Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: In a companion decision, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that Lawrence Rosenberg failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he filed suit four days after receiving ICE's acknowledgement of his administrative appeal. Rosenberg had requested documents concerning the raid on Agriprocessors' meatpacking plant and the subsequent prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin in September 2011. The agency determined that part of Rosenberg's request was duplicative of a 2009 request filed by Rubashkin's previous counsel. The agency located 166 pages and three spreadsheets responsive to the 2009 request, withholding parts of 155 pages and the three spreadsheets in February 2012. Rosenberg filed an administrative appeal March 16, 2012, which ICE acknowledged on March 22, indicating that because of the large volume of appeals, "there may be some delay in resolving this matter." Rosenberg called the ICE FOIA office on March 23 inquiring as to how long it would take to receive a response to his appeal. After the FOIA office indicated his appeal had just been received, Rosenberg, according to ICE, threatened to sue over the agency's slow response and hung up. He then filed suit the same day. Rosenberg argued that he had exhausted his administrative remedies because ICE's acknowledgement letter constituted a denial of his request to expedite his appeal. He also argued that pursuing the appeal would be futile and that Rubashkin would be irreparably harmed if exhaustion was required. Kollar-Kotelly noted that "the only thing the letter purported to do was to acknowledge receipt of the Plaintiff's appeal and indicate there may be some delay in processing the appeal. The letter did not purport to address any of the substantive issues raised in the Plaintiff's appeal." Rosenberg argued the letter constituted the agency's determination that it would be unable to meet the statutory time limit. But Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "this argument assumes that which the Plaintiff seeks to prove: that the March 22 letter was a determination by the agency. The fact that 'ICE's letter spoke to Plaintiff's time concerns, even though it made clear that it would not act in an urgent or expedited manner' at best means the letter constituted the consummation of the agency's decisionmaking process as to the timing of the Plaintiff's appeal. The letter did not purport to convey any agency position regarding the merits of the Plaintiff's appeal, much less the agency's final decision." She observed that "assuming arguendo ICE's March 22, 2012, letter amounted to a denial of a request for expedited consideration of the Plaintiff's appeal, at best the Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies as to the request for expedited treatment of his appeal." She added that "even if a party exhausts his administrative remedies as to a particular aspect of his claim, the court's review is limited to those objections and arguments that were subject to full administrative review." She indicated that "Plaintiff filed suit just three days after ICE received his appeal and before the agency had the opportunity to consider any of the Plaintiff's substantive arguments regarding the scope of the agency's search, applicability of certain withholdings, and need for a Vaughn index. The Plaintiff filed suit before the agency issued a final determination on the merits of his appeal, and weeks before the agency was required by statute to issue a final determination, thus denying the agency the opportunity to review its initial determination, correct any errors, or create an adequate record." Dismissing Rosenberg's futility argument, Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "the fact that the agency has elected to await the Court's disposition of the present motions before drafting a Vaughn index or otherwise reconsidering its response to the Plaintiff's request does not show futility." Further, "the agency has indicated that it is willing to produce a Vaughn index and reconsider certain issues if additional information is provided by the Plaintiff." She also noted Rosenberg was in part responsible for the delay. She observed that "in lamenting the amount of time that has elapsed since the Plaintiff submitted his request to ICE, the Plaintiff omits the fact that rather than file suit after ICE failed to initially comply with the statutory deadlines, he waited over five months for the agency to respond." She concluded that "the agency's interest in having the opportunity to correct its own errors and create an adequate record for review outweigh the Plaintiff's interest in immediate judicial review, particularly in light of the Plaintiff's extensive delay in pursuing his own claims."