Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has concluded that Greg Muttitt can pursue a pattern and practice challenge against the State Department for that agency's failure to provide him with an estimated date of completion for several different requests. While the practicality of complying with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(7)(B), a provision from the OPEN Government Act which requires agencies to "establish a telephone line or Internet service that provides. . .an estimated date on which the agency will complete action on the request," has been discussed in the FOIA community, this is the first time the issue has resulted in a district court decision. Howell pointed out that Muttitt allegations were supported by "specific allegations of factâ€"the agency's failure to provide him with time estimates for multiple requests on multiple occasions. The plaintiff admits that he 'is aware of no specific regulations, guidelines, or policy statements that authorize' the practice of not providing time estimates, but argues sensibly that '[v]ery rarely do requesters even know of an agency's activities behind the scenes of a request' prior to litigation. Moreover, a formal policy or regulation is not required to sustain a claim for relief enjoining a pattern or practice of violating FOIA." Muttitt alleged that State and the Department of Treasury had violated both FOIA and the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide an estimated date of completion. In response, both agencies argued that neither the FOIA nor the APA provided a legal remedy and that what Muttitt was really interested in accomplishing was to get a response to his requests. Muttitt acknowledged that "it is well recognized that the APA does not provide additional remedies where adequate remedies are already provided by another statute." However, he argued that "his claims regarding the agencies' failure to provide time estimates for processing of his FOIA requests are entitled to review under the APA because the FOIA does not provide adequate relief." State and Treasury argued that disclosure of the records was ultimately the best statutory remedy. But Howell indicated that she disagreed that "disclosure of the requested records alone would provide an adequate remedy where an agency has a policy of routinely ignoring the requirement to provide time estimates as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B). As the plaintiff points out, under the defendants' view, 'agencies would be free to blithely ignore the statutory requirement that they provide estimated dates of completion, secure in the belief that no requester would ever be able to make them do it; the worst a requester could do is force them to process the request more quickly by filing suit,' which is exactly what the request can do anyway. In effect, defendants' argument would render 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B) optional and judicially unenforceable. The court concludes that an adequate remedy must include the possibility of equitable relief directing a habitually non-compliant agency to comply with § 552(a)(7)(B)." She then pointed out: "Such equitable relief is available under FOIA, however." She cited Payne Enterprises v. United States, 837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and explained that "Payne held that the release of requested information under FOIA did not moot 'a claim that an agency policy or practice will impair the party's lawful access to information in the future.' Courts have interpreted Payne as authorizing declaratory or injunctive relief under FOIA even when a plaintiff's specific claim regarding a FOIA request is moot because the requested documents have been released." Applying Payne, Howell noted that "while there are factual differences between this case and Payne, the Court finds that FOIA itself could provide the plaintiff with an equitable remedy, as described in Payneâ€"assuming, of course, that the plaintiff has stated a claim for relief based on an impermissible agency pattern or practice of violating FOIA. . .[S]ince FOIA, as interpreted by Payne, provides the plaintiff with an opportunity for the declaratory and injunctive relief he is seeking, relief under the APA is not available." She added that "the Court finds that APA relief is foreclosed here because the Court concludes that in this caseâ€"where a plaintiff challenges an alleged pattern and practice of violating procedural requirements of FOIA in connection with the processing of the plaintiff's FOIA requestsâ€"the Court has the power under FOIA and Payne to provide the requested declaratory and injunctive remedies." Howell then allowed Muttitt to pursue his challenge against State, but not Treasury. She pointed out that "the plaintiff has alleged that on two separate dates he requested estimated completion dates from State for five separate FOIA requests. . .This amounts to ten requests for estimated completion dates that did not receive an adequate response. Contrary to the defendants' assertions, these factually specific allegations of multiple FOIA violations are sufficiently detailed to state a pattern or practice claim." By contrast, Howell observed that "unlike the multiple failures to provide time estimates alleged against State, the plaintiff alleges that Treasury failed to provide him with an estimated completion date only one time in relation to a single FOIA request. The Court concludes that an allegation of a single FOIA violation is insufficient as a matter of law to state a claim for relief based on a policy, pattern, or practice of violating FOIA."
