Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: While disposing of most issues left outstanding in a series of lawsuits brought by University of Virginia graduate student Katelyn Sack, Judge Emmet Sullivan has inadvertently exposed the difficulty in making FOIA amendments designed to be favorable to requesters work in practice. By limiting the agency's obligation to clarify a request it finds to be overly burdensome, a feature of the 1996 EFOIA Amendments, Sullivan has allowed agencies to essentially dismiss requests simply because their interpretation made the request too open-ended. Sack made a series of requests to government agencies for records pertaining to their use of polygraphs. One request to the CIA asked for "documents pertaining in whole or in part (all years, all classifications) to a list of closed Inspector General investigations and reports." The agency sent a generic response declining to respond to her request, telling her that "because of the breadth of your request, and the way in which our records systems are configured, the Agency cannot conduct a reasonable search for information responsive to your request." The response encouraged her to narrow the scope of the request by, for example, limiting the time frame, but offered no specifics about why the agency concluded her request was too broad. Although Sack failed to appeal the agency's decision, she still challenged the agency's action by arguing that its decision constituted a failure to search. Examining the parties' arguments, Sullivan first pointed out that the CIA's position was that "the language 'pertaining in whole or in part' was undefined and caused the request to cover any document that is arguably relevant to any list of closed Inspector General investigations and reports, even if the document did not reference such a list." By contrast, Sack claimed her request was considerably more narrow and that she asked only for a list of closed Inspector General investigations and reports and that information would likely be located in only a few offices. Sullivan agreed with the agency, noting that "although plaintiff's request clearly encompasses all lists of closed Inspector General investigations and reports and any documents specifically referencing those lists, it would also cover documents that otherwise relate to those lists." He explained that "the problem for an agency responding to such a request is that the lack of clarity leaves the agency to guess at the plaintiff's intent. . .Indeed, any document related to a closed investigation may arguably pertain, at least 'in part,' to a subsequently generated list of investigations. Given this breadth, the CIA could not assume that responsive documents would be located only in [a few places]. That would be a starting point, but the CIA would also have needed to devise a method to search for records that do not mention a list of closed Inspector General investigations and reports, but still somehow pertain to such a list. This borders on the 'all-encompassing fishing expedition' on which a FOIA requester cannot embark." He added that "this problem is especially acute because the CIA's record-keeping systems do not permit it to 'identify records that do not necessarily reference a document, but which may bear some relation to it'" and observed that "here, 'the breadth of plaintiff's request is not compatible with the CIA's document retrieval system, and plaintiff must deal with that system as it is.'" Sullivan acknowledged that Sack had ultimately clarified her request but that she did so too late. "Faced with the task of guessing at plaintiff's intent regarding what might 'pertain' to any list of closed Inspector General reports and investigations, the CIA followed a reasonable path: it sought additional guidance from the requester and, when none was provided, closed the file." While outcomes like this happen all the time, they underscore how discouraging and unenlightening such responses can be to requesters. A built-in disadvantage to FOIA requesters is that most requesters are interested in records pertaining to a subject, but don't know much about how the agency's records are compiled or maintained. To try to capture the greatest amount of responsive information, requesters frequently include expansive descriptions to prevent the agency from unduly narrowing its interpretation of the request. It certainly isn't surprising that many such requests seem overly broad, but Section (6)(B)(ii) instructs agencies to give requesters an opportunity to limit the scope of the request and to make available its FOIA Public Liaison [added by the 2007 OPEN Government Act amendments] to "assist in the resolution of any disputes between the requester and the agency." Certainly the underlying intent for such a provision is to force the agency and the requester to clarify requests and, if possible, to narrow them. But by rejecting requests with nothing more than a generic explanation, the agency probably skirts the requirements of the provision without providing much clarification. In this case, if the CIA indeed was worried about the potentially untethered nature of Sack's request, the best outcome for both parties would have been for the CIA to explain its concerns and offer some alternative rather than rejecting the request without further consideration. In a footnote, Sullivan indicated that during the litigation, the CIA did search for a list and did not find one. The rest of Sack's case involved whether the CIA, the DIA, and the FBI had properly withheld records pertaining to their polygraph programs under Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 3 (other statutes) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Sullivan found that Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act protected many of the records claimed by both the CIA and the DIA. But he became the third district court judge in the D.C. Circuit to find that Section 6 of the CIA Act, protecting information about the functions of CIA personnel, covered only personnel and not the functions of the agency itself. Sullivan upheld the use of Exemption 7(E) to protect DIA polygraph training materials. Sack argued that some of the materials pertained to practices already adopted by the agency, but Sullivan indicated that "even if some of the findings have been used to improve polygraph practices, 'harm would be caused to the overall process were it to be disclosed precisely which. . .vulnerabilities have been suitably addressed and which remain a critical task.' These statements are sufficient to meet the agency's burden of showing that release of the information could lead to circumvention of current law-enforcement techniques."