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Collen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that Lawrence Rosenberg failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he did not appeal EOUSA's decision to require a substantial prepayment of fees before processing his request concerning a 2008 raid on the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant in Iowa and the subsequent prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin, and its refusal to search for records on third parties without further clarification. Kollar-Kotelly also dismissed Rosenberg's claim against the Marshals Service since he failed to file an administrative appeal. EOUSA divided Rosenberg's multi-part request into two parts, one concerning the prosecution of Rubashkin by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern District of Iowa, and the other for information concerning third parties. It told Rosenberg that it would not process the request for third party information without waivers for the individuals. Rosenberg did not appeal the denial, but filed suit against several agencies in March 2012. In June 2012, EOUSA informed Rosenberg that the Northern District of Iowa office had estimated that at least 33 backup tapes would have to be restored at a cost of $37,684, and that further required hosting and processing would cost another $120,000. The EOUSA letter indicated that his request would not be considered received until the agency either heard back from him within 30 days or he appealed the decision to OIP. Rosenberg did not contact EOUSA or appeal its decision. The Marshals Service located 166 pages, referred 98 pages to EOUSA or ICE, and on Nov. 2, 2011, disclosed 58 pages in full or part. Rosenberg did not appeal the Marshal Services' response. Rosenberg argued that §552(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I), which prohibits agencies from charging fees if they miss any time limit, barred EOUSA from assessing fees. But Kollar-Kotelly indicated that the prohibition did not apply if unusual or exceptional circumstances existed. She observed that "because unusual circumstances apply to the Plaintiff's request, the EOUSA is entitled to impose search fees on Plaintiff despite failing to comply with the timing requirements of paragraph (6)." Rosenberg contended that since the agency had failed to notify him that unusual circumstances existed, as required by §552(a)(6)(B)(i)-(ii), it could not claim unusual circumstances. But Kollar-Kotelly explained that "the plain text of 552(a)(4)(A)(viii) requires only that unusual circumstances as defined by paragraph (6)(B) or (C) exist, not that unusual circumstances exist and that the agency properly seek additional time to respond to the request in light of unusual circumstances." Rosenberg then claimed that the agency was precluded from assessing fees because it had failed to request them before litigation or during the administrative process. Kollar-Kotelly noted that "the fact that a fee request was made after the Plaintiff commenced litigation does not excuse the Plaintiff from paying the requested fees." In response, Rosenberg asserted that earlier case law had been superseded by the 2007 provision prohibiting an agency from charging fees if it missed the time limit. Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, pointing out that "the 2007 amendments limited the situations in which an agency can impose fees, but has no effect on the principle set forth in [earlier case law] that when a fee request is valid, a plaintiff must comply, even if the agency did not submit the fee request until after the plaintiff filed suit." As to Rosenberg's contention that the agency had failed to argue the fees issue at the administrative level, Kollar-Kotelly observed that "the EOUSA cannot be faulted for failing to raise arguments during administrative proceedings when the Plaintiff elected to bypass administrative proceedings altogether." Rosenberg also claimed the fee estimate was unreasonable. But Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "the fees are based on estimates of the hours that would be required for each step in the process of restoring the back-up tapes that may contain responsive documents. The fees are in accordance with Department of Justice regulations, and the EOUSA provided the Plaintiff the opportunity to reformulate his request or specify that he would only pay up to a certain amount." Turning to EOUSA's denial of his request for third-party personal information, Rosenberg's primary argument was that EOUSA had failed to take into account that many of the 101 individuals named in his request were public officials whose privacy interests were diminished. Kollar-Kotelly indicated that "the Plaintiff [does not] suggest he could not identify which of the individuals he included in his own FOIA request were 'public officials' not subject to Privacy Act withholdings. The fact that the Plaintiff would have liked an explicit list of the paragraphs [in his request] the EOUSA included within the scope of [the third-party information request] before drafting his appeal does not excuse his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies." As to the Marshals Service request, Rosenberg contended that he thought the agency's response letter indicated that it was still working on the request rather than constituting a final response. Saying that "there is no evidence to suggest the Marshals Service ever indicated to the Plaintiff that a search for potentially responsive documents was ongoing," Kollar-Kotelly rejected Rosenberg's claim that records produced during the litigation indicated that the Marshals Service was still in the process of responding to his request. However, Kollar-Kotelly observed that "to the contrary [the agency's] unrefuted declaration indicates that the agency re-reviewed records during the course of this litigation. Though the June 2012 production [of records] is arguably relevant to the adequacy of the agency's initial search, it does not call into question the finality of the agency's [response] letter."