Issues: Determination

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that journalist Greg Muttitt's expedited processing claims are now moot and that the State Department conducted an adequate search for records concerning the development of Iraq's energy policy and national hydrocarbon law. She also found the agency had properly withheld records under Exemption 1 (national security), but had not yet shown that other records could be withheld under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). Muttitt submitted five requests for records to State for cable traffic to and from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. He also asked for any emails relating to the work of Meghan O'Sullivan, who Muttitt identified as having served as a presidential envoy to Iraq between June-October 2007. The agency denied Muttitt's requests for a fee waiter and expedited processing for all five requests. Ultimately, the State Department located 94 documents responsive to the five requests. Muttitt challenged the agency's fee waiver and expedited processing decisions, the adequacy of its search, and its exemption claims. Although Muttitt admitted that his challenge to the specific fee waivers was moot, he argued that his complaint implied that the agency had a pattern and practice of denying fee waivers and that in his filings he had urged the court go beyond the parameters of the disputed requests and consider the agency's practices. He also argued that, because FOIA's provision concerning expedited processing stated that a district court did not have jurisdiction to review a denial of expedited processing after the agency had provided a complete response to the request, the agency's response could not yet be considered "complete" because the adequacy of its search was being contested. While giving Muttitt high marks for creativity, Howell found his challenge by implication totally unpersuasive. She pointed out that "permitting the plaintiff to raise a policy-or-practice claim for the first time at summary judgment based solely on vague language in his Prayer for Relief would run contrary to Rule 8's purpose because the language cited by the plaintiff in his First Amended Complaint, by itself, does not put the defendant on notice of policy-or-practice claims related to the denial of requests for expedited processing or public-interest fee waivers." She added that "the simple fact that the plaintiff pleaded separate causes of action for policy-or-practice claims regarding other matters confirms that the plaintiff's failure to include a policy-or-practice cause of action about these matters (i.e., expedited processing and fee waivers) was a conscious choice that the plaintiff simply now regrets. Yet, the plaintiff cannot cure the problem by attempting at the summary judgment stage, to reverse-engineer causes of action that were never pled. A plaintiff cannot ensconce claims between the lines of an otherwise garden-variety Prayer for Relief, only to embellish those obscurities into new causes of action for the first time at summary judgment." Turning to the issue of whether Muttitt was entitled to any relief on his expedited processing claims, Howell indicated that in Edmonds v. FBI, 417 F.3d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 2005), the D.C. Circuit ruled that the because the district court had granted Edmonds' expedited processing request, the agency was required to disclose all non-exempt records by a date certain. She pointed out that the only statutory relief under the expedited processing provision was to move a requester to the front of the processing queue. Applying Edmonds to Muttitt's case, Howell noted that "the Court reads the Circuit's opinion in Edmonds to mean that the only scenario in which a court can properly grant relief to a FOIA requester 'on the merits' of an expedited processing claim is when an agency has not yet provided a final substantive response to the individual's request for records. After that point, the timing of any further processing of an individual's request (either expeditiously or otherwise) necessarily occurs at the direction of the court�"pursuant to a scheduling order not the expedited processing provision of the FOIA. For this reason, the Court construes the phrase 'complete response' in 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iv) to mean a final determination under § 552(a)(6)(A), i.e., a final administrative determination whether to release records that are responsive to the individual's request. In order for its response to be 'complete,' an agency need not, as the plaintiff argues, obtain a judicial declaration that its search efforts were adequate or that its withholding determinations were warranted. Once an agency has made its final determination under § 552(a)(6)(A), the timeliness of that determination is no longer a live controversy fit for judicial review." Muttitt contended the agency's search was inadequate because it had not shown that it searched archived records for emails to or from O'Sullivan or that it had additionally searched retired records. Howell dismissed both claims. She noted that "the problem with the plaintiff's argument [concerning archived emails], however, is that it presumes the existence of an electronic, as opposed to a paper, recordkeeping system where important e-mails are transferred once an individual's e-mail account is deactivated." She observed that "the agency's own regulations give it the option of keeping such records in electronic, paper, or microform format, and the defendant's declaration establishes that the State Department has thus far elected to archive any retained e-mail records in paper format." Finding Muttitt's retired records claim to be based solely on a semantic ambiguity, Howell pointed out that "the clear context of the agency's declaration. . .confirms that the agency's search encompassed all retired files likely to contain responsive records." Muttitt claimed that the State Department had revealed certain facts contained in classified cables through its Vaughn index and those facts had to be segregated and disclosed. Howell, however, pointed out that "the plaintiff concedes that the State Department's Vaughn index adequately establishes that 'the [withheld] material pertains to foreign relations.' Furthermore, the Court finds the agency's explanation of non-segregability logical and reasonable because the 'pieces of information' denominated by the plaintiff appear unlikely to exist within the withheld document such that they could be discretely separated from the classified portions of the document. For example, the plaintiff has presented no reason to believe that the 'fact of the discussion' in [the] document is a piece of information that was specifically noted in the document, such that it could be segregated and released without releasing any classified