Issues: Request - Specificity, Exemption 3, Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2012-02-14	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616046027) filed by KATELYN SACK. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
2012-02-14		SUMMONS (5) Issued as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 02/15/2012)
2012-03-20	2	NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander Daniel Shoaibi on behalf of All Defendants (Shoaibi, Alexander) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-03-21	3	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shoaibi, Alexander) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
2012-03-21		MINUTE ORDER granting 3 defendant's consent motion for an extension of time. Defendant shall file a response to the complaint by no later than April 23, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 21, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 03/21/2012)
2012-03-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/23/2012, (clv, ) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
2012-04-20	4	Joint MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shoaibi, Alexander) (Entered: 04/20/2012)
2012-04-23		MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' joint motion for entry of a briefing schedule, the parties are directed to comply with the following briefing schedule: defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be filed no later than June 22, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed no later than July 23, 2012. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendants' reply and, if applicable, combined opposition shall be filed by no later than August 17, 2012. Plaintiff's reply, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than September 7, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 23, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 04/23/2012)
2012-04-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgement motion due by 6/22/12; response and Cross Motions due by 7/23/2012; reply and Response to Cross Motions due by 8/17/2012. Reply to Cross Motions due by 9/7/2012.. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
2012-06-22	5	Joint MOTION to Modify Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shoaibi, Alexander) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
2012-06-28		MINUTE ORDER granting 5 joint motion for modification of proposed briefing schedule. Defendants shall provide estimated dates of completion to Plaintiff for each currently-pending FOIA request in this case by no later than July 9, 2012. Defendants shall make an interim release by no later than August 24, 2012 of all documents processed so far in any still-pending FOIA requests in this case. Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than October 24, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than November 23, 2012. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendants' reply and, if applicable, combined opposition, shall be filed by no later than December 10, 2012. Plaintiff's reply to defendants' cross-motion, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than December 17, 2012. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 28, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
2012-07-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: defendant's estimated dates of completion due by 7/9/12; defendant's interim release due by 8/24/12; defendant's motion for summary judgment due by 10/23/12; response and cross motion due by 11/23/12; reply and response due by 12/10/12; reply due by 12/17/12. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/03/2012)
2012-10-18	6	Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
2012-10-18	7	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Peter C. Pfaffenroth on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney Alexander D. Shoaibi (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
2012-10-23		MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6 the parties' consent motion for an extension of the briefing schedule. Defendants' motion for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than December 14, 2012. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than January 11, 2013. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendants' reply and, if applicable, combined opposition, shall be filed by no later than January 25, 2013. Plaintiff's reply, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than February 1, 2013. Plaintiff's request for a draft Vaughn index is hereby DENIED. Future extensions of time will not be granted absent exigent circumstances. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 23, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
2012-10-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Motion for summary judgment due by 12/14/12; plaintiff's Cross Motions and response due by 1/11/2013; Defendants response and reply due by 1/25/2013. Plaintiff's Reply to Cross Motions due by 2/1/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-12-14	8	Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to the Existing Briefing Schedule (One Week) and the Establishment of a Separate Briefing Schedule for Claims Against the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Declaration of J. Miller), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
2012-12-18		MINUTE ORDER denying 8 joint motion for extension of time and establishment of separate briefing schedule for claims against the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General. The Court is not inclined to bifurcate the summary judgment briefing at this time. Rather, in view of the parties' representations that settlement discussions have been ongoing, the Court hereby schedules a status hearing for January 11, 2013 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 24A. The parties shall be prepared to propose a new summary judgment briefing schedule for all claims that remain at the January 11 hearing. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the current summary judgment briefing schedule is hereby VACATED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 18, 2012. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
2012-12-20		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 1/11/2013 01:00 PM in Courtroom 24A before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. (clv, ) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
2013-01-11		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan: Status Conference held on 1/11/2013. Order to be presentec. (Court Reporter VICKI EASTFOLD.) (clv, ) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
2013-01-11		MINUTE ORDER. The parties are directed comply with the following summary judgment briefing schedule: defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than April 16, 2013. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than May 14, 2013. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendant's reply and, if applicable, combined opposition shall be filed by no later than June 4, 2013. Plaintiff's reply, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than June 18, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on January 11, 2013. (lcegs2) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
