FOIA Activity: 5 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 5 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between February 23, 2014 and March 1, 2014. These are associated with 5 FOIA cases pending in federal district court. Note that because there can be delays between the date a decision is made and when it shows up on PACER, this listing includes only decisions that appeared on PACER during this period.

Click on the date to view the full text of the decision. Click on a case title below to view other details for that case, including links to the docket report and complaint.

1. CAN 4:2013cv01593 — Asian Law Caucus v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al
   • February 26, 2014: ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong GRANTING [33] Stipulation to Extend Deadlines for Dispositive Motions. Signed by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, on 02/26/14. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014) Modified on 2/27/2014 (jlmS, COURT STAFF).
2. DC 1:2012cv01350 — JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al
   • February 28, 2014: MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants’ [15] Motion for Summary Judgment and the plaintiff’s [18] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 28, 2014.(lcbah2)
3. DC 1:2012cv01785 — JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
   • February 28, 2014: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on February 28, 2014.(lcesh2)
4. MIE 4:2012cv14234 — Hertz Schram PC et al v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
   • February 25, 2014: OPINION AND ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation’s [26] Motion for Summary Judgment, ( Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief due by 3/5/2014, Defendant’s Supplemental Brief due by 3/12/2014 ). Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Goltz, D)
5. NYS 1:2013cv08955 — Intellectual Property Watch et al v. United States Trade Representative
   • February 28, 2014: OPINION AND ORDER re: [12] MOTION to Amend/Correct. The Court DENIES the Motion to Amend as moot, in light of its previous Order. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 12). Chambers will mail copies of the inst ant decision, as well as the Court’s previous Order, Doc. 10, to Mr. Kirsch at 1211 S. Eads Street, #211, Arlington, VA 22202, and P.O. Box 423364, Kissimmee, FL 34742-3364, the two addresses included in Mr. Kirsch’s Motion to Amend (Doc. 12 at 7-8). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/28/2014) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ja)

   ! i>