Issues: Litigation - Jurisdiction - Failure to Exhaust, Time Limits - Exceptional circumstances

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the FBI properly withheld information concerning its role in the investigation and prosecution of Sholom Rubashkin for using illegal immigrants at his meat-packing plant, Agriprocessors, in Iowa under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources), and Exemption 7(E) (investigatory methods and techniques). Although she faulted the agency's search, she also rejected Lawrence Rosenberg's claim that the agency had not promptly responded to his request. In her third ruling on Rosenberg's multi-agency FOIA suit, Kollar-Kotelly noted initially that the FBI had located 1,223 potentially responsive pages and had asked Rosenberg in October 2011to commit to pay duplication fees of $112.30 for paper records or $20 for the cost of a CD. Rosenberg did not respond to the agency's letter and the agency closed his request. Rosenberg instead filed suit against several agencies, including the FBI, in March 2012. In response to the litigation, the agency disclosed 39 pages in full and 322 pages in part. It withheld 155 pages pursuant to exemptions and the remaining 450 pages that had been sealed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. Rosenberg first claimed that he was not required to respond to the FBI's fee commitment letter because the agency's regulations presumed a requester was liable for $25 by merely making a request. But Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "because the Plaintiff failed to respond to the FBI's letter, the FBI had no way of knowing whether the Plaintiff would elect to receive responsive documents on disk, thus incurring no more than $25 in duplication fees, or whether the Plaintiff would elect to receive the documents in hard copy, thus incurring up to $112.30 in duplication fees. [The section of the regulations committing to pay $25] did not come into play unless and until the Plaintiff indicated in which format responsive documents should be produced." Dismissing Rosenberg's claim that the agency had not responded promptly, Kollar-Kotelly noted that "this argument ignores the fact that the FBI's statutory obligation to respond 'promptly' terminated in November 2011 when the Plaintiff failed to response to the agency's October 19, 2011, letter. The Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that the FBI's decision to produce documents in response to this litigation triggered any statutory duty to produce documents within a particular time frame." Rosenberg challenged the search by arguing that the agency had narrowed its search terms inappropriately and that it had never explained why it only searched its Central Records System database. Kollar-Kotelly agreed that the agency's explanation was inadequate. She indicated that "neither [of the agency's affidavits] even attempts to establish that the requested communications between the FBI and various third parties prior to or after the raid are likely to be found in the Central Records System." She observed that "the Court finds the FBI failed to meet its burden to show that the search it conducted was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant communications between that third parties that could be retrieved by conducting queries for 'Agriprocessors Inc.' or 'Sholom Rubashkin.'" She found that "on several pages the FBI redacted information describing actions taken (or not taken) by third parties that does not appear to identify any third party whose identity might be protected by Exemption 6 or Exemption 7(C). Therefore, the FBI must either revise its redactions or provide a supplemental explanation of the use of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) with respect to [those] pages." Rosenberg challenged the agency's withholding of information about Chief District Court Judge Linda Reade, whom Rosenberg accused of misconduct. But after reviewing Reade's involvement in the case, Kollar-Kotelly commented that "on this record, no reasonable person would belief Chief Judge Reade engaged in misconduct." Upholding several FBI claims under Exemption 7(E), Kollar-Kotelly rejected the agency's 7(E) claim for questions pertaining to an obstruction of justice investigation. She observed that "the FBI offers no explanation as to how revealing the specific questions the agency suggested be asked as part of an investigation of possible obstruction of justice through the placement of a newspaper ad concerning an upcoming trial 'could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.'"
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the FBI conducted an adequate search for records pertaining to a multi-part request concerning the investigation and conviction of Sholom Rubashkin for mail fraud and related financial crimes. Kollar-Kotelly also found the FBI had properly invoked Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) to withhold or redact records. Rubashkin operated Agriprocessors, a kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa that employed hundreds of illegal immigrants. He was arrested after his plant was raided in 2008 and convicted in 2011. Lawrence Rosenberg, Rubashkin's attorney, submitted a detailed 39-paragraph request to the FBI for records pertaining to the raid of Agriprossessors and Rubashkin's subsequent investigation and conviction, including a lengthy list of 101 individuals. In an earlier decision, Kollar-Kotelly upheld most of the agency's claims but found the agency had not yet adequately explained its search and that a handful of exemption claims had not been adequately justified. This time around, Kollar-Kotelly found the agency had complied except in minor respects. Rosenberg complained the agency had failed to explain why it only searched its Central Records System. But Kollar-Kotelly noted the agency had explained that after searching the CRS there were no indications that responsive records might exist elsewhere. She noted that "courts have consistently held that the results of a search are relevant in so far as the content of the responsive records may indicate potentially responsive records in other unsearched locations." But in this case, the agency found no indications of the existence of other records after searching the CRS. As a result, Kollar-Kotelly observed that "the FBI conducted a broad search for potentially responsive records in the database most likely to contain such records and had no factual basis�"before or after conducting that search�"to believe that responsive documents were likely to be found in any other location." Although Rosenberg complained that the agency continued to withhold too much information under Exemption 7(C), Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "the FBI's redactions [are] particularly appropriate and necessary to protect the privacy interests of third parties given the small community in which the crime that is the subject of Plaintiff's FOIA request took place." Kollar-Kotelly acknowledged that the agency was able to withhold more information in instances where Exemption 7(D) applied. She agreed with the FBI that many individuals spoke with an implied assurance of confidentiality. She indicated that "the Court finds that the severity of the crime and the close association that certain informants had with Mr. Rubashkin, Agriprocessors, or Mr. Rubashkin's fraudulent activity permit a reasonable inference that for these informants 'the communication in all likelihood would not have been made if confidentiality had not been assured.'" While the FBI had withheld information about reports submitted under the Bank Secrecy Act under Exemption 7(E), Kollar-Kotelly now accepted the agency's suggestion that they were protected under Exemption 3 (other statutes). She noted that "while the FBI's discussion of the BSA was initially offered as a justification for the applicability of Exemption 7(E), the FBI's argument regarding the applicability of the BSA's exemptions as the basis for Exemption 3 is no different. Thus, the Court finds Plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to the argument that is the foundation of the FBI's invocation of Exemption 3. In light of this, and the BSA's clear command that records of BSA reports shall not be disclosed, the Court finds it appropriate to consider the FBI's invocation of Exemption 3 'in order to achieve a just result.'"
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Adequacy - Search, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 7(D) - Confidential sources

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2012-03-23	1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0090-2873252) filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
2012-03-23	2	NOTICE OF FILING SUMMONS by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG re 1 Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/23/2012)
2012-03-23		Case Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (sth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
2012-03-26	3	NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED SUMMONS by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/26/2012)
2012-03-27	4	Electronic Summons (7) Issued as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, US ATTORNEY AND US ATTORNEY GENERAL. (sth) (Entered: 03/27/2012)
2012-03-28	5	ORDER Establishing Procedures for Filing for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, signed on March 28, 2012. (SM) (Entered: 03/28/2012)
2012-05-16	6	RULE 4(m) ORDER. In order to avoid the finality of a mandatory dismissal of this action against any unserved Defendants, by no later than July 23, 2012, Plaintiffs must either cause process to be served upon Defendants and proof of service to be filed with the Court or establish good cause for the failure to do so. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 16, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
2012-05-16	7	NOTICE OF FILING AMENDED SUMMONS by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Summons Amended Summons for Service to FBI)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 05/16/2012)
2012-05-21	8	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (1) REISSUED as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (jeb, ) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
2012-06-12	9	NOTICE of Appearance by Venetia D. Bell on behalf of EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	10	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 5/24/2012. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 6/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	11	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 05/24/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	12	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE served on 5/18/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	13	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT served on 5/25/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	14	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION served on 5/29/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-12	15	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS served on 5/24/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 06/12/2012)
2012-06-14	16	First MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 06/14/2012)
2012-06-19		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Defendants in this case filed a 16 First Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint on June 14, 2012. Defendants represent that, at the time of their filing, Plaintiff's counsel had not responded to attempts to ascertain his position on the requested extension. To date, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. By no later than JUNE 20, 2012, at 12:00 p.m., Plaintiff shall file an opposition or the Court shall deem the motion to be unopposed. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 19, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/19/2012)
2012-06-20		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Defendants' unopposed 16 First Motion for Extension of Time to Respond is GRANTED. Defendants shall have to and including AUGUST 20, 2012, to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 20, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
2012-06-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to complaint due by 8/20/2012. (alp) (Entered: 06/27/2012)
2012-08-14	17	Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
2012-08-14	18	NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OPPOSE SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
2012-08-17		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). On August 14, 2012, Defendants filed a 17 Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint ("Motion for Extension"). Later that same day, Plaintiff filed a 18 Notice of Intention to Oppose Request for Extension of Time, indicating that he "intends to file a full opposition to the government's motion by close of business, Tuesday August 21," and "does not oppose a short extension of time to allow full briefing on, and the Court's consideration of the government's pending motion." Accordingly, in order to allow the parties to brief and the Court to consider Defendants' Motion for Extension, Defendants' time to respond to the Complaint is EXTENDED from August 20, 2012 to and including AUGUST 31, 2012. Plaintiff shall file his opposition to Defendants' Motion to Extend by no later than AUGUST 21, 2012, at 5:00 p.m.; Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by no later than AUGUST 24, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on August 17, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