information. On the contrary, the Court concludes that such general facts regarding the overall context of the documents are unlikely to be reasonably segregable." Muttitt fared considerably better when it came to State's Exemption 5 claims. Howell agreed with Muttitt that the agency had failed to provide sufficient information to claim the deliberative process privilege. She noted that the agency's perfunctory claims "do no fill the gaps in the factual context necessary to invoke the deliberative process privilege. In particular, three pieces of factual context normally crucial to determining whether the privilege applies�"the nature of the deliberative process involved, the role the document played in that process, and the nature of the decisionmaking authority vested in the document's author�"are noticeably absent from the State Department's descriptions of these ten documents in its Vaughn index." She added that "the State Department does not specify what role any of the ten challenged documents played in the often-unspecified deliberative process at issue." She also questioned whether some documents qualified as inter- or intra-agency records. She observed that "although unclear from the State Department's declaration, it is reasonable to assume that, since the hydrocarbon law is a piece of Iraqi legislation, the document identifies changes made by the Iraqi government, not changes made by the U.S. State Department."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Expedited processing

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2010-02-05	1	COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616027411) filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
2010-02-05		SUMMONS (6) Issued as to DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 02/05/2010)
2010-03-17	2	NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica Beth Leinwand on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
2010-03-17	3	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
2010-03-17		MINUTE ORDER granting 3 motion for extension of time. Defendants are directed to answer or otherwise respond to all of the claims in the complaint by no later than April 12, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 17, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
2010-03-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 4/12/2010, (clv, ) (Entered: 03/18/2010)
2010-04-12	4	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND.(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
2010-04-12	5	MOTION to Dismiss by DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
2010-04-12	6	MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
2010-04-19	7	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 5 MOTION to Dismiss by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
2010-04-19		MINUTE ORDER granting 7 consent motion for extension of time. Plaintiff shall file a response to 5 defendants Department of State and Department of the Treasury's motion to dismiss by no later than May 3, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on April 19, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 04/19/2010)
2010-04-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Dispositive Motions due by 5/3/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 04/20/2010)
2010-05-02	8	Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - First Amended Complaint, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/02/2010)
2010-05-03	9	Memorandum in opposition to re 5 MOTION to Dismiss in Part filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Emails to DOS, # 2 Exhibit B - Emails from DOS, # 3 Exhibit C - Letter to DOS, # 4 Exhibit D - Email to DOT, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
2010-05-03		MINUTE ORDER granting 8 consent motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff is directed to file the amended complaint separately on the docket. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 3, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/03/2010)
2010-05-03	10	FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND filed by GREG MUTTITT.(znmw, ) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
2010-05-07	11	STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted by the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
2010-05-10	12	REPLY to opposition to motion re 5 MOTION to Dismiss filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 05/10/2010)
2010-05-17	13	Supplemental MOTION for Leave to File Sur-reply by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/17/2010)
2010-05-18		MINUTE ORDER. Due to the filing of 10 the amended complaint, the briefing on 5 the motion to dismiss has become disjointed and includes arguments that are no longer relevant. Accordingly, 5 the motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice to refiling a renewed motion. Any renewed potentially dispositive motion shall address 10 the amended complaint and shall be filed by no later than June 1, 2010; any response shall be filed by no later than June 15, 2010; any reply shall be filed by no later than June 22, 2010. It is FURTHER ORDERED that 13 the motion for leave to file a sur-reply is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on May 18, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
2010-05-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 6/1/2010. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 6/15/2010. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 6/22/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 05/18/2010)
2010-05-21	14	STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted by the Parties by UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
2010-06-01	15	ANSWER to 10 Amended Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND. Related document: 10 Amended Complaint filed by GREG MUTTITT.(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
2010-06-01	16	MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
2010-06-01	17	STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted by the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 06/01/2010)
2010-06-15	18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 16 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
2010-06-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 18 consent motion for extension of time. Plaintiff shall respond to 16 the motion to dismiss by no later than June 16, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on June 16, 2010. (lcegs2 ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
2010-06-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Dispositive Motions due by 6/16/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 06/16/2010)
