FOIA Activity: 9 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 9 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between February 6, 2022 and February 12, 2022. These are associated with 9 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. CAC 2:2020cv08011 — Harold Pick v. Motorola Solutions, Inc. et al

   • February 10, 2022: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF No. [14] ] by Judge John W. Holcomb: The parties are DIRECTED to appear at a Status Conference on the fourth Frid ay of every month, starting with a video Status Conference on Friday, March 25, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. The parties' counsel are DIRECTED to meet and confer no later than January 6, 2023. Defendants are DIRECTED to set their anticipated motion for reconsideration for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on March 24, 2023. The video Status Conference set for February 25, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. is VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (See document for further details) (yl)
2. CAC 2:2021cv00533 — The Diennet Pharmacy et al v. United States Department of Justice et al

   • February 8, 2022: DISMISSING ORDER, [25] by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the separately filed stipulation of the parties, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Eachside to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (shb)
3. CAN 4:2021cv00866 — Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission et al

   • February 8, 2022: ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [33] MOTION TO DISMISS. Amended Pleadings due by 3/1/2022; Case Management Statement due by 2/22/2022; and Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2022 02:00 PM. Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the parties will be advised closer to the hearing whether it will take place telephonically or in person.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2022)
4. DC 1:2019cv03770 — STONEHILL v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TAX DIVISION

   • February 10, 2022: MEMORANDUM OPINION: GRANTING [15] Defendant's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [16] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 30 Plaintiff's Cross-Mo tion for Partial Summary Judgment; GRANTING [36] Plaintiff's Motion for a Vaughn Index; and DENYING [39] Defendant's Cross-Motion for an Order Allowing the Tax Division to Submit a Sampling Vaughn Index. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/10/2022. (lcrc2)
5. DC 1:2020cv00210 — GRAHAM v. UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

   • February 11, 2022: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2/11/2022.(psu1)
6. DC 1:2020cv02044 — CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

   • February 11, 2022: MEMORANDUM OPINION re [23] ORDER denying Defendant's [16] Motion for Summary Judgment and granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's [18] Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 2/11/2022. (lccrc2)
7. DC 1:2021cv01491 — CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY et al

   • February 11, 2022: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: [13] ORDER granting Defendant's [8] Motion to Dismiss. See full Memorandum Opinion for details. Signed by Judge Christopher R. Cooper on 2/11/2022. (lccrc1)
8. NYS 1:2019cv01574 — The Innocence Project, Inc. v. National Museum of Health and Medicine et al

   • February 11, 2022: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons above, the Court finds good cause for disclosure of the report and therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs request. The Court hereby orders: To the extent that the document dated April 3, 2006, identified by Pl aintiff is subject to the Privacy Act, Defendants shall produce the document to Plaintiff pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) and the produced copy shall not be subject to the Privacy Act Order and Protective Order entered in this case. The parties' next joint status update is due by April 8, 2022. Dkt. No. 87. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 2/11/2022) (js)
9. TXN 3:2020cv03070 — Bligen v. Navient

   • February 8, 2022: ORDER ACCEPTING [6] FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 2/8/2022) (mla)