2012-08-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 8/31/2012. Response due by 8/21/2012, at 5:00 p.m. Reply due by 8/24/2012, at 9:00 a.m. (dot ) (Entered: 08/17/2012)
2012-08-21	19	Memorandum in opposition to re 17 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 08/21/2012)
2012-08-27	20	ORDER. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' 17 Motion for Extension is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall produce all non-exempt, responsive records and respond to the Complaint by no later than September 10, 2012. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on August 27, 2012. (lcckk3).....(VACATED IN PART PURSUANT TO ORDER FILED 9/6/2012).....Modified on 9/10/2012 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/27/2012)
2012-08-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/10/2012. (dot ) (Entered: 08/29/2012)
2012-08-30	21	MOTION for Reconsideration re 20 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Declaration Sean J. Vanek, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
2012-08-31		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). On August 30, 2012, Defendants filed a 21 Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's 20 Order dated August 27, 2012 insofar as it requires Defendants to produce all non-exempt, responsive records by September 10, 2012. In order to permit prompt resolution of Defendants' motion, the parties shall adhere to the following schedule: Plaintiff shall file an opposition to Defendants' motion by no later than Tuesday, September 4, 2012, at 9:00 a.m.; Defendants shall file their reply, if any, by no later than Tuesday, September 4, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. Defendants are cautioned that they should not assume that their motion will be granted. Unless and until the motion is granted, Defendants should be prepared to comply with the Court's order by producing all non-exempt, responsive records by September 10, 2012. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on August 31, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/31/2012)
2012-09-04	22	Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION for Reconsideration re 20 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
2012-09-04	23	REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION for Reconsideration re 20 Order on Motion for Extension of Time to, Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/04/2012)
2012-09-06	24	ORDER. For the reasons set forth herein, Defendants' 21 Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court's 20 Order dated August 27, 2012 is VACATED insofar as it required Defendants to "produce all non-exempt, responsive records... by no later than September 10, 2012." However, Defendants shall still be required to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint by no later than September 10, 2012. The parties shall meet and confer and, by no later than September 13, 2012, file a Joint Status Report proposing a schedule for further proceedings, including a reasonable briefing schedule for any dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on September 6, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
2012-09-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 9/10/2012. Meet & Confer Statement due by 9/13/2012. (dot ) (Entered: 09/07/2012)
2012-09-10	25	ANSWER to Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE.(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
2012-09-10	26	STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
2012-09-10	27	MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sean J. Vanek, # 2 Declaration of Kathleen Brandon, # 3 Declaration of William E. Bordley, # 4 Exhibit EOUSA's November 25, 2011 Letter, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
2012-09-13	28	STATUS REPORT (Joint) and Plaintiff's Request for Status Conference by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
2012-09-13	29	MOTION for Status Conference by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (See Docket Entry 28 to view document) (dr) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
2012-09-17	30	SCHEDULING AND PROCEDURES ORDER. Upon careful consideration of the parties' 28 Joint Status Report and Plaintiff's Request for Status Conference, dated September 13, 2012, Plaintiff's 29 Motion for a Status Conference is DENIED. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule. With Respect to the FBI: The Court is not satisfied by the FBI's mere assertion that it has withheld approximately 650 pages of documents, and has redacted portions of the remaining approximately 350 pages, that it is appropriate to afford the FBI an additional four months, in addition to the time the agency has already had, to prepare a Vaughn index. Therefore, by no later than September 24, 2012, the FBI shall file a Status Report, accompanied by a declaration from an appropriate agency authority, justifying their requested deadline. However, the FBI is strongly encouraged to reconsider its ability to prepare a Vaughn index on a more expedited basis. Following the filing of the FBI's Status Report, the parties shall meet and confer and, by no later than September 28, 2012, file a Joint Status Report proposing a schedule for briefing dispositive motions resolving Plaintiff's claims against the FBI. With Respect to the EOUSA and the USMS: Plaintiff shall file his opposition to the EOUSA's and the USMS's 27 Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than October 10, 2012; and the EOUSA and the USMS shall file their reply, if any, by no later than October 24, 2012. With Respect to the ICE: The ICE shall file its anticipated dispositive motion by no later than September 24, 2012; Plaintiff shall file his opposition by no later than October 17, 2012; and the ICE shall file its reply, if any, by no later than October 30, 2012. Further, in order to administer this civil action in a manner fair to the litigants and consistent with the parties' interest in completing this litigation in the shortest possible time and at the least possible cost, the parties are directed to comply with each of the directives set forth in this Order. [See full text of Order] Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on September 17, 2012. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
2012-09-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: ICE, Dispositive Motions due by 9/24/2012. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 10/17/2012. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 10/30/2012. Joint Status Report due by 9/28/2012. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/10/2012. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/24/2012. (dot ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