2010-06-17	19	Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Ravnitzky Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B - McClanahan Declaration, # 4 Exhibit C - Moss Declaration, # 5 Exhibit D - Inquiries to DOS, # 6 Exhibit E - Denials from DOS, # 7 Exhibit F - Letters to DOS, # 8 Exhibit G - Inquiry to DOT)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
2010-06-22	20	REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 06/22/2010)
2010-07-12	21	STATUS REPORT Submitted Jointly by the Parties by UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
2010-07-23	22	MOTION for Hearing re 16 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
2010-07-29	23	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
2010-07-30		MINUTE ORDER granting defendant's motion for an extension of time to file the status report. The status report shall be filed no later than August 6, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on July 30, 2010. (lcegs2) (Entered: 07/30/2010)
2010-08-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 8/6/2010 (clv, ) (Entered: 08/02/2010)
2010-08-06	24	STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted by the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
2010-08-26	25	WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE FILED 9/3/2010..... MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - Email from Leinwand, # 3 Exhibit B - Letter from Leinwand, # 4 Exhibit C - Email from Leinwand)(McClanahan, Kelly) Modified on 9/7/2010 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/26/2010)
2010-08-27	26	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
2010-08-27		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 defendant's motion for an extension of time to file its opposition to 25 plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Defendant shall file its opposition by no later than September 8, 2010. Plaintiff shall file any reply by no later than September 15, 2010. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on August 27, 2010.(lcegs2) (Entered: 08/27/2010)
2010-08-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 9/8/2010 Replies due by 9/15/2010. (clv, ) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
2010-09-02	27	STIPULATION re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) Filed Jointly By the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
2010-09-03	28	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by GREG MUTTITT re 25 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/03/2010)
2010-12-15	29	NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal re Department of Defense, U.S. Central Command pursuant to Settlement (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/15/2010)
2011-01-21		Case reassigned to U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan no longer assigned to the case. (ds) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
2011-01-24	30	STIPULATION of Dismissal Filed Jointly by the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
2011-02-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) directing the parties to file a joint report updating the Court on the status of this case by February 25, 2011. The status report shall identify any remaining contested issues and explain what effect, if any, the dismissal of claims and parties has had on the motion to dismiss and the motion for a hearing that are pending before the Court. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 2/9/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 02/09/2011)
2011-02-09		Set Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 2/25/2011 (cp) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
2011-02-25	31	STATUS REPORT Submitted Jointly by the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND. (Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
2011-05-06	32	NOTICE of Proposed Order (Briefing Schedule) by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, GREG MUTTITT, UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 05/06/2011)
2011-06-02	33	NOTICE of Proposed Order for Amended Proposed Briefing Schedule by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 06/02/2011)
2011-06-03		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) The Court adopts the parties' joint proposed amended briefing schedule, ECF No. 33 . Defendant Department of State's motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed on June 24, 2011. The plaintiff's opposition shall be filed by July 25, 2011. The defendant's reply shall be filed by August 8, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 6/3/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-03		Set Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 6/24/2011. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/25/2011. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/8/2011. (cp) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-24	34	MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) Modified event title on 6/27/2011 (znmw, ). (Entered: 06/24/2011)
2011-07-25	35	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
2011-07-27	36	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
2011-07-27	37	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment (Amended) by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
2011-07-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 37 Amended Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The plaintiff's opposition to Defendant United States Department of State's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed by August 1, 2011. The defendant's reply shall be filed by August 26, 2011. The original motions for extension, ECF Nos. 35 and 36 , are moot. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 7/27/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
2011-07-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/1/2011. Reply due by 8/26/2011. (zalg, ) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
2011-08-03	38	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-03	39	Memorandum in opposition to re 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit A - McClanahan Declaration, # 3 Exhibit B - Fee Waiver Worksheet, # 4 Exhibit C - Expeditious Processing Worksheet, # 5 Exhibit D - Records Schedule)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-04		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 38 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. Plaintiff shall have until and including August 2, 2011, to file his Opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 8/4/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
2011-08-26	40	REPLY to opposition to motion re 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
2011-09-11	41	MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Proposed Sur-Reply, # 2 Exhibit E to Sur-Reply - Leinwand-McClanahan email exchange, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 09/11/2011)
