FOIA Activity: 10 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 10 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between October 11, 2020 and October 17, 2020. These are associated with 10 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. CAE 2:2018cv00873 — Stanco et al v. Internal Revenue Service

   • October 16, 2020: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/15/2020 EXTENDING the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint to 11/2/2020. (Zignago, K.)
2. DC 1:2018cv01434 — WHITTAKER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

   • October 15, 2020: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: [26] Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and [27] Plaintiff's Renewed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Please see the attached Memorandum Opinion for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/15/2020. (lcapm3) (lcas)
3. MA 1:2019cv12539 — Block & Leviton LLP v. Federal Trade Commission

   • October 15, 2020: Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re [21] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Facebook, Inc., [19] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Federal Trade Commission. The Court ALLOWS IN PART Defenda nt's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 19) and Defendant-Intervenor's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 21) as they relate to redaction of names and personal information of employees in the settlement documents other than Mr. Zu ckerberg and DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 19) and Defendant-Intervenor's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 21) as they relate to (1) redaction of Mr. Zuckerberg's name and (2) document s related to settlement negotiations withheld on the basis of Exemption 4. Defendant is ordered to produce the documents related to settlement negotiations prepared by the FTC and sent to Facebook unless they contain "commercial" informatio n consistent with the meaning of that term as discussed in this opinion, and Facebook is the source of that information. See Gulf & W. Indus., 615 F.2d at 52930. Defendant is ordered to produce the documents related to settlement negotiations prepared by Facebook and sent to the FTC unless they contain "commercial" information consistent with the meaning of that term as discussed in this opinion. Within 30 days, the FTC shall submit a Vaughn index that provides detailed information as to why any withheld document contains commercial information for which Facebook is the source. The Court reserves the right to conduct an in camera review to determine the applicability of Exemption 4. SO ORDERED. (Baker, Casey)
4. NYS 1:2017cv09343 — Freedom of the Press Foundation et al v. Department of Justice et al

   • October 13, 2020: CLERK'S JUDGMENT re: [67] Memorandum & Opinion in favor of Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National Intelligence against Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, National Security Agency, Office of the Director of National I ntelligence. It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated October 9, 2020, the Court has considered all the arguments of the parties. To the extent not specifically discussed, the arguments of the parties are either moot or without merit. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to the DOJ-CRIM's disputed redactions of documents under Exemption 5 is granted, but denied in all other respects. T he Government's motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to the DOJ-CRIM's disputed redactions under Exemption 5, but granted in all other respects; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 10/13/2020) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal) (km)
5. NYS 1:2019cv01574 — The Innocence Project, Inc. v. National Museum of Health and Medicine et al

   • October 14, 2020: MEMO ENDORSEMENT: granting [70] Motion to Seal. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 10/14/2020) (ama)
6. NYS 1:2019cv02520 — Immigrant Defense Project v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

   • October 14, 2020: ORDER: granting [11] Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference. The initial pretrial conference is adjourned sine die. The parties shall file a status letter to the Court on or before December 2, 2020. If the parties agree in that letter that the initial conference should be continue to be adjourned, the parties shall file a status letter to the Court every three months thereafter. The parties may request a conference or briefing schedule at any time in the interim. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 10/14/2020) (ama)
7. NYS 1:2019cv06867 — Osen LLC v. United States Central Command

   • October 13, 2020: NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT: This case has been reassigned to the undersigned. All counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court's Individual Rules, which are available at https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-john-p-cronan. Unless and until the C ourt orders otherwise, all prior orders, dates, and deadlines shall remain in effect notwithstanding the case's reassignment. In particular, the Order entered by Judge Katherina Polk Failla, U.S. District Court Judge, dated February 4, 2020 (Dkt. 19), remains in effect. The Government remains expected to process 500 pages every two months and should promptly update the Court if it increases the processing rate for any of the cases listed in its January 24, 2020 letter (Dkt. 15). In accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices, requests for extensions or adjournment may be made only by letter-motion filed on ECF and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or scheduled appearance, absent compe lling circumstances. The written submission must state (1) the original date(s) set for the appearance or deadline(s) and the new date(s) requested; (2) the reason(s) for the request; (3) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (4) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; and (5) whether opposing counsel consents, and, if not, the reasons given by opposing counsel for refusing to consent. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 10/13/2020) (tro)
8. NYS 1:2019cv09669 — New York Times Company et al v. Department of the Treasury

   • October 16, 2020: ORDER granting [32] Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference: GRANTED. The initial pretrial conference scheduled for October 22, 2020, is ADJOURNED to November 24, 2020, at 10:20 a.m. By November 17, 2020, the parties shall file a joint status letter. (Initial Conference set for 11/24/2020 at 10:20 AM before Judge Analisa Torres.) (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 10/16/2020) (jwh)
9. NYS 1:2020cv07510 — Charpentier et al v. Department Of Homeland Security et al

   • October 16, 2020: ORDER: To conserve resources, to promote judicial efficiency, and in an effort to achieve a faster disposition of this matter, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties must discuss whether they are willing to consent, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), to conducting all further proceedings before the assigned Magistrate Judge; as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 10/16/2020) (mro)
10. OHS 3:2020cv00194 — Jarrell v. Dept. of the Army

    • October 16, 2020: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT: (1) DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 6) BE GRANTED; (2) THIS CASE BE TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET; AND (3) PLAINTIFF BE DENIED IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL – In light of the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that: 1. Defendants motion to dismiss be GRANTED; 2. This case be TERMINATED ON THE DOCKET; 3. If Plaintiff elects to appeal this decision, he be DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and 4. Plaintiff be ADVISED that further attempts to file similar complaints in this District may result in the Court deeming him a vexatious litigator and/or imposing other appropriate sanctions. Objections to R&R due by 10/30/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 10/16/2020. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)