2012-09-24	31	MOTION to Dismiss , MOTION for Summary Judgment Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ryan Law, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
2012-09-24	32	STATUS REPORT of Federal Bureau of Investigation by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David M. Hardy, # 2 Exhibit A-D)(Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/24/2012)
2012-09-28	33	STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report) by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Bell, Venetia) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
2012-10-03	34	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Theresa Ekeoma Dike on behalf of EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE Substituting for attorney Venetia D. Bell (Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 10/03/2012)
2012-10-10	35	RESPONSE re 27 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Memorandum in Support, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit, # 7 exhibit, # 8 exhibit, # 9 exhibit, # 10 exhibit, # 11 exhibit, # 12 exhibit, # 13 exhibit, # 14 exhibit)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). On September 24, 2012, Defendant FBI filed a Status Report in support of its request for an additional 120 days, in addition to the time the agency has already had, to prepare a Vaughn index. It remains unclear to this Court why the FBI requires 120 additional days to code the 1,017 pages located in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request; however, it is equally unclear what an appropriate time frame might be. Accordingly, the FBI shall file another Status Report describing the coding progress it has made on or by NOVEMBER 5, 2012, at which point the Court will set a firm deadline for completion of the Vaughn index, as well as a schedule for briefing of dispositive motions resolving Plaintiff's claims against the FBI. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 11, 2012. (lcckk1) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff's 35 Opposition to Defendants EOUSA's and USMS's Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's [35-1] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment against USMS and EOUSA on the issue of Plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies and against EOUSA regarding EOUSA's fees request. Defendants EOUSA and USMS are reminded that pursuant to the Court's 30 September 17, 2012 Scheduling and Procedures Order, the EOUSA and USMS shall file their Reply by no later than OCTOBER 24, 2012. Further, the EOUSA and USMS shall likewise file their Opposition to Plaintiff's [35-1] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, if any, by no later than OCTOBER 24, 2012. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 11, 2012. (lcckk1) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: EOUSA abd USMC reply due by 10/24/12; EOUSA and USMS opposition to Cross Motion for summary judgment due by 10/24/2012. clv, ) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: FBI Status Report describing the coding progress is due by 11/5/2012. (clv, ) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-11	36	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (See Docket Entry 35 to view document). (znmw, ) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
2012-10-17	37	RESPONSE re 31 MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Summary Judgment Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Facts Plaintiff's Response to ICE's Statement of Facts, # 3 Statement of Facts Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, # 4 Exhibit Plaintiff's FOIA, # 5 Exhibit Zenor's FOIA, # 6 Affidavit Rosenberg Declaration)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	38	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment as to ICE by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (See Docket Entry 37 to view document. Counsel is reminded to file the motion as a separate docket entry in future). (znmw, ) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
2012-10-24	39	REPLY to opposition to motion re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Dike, Theresa) Modified link on 10/25/2012 (znmw, ). (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-24	40	Memorandum in Opposition re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Dike, Theresa) Modified event title on 10/25/2012 (znmw, ). (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2012-10-25		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). On October 24, 2012, Defendants EOUSA and USMA filed their 40 Response to Plaintiff's 36 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file its Reply to Defendants EOUSA's and USMA's 40 Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, if any, by NOVEMBER 7, 2012. Further, the Court is also in receipt of Plaintiff's 37 Opposition to Defendant ICE's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's 38 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to ICE. Defendant ICE is reminded that pursuant to the Court's 30 September 17, 2012 Scheduling and Procedures Order, ICE shall file its Reply to Plaintiff's 37 Opposition to ICE's Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment by no later than OCTOBER 30, 2012. Further, ICE shall file its Opposition to Plaintiff's 38 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, if any, by no later than NOVEMBER 7, 2012. Plaintiff shall file its Reply to ICE's Opposition to Plaintiff's 38 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, if any, by no later than NOVEMBER 21, 2012. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 25, 2012. (lcckk1) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
2012-10-31	41	RESPONSE re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Law Supplemental Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 FOIA Request acknowledgment, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 emails ICE and Venetia Bell)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-10-31	42	REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Ryan Law Supplemental Declaration, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 FOIA Request acknowledgment letter, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Emails between ICE and Venetia Bell)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
2012-11-05	43	STATUS REPORT by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
