVERY FOR IN CAMERA, EX PARTE INSPECTION by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re Order,,, Set Deadlines,, (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 03/08/2021)
2021-05-03	23	UNSEALED PURSUANT TO MINUTE ORDER FILED 05/25/21.....MEMORANDUM OPINION (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/2021. (zjth) (Main Document 23 replaced on 5/4/2021) (zjth). Modified on 5/25/2021 unsealing this document (jth). (Entered: 05/03/2021)
2021-05-03	26	ORDER. It is ORDERED that defendant's 15 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and plaintiff's 17 cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant on Count One with respect to Document 6, and defendant must produce Document 15 to plaintiff. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's 15 renewed motion to dismiss Count Two is GRANTED. Defendant must file any motion to stay by May 17, 2021, and it must inform the Court at that time of its position on whether the memorandum opinion can be unsealed in its entirety. See order for details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/03/2021)
2021-05-03	27	REDACTED - PUBLIC MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/21. (lcabj2) (Main Document 27 replaced on 5/4/2021) (ztnr). (Main Document 27 replaced on 5/25/2021) (zjth). (Entered: 05/03/2021)
2021-05-03	26	ORDER. It is ORDERED that defendant's 15 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, and plaintiff's 17 cross motion for summary judgment is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant on Count One with respect to Document 6, and defendant must produce Document 15 to plaintiff. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's 15 renewed motion to dismiss Count Two is GRANTED. Defendant must file any motion to stay by May 17, 2021, and it must inform the Court at that time of its position on whether the memorandum opinion can be unsealed in its entirety. See order for details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/03/2021)
2021-05-03	27	REDACTED - PUBLIC MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/3/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/03/2021)
2021-05-13	28	NOTICE of Appearance by Conor M. Shaw on behalf of CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Shaw, Conor) (Entered: 05/13/2021)
2021-05-14	29	NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Shapiro on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Shapiro, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/14/2021)
2021-05-14	30	MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Court Order by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shapiro, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/14/2021)
2021-05-14		MINUTE ORDER granting defendant's 30 motion for extension of time. It is ORDERED that defendant must file any motion to stay by May 24, 2021. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/14/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/14/2021)
2021-05-24	31	NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 27 Memorandum & Opinion, 26 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 05/24/2021)
2021-05-24	32	MOTION to Stay re 26 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Straus Harris, Julie) (Entered: 05/24/2021)
2021-05-25	33	Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals docketing fee was not paid because the appeal was filed by the government re 31 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court,. (zjf) (Entered: 05/25/2021)
2021-05-25		MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to unseal the May 3, 2021 Memorandum Opinion 23 in its entirety. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/25/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/25/2021)
2021-05-25		MINUTE ORDER. With its late night filing [32-1], the Department of Justice has complied with that portion of the Court's May 3, 2021 Order 26 calling for the disclosure of the first section of Document 15, which plainly reveals, as DOJ states for the first time in its 32 motion to stay, that after he received the Special Counsel's Report, the Attorney General was considering "electing" to opine on the question of whether the facts in the Special Counsel's Report would support a criminal prosecution, determining "what, if anything, to say to the public about that question" before releasing the Report to the public, and doing so with the understanding that any actual prosecution was constitutionally foreclosed. Plaintiff may submit any response to the defendant's motion to stay the disclosure of the remainder of the memorandum pending appeal by Friday, May 28, 2021. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 5/25/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 05/25/2021)
2021-05-25		USCA Case Number 21-5113 for 31 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (zjf) (Entered: 05/25/2021)
2021-05-28	34	Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION to Stay re 26 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,,,,,, Set/Reset Deadlines,, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR A PARTIAL STAY PENDING APPEAL AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 05/28/2021)
2021-06-14	35	ORDER. The Court GRANTS defendant's 32 motion. See order for details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/14/21. (lcabj2) (Entered: 06/14/2021)
Hide Docket Events