2013-01-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment Motions due by 4/16/13; response and Cross Motions due by 5/14/2013; reply and Response to Cross Motions due by 6/4/2013; Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/18/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 01/14/2013)
2013-02-12	9	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by KATELYN SACK. Case related to Case No. 12-537, 12-1754, 12-1755. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - 12-537 notice, # 2 Exhibit - 12-1754 notice, # 3 Exhibit - 12-1755 notice)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/12/2013)
2013-02-15	10	NOTICE of Response to Plaintiff's Notice of Related Cases by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 9 Notice of Related Case (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-04-15	11	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment (Nine Day Extension) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
2013-04-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 11 Defendant's consent motion for extension of time to file motion for summary judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than April 25, 2013. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than May 23, 2013. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendant's reply and, if applicable, combined opposition shall be filed by no later than June 13, 2013. Plaintiff's reply, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than June 27, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 16, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
2013-04-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 4/25/12; Cross Motions and response due by 5/23/2013. Reply and Response to Cross Motions due by 6/13/2013. Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/27/2013.. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/17/2013)
2013-04-24	12	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment (8 Day Extension Requested) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 04/24/2013)
2013-04-25	13	STIPULATION re 1 Complaint regarding Sufficiency of the Defendants' Searches and Stipulation of Dismissal of Certain Claims (Joint Stipulation) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 04/25/2013)
2013-04-26		MINUTE ORDER granting 12 defendants' consent motion for 8 day extension of time to file their motion for summary judgment. Defendant's motion for summary judgment shall be filed by no later than May 3, 2013. Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by no later than May 31, 2013. If plaintiff chooses to file a cross-motion, it shall be combined with the opposition and filed on the same date. Defendant's reply and, if applicable, combined opposition shall be filed by no later than June 21, 2013. Plaintiff's reply, if applicable, shall be filed by no later than July 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 26, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 04/26/2013)
2013-04-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 5/3/2013. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion due by 5/31/2013. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/21/2013. Plaintiffs' Reply due by 7/5/2013. (mac) (Entered: 04/29/2013)
2013-05-03	14	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Declaration of CIA, # 5 Declaration of CIA (exhibits thereto), # 6 CIA Vaughn Index (Count 2), # 7 CIA Vaughn Index (Count 3), # 8 CIA Vaughn Index (Count 4), # 9 Declaration of DIA, # 10 DIA Vaughn Index (all DIA counts and referred DoD OIG documents), # 11 Declaration of DoD OIG, # 12 DoD OIG Vaughn Index (Count 12), # 13 Declaration of FBI, # 14 Declaration of AFRICOM, # 15 Declaration of Joint Staff, # 16 Declaration of NCIS, # 17 Declaration of NGA-OIG, # 18 Declaration of NSA, # 19 Declaration of DUSD I&S)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
2013-05-06	15	NOTICE of Correction to Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
2013-05-15	16	NOTICE of Lodging of Classified Declaration in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 05/15/2013)
2013-05-31	17	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
2013-06-03	18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
2013-06-04		MINUTE ORDER granting 17 , 18 consent motions for extension of time to file opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff shall file her opposition by no later than June 7, 2013, and defendant shall file its reply by no later than July 3, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 4, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
2013-06-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/7/2013. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/3/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
2013-06-07	19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
2013-06-07		MINUTE ORDER granting 19 plaintiff's unopposed motion for third extension of time to respond to motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff shall file her response by no later than June 10, 2013. Defendant shall file its reply by no later than July 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 7, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
2013-06-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/10/2013. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/5/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
2013-06-10	20	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/10/2013)
2013-06-12		MINUTE ORDER. Pending before the Court is plaintiff's fourth motion for extension of time -- all filed within the last two weeks -- to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment. It is a waste of the Court's and the parties' resources to continually deal with such minute requests. Accordingly, although at this time plaintiff only requests an extension of time until June 14, 2013, the Court grants an extension of time until June 24, 2013. Plaintiff shall respond to the motion for summary judgment by no later than June 24, 2013. Further extensions of time will not be granted absent exigent circumstances. Defendants shall file their reply by no later than July 22, 2013. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 12, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/24/2013. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/22/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-24	21	Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by KATELYN SACK. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - DIA partial releases, # 2 Exhibit B - PDD Examinations, # 3 Exhibit C - PDD Operational Manual, # 4 Exhibit D - FBI release, # 5 Exhibit E - CIA IG list 2001-2006, # 6 Exhibit F - CIA IG list 1990-1997, # 7 Exhibit G - Thermal image email, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-07-11	22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 07/11/2013)
2013-07-12		MINUTE ORDER granting 22 defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment by no later than October 25, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 12, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