2012-11-06		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the FBI's 43 Status Report, the Court hereby grants the FBI until JANUARY 11, 2013 to prepare a Vaughn index (a total of 120 days as of the FBI's initial request for 120 additional days to complete coding and prepare the Vaughn declaration, See ECF No. 28 (September 13, 2012 Joint Status Report)). Counsel is advised that this deadline is firm, and no further extensions shall be granted. Further, the Court hereby adopts the briefing schedule proposed by the parties in their 33 Joint Status Report: The FBI shall file its dispositive motion by no later than JANUARY 28, 2013. Plaintiff shall file its opposition, if any, by no later than FEBRUARY 22, 2013. The FBI shall file its reply, if any, by no later than MARCH 11, 2013. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on November 6, 2012. (lcckk1) Modified on 11/8/2012 (tb, ). (Entered: 11/06/2012)
2012-11-07	44	REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
2012-11-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 1/28/2013. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 2/22/2013. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 3/11/2013. Vaughn Index due by 1/11/2013. (tb, ) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
2012-11-21	45	REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 MOTION for Summary Judgment against ICE filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Excerpt from Supreme Court Order 10-1-12, # 2 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Lawrence D. Rosenberg)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2013-01-10	46	NOTICE of Filing (Vaughn Declaration and Exhibits) by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re Order,,, (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of David Hardy with Exhibits)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
2013-02-04		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). On November 6, 2012, the Court issued a Minute Order adopting the briefing schedule proposed by the parties in their 33 Joint Status Report. Specifically, the Court ordered the FBI to file its dispositive motion by no later than JANUARY 28, 2013; Plaintiff to file his opposition by no later than February 22, 2013; and the FBI to file its reply by no later than March 11, 2013. As of today, February 4, 2013, the public docket reflects that the FBI has yet to file its dispositive motion. Accordingly, by no later than FEBRUARY 5, 2013 by 4 P.M., the FBI shall file its dispositive motion or file a status report indicating to the Court why it has not. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on February 4, 2013. (lcckk1) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
2013-02-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: FBI shall file its dispositive motion or file a status report due by 2/5/2013 (tcb) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
2013-02-05	47	MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David M Hardy Declaration)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
2013-02-06	48	ERRATA by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Corrected FBI Motion for Summary Judgment)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 02/06/2013)
2013-02-14	49	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response To FBI's Motion For Summary Judgment by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
2013-02-15		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Plaintiff's 49 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to FBI's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall have until and including MARCH 1, 2013 to file a response to the FBI's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on February 15, 2013. (lcckk1) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
2013-03-01	50	RESPONSE re 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiff's Response to Defendant FBI's Statement of Material Facts)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
2013-03-01	51	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Memorandum In Opposition To Defendant FBI's Motion For Summary Judgment And In Support Of Plaintiff's Cross-Motion, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
2013-03-05	52	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
2013-03-07	53	NOTICE of Plaintiff's Consent to Enlargement of Time by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE re 52 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 51 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI (Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
2013-03-07		MINUTE ORDER granting 52 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Reply and Opposition. Accordingly, Defendants shall have until and including March 18, 2013, to file a joint reply in response to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Reply to Dispositive Motion and Response to Cross Motion due by 3/18/2013. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on March 7, 2013. (SM) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
2013-03-13	54	NOTICE of Appearance by John Matthew Gore on behalf of LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Gore, John) (Main Document 54 replaced on 3/14/2013) (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/13/2013)
2013-03-18	55	REPLY to opposition to motion re 47 MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Hardy Second Declaration)(Dike, Theresa) Modified link on 3/19/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
2013-03-18	56	Memorandum in opposition re 51 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David Hardy Second Declaration)(Dike, Theresa) Modified event title on 3/19/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/18/2013)
2013-03-28	57	REPLY to opposition to motion re 51 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Defendant FBI filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
2013-04-18	58	MOTION For Status Conference And/Or Oral Argument On Pending Motions And Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
2013-04-23	59	REPLY re 58 MOTION For Status Conference And/Or Oral Argument On Pending Motions And Cross-Motions For Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
2013-06-14	60	NOTICE Of Supplemental Information In Further Support Of Plaintiff's Motions For Summary Judgment And Oppositions To Defendants' Motions For Summary Judgment re 50 Response and 51 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) Modified to add links on 6/17/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 06/14/2013)
2013-06-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/12/2003. (dot ) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
2013-06-21	61	RESPONSE re 60 Notice (Other), of Supplemental Filing filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE. (Dike, Theresa) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
2013-07-02	62	STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report In Response To June 21, 2013 Order) by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
