| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2019-12-30 | 1 | COMPLAINT against EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616101950) filed by OWEN ODMAN. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ztd) (Entered: 01/02/2020) |
| 2020-01-02 | | SUMMONS Not Issued as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (ztd) (Entered: 01/02/2020) |
| 2020-01-28 | | SUMMONS (2) Issued as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (ztd) (Entered: 01/28/2020) |
| 2020-02-26 | 2 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/11/2020. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/12/2020.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 2/11/2020. (ztd) (Entered: 02/28/2020) |
| 2020-03-12 | 3 | ANSWER to 1 Complaint by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 03/12/2020) |
| 2020-03-12 | 4 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 3 Answer to Complaint . (Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 03/12/2020) |
| 2020-03-12 | | MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. Since the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants shall file a proposed schedule for production or briefing by March 27, 2020. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 3/12/20. (lccrc1) (Entered: 03/12/2020) |
| 2020-03-13 | | Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Briefing Schedule due by 3/27/2020 (lsj) (Entered: 03/13/2020) |
| 2020-03-27 | 5 | PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 03/27/2020) |
| 2020-03-31 | | MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' 5 proposed briefing schedule, the Court ORDERS that summary judgment briefing shall proceed according to the following schedule: Defendants shall file their motion for summary judgment by May 22, 2020; Plaintiff shall file his opposition and, if applicable, cross-motion for summary judgment by July 21, 2020; Defendants shall file their combined reply by August 20, 2020; and Plaintiff shall file his reply, if applicable, by September 21, 2020. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 3/31/20. (lccrc1) (Entered: 03/31/2020) |
| 2020-03-31 | | Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 5/22/2020. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/21/2020. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/20/2020. Replies due by 9/21/2020. (lsj) (Entered: 03/31/2020) |
| 2020-05-22 | 6 | MOTION for Summary Judgment by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Declaration of A. FInney)(Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 05/22/2020) |
| 2020-06-22 | 7 | AFFIDAVIT by OWEN ODMAN. (ztd) (Entered: 06/25/2020) |
| 2020-06-25 | 8 | RESPONSE re 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by OWEN ODMAN. (ztd); (SEE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 7 TO VIEW.) (Entered: 06/26/2020) |
| 2020-08-20 | 9 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 08/20/2020) |
| 2020-09-25 | 10 | NOTICE of Change of Address by OWEN ODMAN (ztd) (Entered: 09/29/2020) |
| 2020-10-13 | 11 | ORDER granting 6 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 10/13/2020. (lccrc1) (Entered: 10/13/2020) |
| 2020-10-13 | 12 | MEMORANDUM OPINION re 11 ORDER granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 10/13/2020. (lccrc1) (Main Document 12 replaced on 10/13/2020) (zlsj). (Entered: 10/13/2020) |
| 2020-10-15 | 13 | LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Plaintiff's Motion to take judicial notice This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing.. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 10/14/2020. (ztd) (Entered: 10/15/2020) |
| 2020-10-27 | 14 | MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 11 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 12 Order by OWEN ODMAN (ztd) (Entered: 10/28/2020) |
| 2020-11-12 | 15 | Memorandum in opposition to re 14 MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 11 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 12 Order filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Tepe, Sean) (Entered: 11/12/2020) |
| 2020-11-13 | | MINUTE ORDER denying 14 Motion to Alter Judgment. Odman's 14 Motion seeks reconsideration of the Court's 11 Order and 12 Memorandum Opinion granting summary judgment to Defendants on Odman's FOIA claims. Reconsideration is warranted, Odman argues, because Defendants failed to "contact the Grand Jury Clerk" as part of their search for responsive records. Mot. to Alter J. at 1, ECF No. 14. Liberally construed, Odman's motion alleges that the Court committed "clear error," Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), by concluding that Defendants' search was adequate under FOIA despite their failure to take this additional step. For the reasons provided below, the Court declines to alter its judgment. For starters, Odman failed to make this argument in his motion opposing summary judgment, and Rule 59(e) does not permit litigants to raise new arguments that "could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker , 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (cleaned up). However, the Court acknowledges that Odman's opposition did, in fact, speculate that a "grand jury clerk" had generated responsive records. To the extent that these passing references can be liberally construed to raise the argument Odman now advances, it is meritless. As a preliminary point, it is unclear whether the "grand jury clerk" referenced is a position within the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina ("USAO-NCW") or a position within the District Court. Should it be the former, Odman's argument fails to undermine the adequacy of the search. As stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion, the USAO-NCW sent out an office-wide email for responsive documents. That office-wide email was presumably received by the "grand jury clerk," if any such position exists. Should it be the latter, Odman's argument is misplaced. FOIA permits district courts "only to enjoin an agency from improperly withholding records that are in its possession and control at the time of the FOIA request. Accordingly, when an agency does not possess or control the records a requester seeks, the agency's non-disclosure does not violate FOIA because it has not withheld anything." Francis v. DOJ , 267 F. Supp. 3d 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2017) (Cooper, J.) (cleaned up). Thus, Odman cannot contest the adequacy of DOJ's search by arguing that it should have sought records it did not possess. For the reasons provided, the 14 Motion to Alter Judgment is hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 11/13/2020. (lccrc1) Modified on 11/13/2020 (zlsj). (Entered: 11/13/2020) |
| 2020-12-10 | 16 | REPLY to opposition to motion re 14 MOTION to Alter Judgment as to 11 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, 12 Order filed by OWEN ODMAN. (ztd); ("Leave to file granted" signed 12/10/20 by Judge Christopher R. Cooper) (Entered: 12/11/2020) |
 Hide Docket Events |