2013-07-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: RDefendant reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/25/2013. (clv, ) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
2013-08-18	23	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by KATELYN SACK (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/18/2013)
2013-10-21	24	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
2013-10-22		MINUTE ORDER granting 24 defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment by no later than November 25, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on October 22, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
2013-10-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion For Summary Judgment due by 11/25/2013. (mac) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
2013-11-21	25	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
2013-11-21		MINUTE ORDER granting 25 defendants' consent motion for extension of time. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment by no later than December 24, 2013. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 21, 2013. (lcegs4) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
2013-11-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/24/2013. (mac) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
2013-12-20	26	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-20		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 defendants' fourth unopposed motion for extension of time to file a reply in support of their motion for summary judgment. Defendants shall file their reply in support of their motion for summary judgment by no later than January 10, 2014. Further requests for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on December 20, 2013. (lcegs2) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/10/2014. (mac) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
2014-01-10	27	REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 CIA Supplemental Declaration, # 2 DIA Supplemental Declaration, # 3 Second FBI Declaration)(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
2014-01-28	28	NOTICE (Letter to Calendar and Case Management Committee) by KATELYN SACK (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
2014-02-04	29	RESPONSE re 28 Notice (Other) (Plaintiff's Letter to Calendar and Case Management Committee) filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 02/04/2014)
2014-02-09	30	MOTION for Leave to Partially Rescind Stipulation or, in the Alternative, for a Status Conference re 13 Stipulation, by KATELYN SACK (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - OLC Vaughn index, # 2 Exhibit B - OLC release letter, # 3 Exhibit C - 1967 OLC opinion, # 4 Exhibit D - Pfaffenroth-McClanahan email chain, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 02/09/2014)
2014-02-26	31	Memorandum in opposition to re 30 MOTION for Leave to Partially Rescind Stipulation or, in the Alternative, for a Status Conference re 13 Stipulation, and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Dismissed Claim filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
2014-03-09	32	REPLY to opposition to motion re 30 MOTION for Leave to Partially Rescind Stipulation or, in the Alternative, for a Status Conference re 13 Stipulation, filed by KATELYN SACK. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/09/2014)
2014-07-10	33	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by KATELYN SACK (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
2014-07-10	34	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 14 defendants' motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
2014-07-10	35	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 10, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
2014-07-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/1/2014. (mac) (Entered: 07/10/2014)
2014-08-01	36	STATUS REPORT (Joint) by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
2014-08-04		MINUTE ORDER. The Court adopts the briefing schedule proposed by the parties in 36 their joint status report. Defendants shall file their renewed motion for summary judgment by no later than November 24, 2014. Plaintiff shall file her opposition by no later than December 29, 2014. Defendants shall file their reply in further support of their motion by no later than January 23, 2015. Given the extended briefing schedule that the parties have requested, the Court will not grant requests to further extend the briefing schedule absent an exceedingly persuasive justification. Finally, the Court notes that in 36 their joint status report, the parties asserted that "the sole issues remaining for resolution... concern [the] CIA's withholding... of certain information under Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Act." In fact, the Court also has yet to rule on the issue of segregability with respect to any of the CIA's withholdings that plaintiff challenged in 21 her opposition, Opinion, ECF No. 35 at 43 n.19, and the Court has also held that DODIG failed to make a segregability showing with respect to documents IG-3 and IG-4 because it "did not... describe 'with reasonable specificity' why IG-3 and IG-4 were withheld in full." Id. at 44-45. In light of this Court's "affirmative duty to consider the segregability issue sua sponte," Juarez v. Dep't of Justice, 518 F.3d 54, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the parties' supplemental briefing shall address these segregability issues as well as the dispute over withholdings under the Central Intelligence Act. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 4, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
2014-08-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Renewed Motion For Summary Judgment ue by 11/24/2014. Plaintiff Opposition to Motion For Summary Judgment due by 12/29/2014. Defendant Reply In Support Of Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/23/2015. (mac) (Entered: 08/04/2014)
2014-11-24	37	STIPULATION as to the Sufficiency of Defendants' Production by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (DoD OIG Supplemental Declaration))(Pfaffenroth, Peter) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
2014-11-25		MINUTE ORDER. In light of 37 the joint stipulation, which indicates that the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General and the Central Intelligence Agency have released to plaintiff "new copies of documents... with significantly fewer withholdings," Stipulation, ECF No. 37 at 1, and that plaintiff has no objection to the grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the remaining withholdings, it is hereby ORDERED that judgment be granted to the defendants on the remaining withholdings. The Court further finds that the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General has shouldered its burden of demonstrating that all reasonably segregable portions of records have been provided. See Sack v. CIA, No. 12-244, 2014 WL 3375568, at *16-17 (D.D.C. July 10, 2014). In light of the fact that all merits issues in this case have been resolved, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on November 25, 2014. (lcegs2) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
Hide Docket Events