2013-07-16	63	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Sobia Haque on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Theresa Dike (Haque, Sobia) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
2013-07-18		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the FBI's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment and the Plaintiff's 51 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds an in camera review of the pages at issue would assist the Court in efficiently resolving the parties' motions. Accordingly, by no later than July 25, 2013, the FBI shall provide the Court with unredacted versions of the 322 pages released in part to the Plaintiff, as well as the 155 pages withheld in full under FOIA exemptions. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/18/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
2013-07-22	64	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 31 Motion to Dismiss or, Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's 38 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/22/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
2013-07-22	65	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/22/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
2013-07-23	66	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the United States Marshals Service's 27 Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's 36 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
2013-07-23	67	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 7/23/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
2013-07-24	68	NOTICE of In Camera Submission by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Haque, Sobia) (Entered: 07/24/2013)
2013-08-12	69	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the FBI's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment is HELD IN ABEYANCE with respect to the adequacy of the scope of the agency's search for responsive documents, the agency's application of Exemptions 6 and/or 7(C) in combination with Exemption 7(D), the agency's application of Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to information on the bates-numbered pages set forth in this order, and the agency's application of Exemption 7(E) to the pages set forth in this order. The FBI's motion is GRANTED as to Exemption 3, the FBI's remaining applications of Exemptions 6 and 7(C), the FBI's remaining applications of Exemption 7(E)-1, and the agency's use of Exemption 7(E)-2, as defined by the Hardy Declaration. The Plaintiff's 51 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is HELD IN ABEYANCE as set forth above and otherwise DENIED. The Plaintiff's 58 Request for Status Conference and/or Oral Argument on Pending Motions and Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment is DENIED AS MOOT. By no later than August 26, 2013, the FBI shall supplement its motion for summary judgment, addressing the issues identified by the Court. By no later than August 30, 2013, the parties shall file a joint status report indicating whether there are any outstanding claims or issues with respect to the other Defendants. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/11/13 (lcckk2). (Entered: 08/12/2013)
2013-08-12	70	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/11/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 08/12/2013)
2013-08-26	71	Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration (Third Hardy), # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Haque, Sobia) Modified event title on 9/12/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/26/2013)
2013-08-29		ORDER. The Plaintiff may file a response to the FBI's 71 Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment by no later than September 6, 2013. The Plaintiff's response shall address only those issues identified by the Court for further briefing and addressed in the FBI's supplemental motion. The Plaintiff may elect not to file an opposition, in which case the Court shall consider the FBI's supplemental motion in light of the arguments previously raised by the Plaintiff and will not treat the FBI's motion as conceded. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/29/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
2013-08-30	72	STATUS REPORT (Joint) by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
2013-08-30	73	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 71 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 08/30/2013)
2013-08-31		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the Plaintiff's 73 Consent Motion for Extension of Time, for good cause shown, the Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall have up to and including September 11, 2013, in which to file a response to the FBI's 71 Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/31/13. (lcckk2) (Entered: 08/31/2013)
2013-09-11	74	RESPONSE re 71 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment and 51 And In Further Support Of Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) Modified to add link on 9/12/2013 (znmw, ). (Entered: 09/11/2013)
2013-09-13	75	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Kevin Michael Laden on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Sobia Haque (Laden, Kevin) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
2013-09-13	76	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 71 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Laden, Kevin) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
2013-09-13	77	Memorandum in opposition to re 76 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 71 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by LAWRENCE ROSENBERG. (Rosenberg, Lawrence) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
2013-09-23	78	REPLY to opposition to motion re 71 Renewed MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (Laden, Kevin) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
2014-02-03	79	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the FBI's 71 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portions of the FBI's 47 Motion for Summary Judgment previously held in abeyance are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portions of the Plaintiff's 51 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment previously held in abeyance are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/3/2014. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-03	80	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/3/2014.(lcckk3) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-24	81	NOTICE of Compliance by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION re 79 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, (Laden, Kevin) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
Hide Docket Events