2011-09-26	42	Memorandum in opposition to re 41 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Email from Kelly McClanahan to Jessica Leinwand, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 09/26/2011)
2011-09-28	43	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 16 motion to dismiss in part filed by defendants Department of State and Department of the Treasury. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 9/28/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
2011-09-28	44	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 motion to dismiss in part filed by defendants Department of State and Department of the Treasury for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 9/28/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
2011-09-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 41 Motion for Leave to File Sur-reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 9/29/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
2011-09-29	45	SURREPLY to re 34 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E)(rdj) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
2011-10-05	46	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 10/05/2011)
2011-10-06		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 46 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. The defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the allegations in Count 25 of the Amended Complaint by November 2, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 10/6/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 10/06/2011)
2011-10-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer to Amended Complaint due by 11/2/2011. (alg) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
2011-10-27	47	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Allegations in Count 25 of Plaintiff's Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Leinwand, Jessica) (Entered: 10/27/2011)
2011-10-31		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 47 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. The defendant shall answer or otherwise respond to the allegations in Count 25 of the Amended Complaint by December 14, 2011. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 10/31/2011. (lcbah2) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
2011-10-31		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to allegations in Count 25 due by 12/14/2011. (alg) (Entered: 10/31/2011)
2011-12-01	48	NOTICE of Dismissal of Count 25 by GREG MUTTITT (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
2012-03-20	49	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Kenneth Elliot Sealls on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF STATE Substituting for attorney Jessica Beth Leinwand (Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
2012-03-25	50	MOTION for Leave to File Addiitonal Exhibits (and Notice of Withdrawal of Discovery Request) by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit F - Fee Waiver Worksheets, # 3 Exhibit G - Expeditious Processing Worksheets)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 03/25/2012)
2012-04-12	51	Memorandum in opposition to re 50 MOTION for Leave to File Addiitonal Exhibits (and Notice of Withdrawal of Discovery Request) MOTION for Leave to File Addiitonal Exhibits (and Notice of Withdrawal of Discovery Request) filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1-21-11 FOIA Request)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
2013-03-04	52	ORDER granting in part and denying in part without prejudice 34 Defendant United States Department of State's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and denying 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits. See Order for further details. If the defendant State Department elects to continue to withhold documents L2, L10, N3, N4, N5, N13, S3E, NE9, NE11A, NE11B, NE2, NE4, NE10, and N1, the State Department shall jointly file with the plaintiff, by March 25, 2013, a proposed scheduling order to govern the timing of further proceedings in this action, including the filing of any further dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 4, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-04	53	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 34 Defendant United States Department of State's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Additional Exhibits. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 4, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-04		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Scheduling Order due by 3/25/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
2013-03-22	54	NOTICE of Proposed Order by DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 03/22/2013)
2013-04-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Upon consideration of the 54 Parties' Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, the Court enters the following SCHEDULING ORDER, at the request of the parties, to govern future proceedings in this matter: the defendant Department of State shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment by June 12, 2013. The plaintiff shall file his Opposition by July 15, 2013. The defendant Department of State shall file its Reply by August 12, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on 04/01/2013. (lcbah2) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
2013-04-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 6/12/2013; Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/15/2013; Reply due by 8/12/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 04/01/2013)
2013-04-02	55	MOTION for Reconsideration re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/02/2013)
2013-04-18	56	Memorandum in opposition to re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 04/18/2013)
2013-04-20	57	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Nunc Pro Tunc) by GREG MUTTITT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/20/2013)
2013-04-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting nunc pro tunc 57 Plaintiff's Motion for Brief Enlargement of Time to File His Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Accordingly, the 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration was timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 22, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
2013-04-27	58	REPLY to opposition to motion re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, filed by GREG MUTTITT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - McClanahan-Sealls email)(McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 04/27/2013)
2013-06-12	59	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-13	60	ERRATA by GREG MUTTITT 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, filed by GREG MUTTITT. (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 06/13/2013)
2013-06-27	61	Memorandum in opposition to re 55 MOTION for Reconsideration re 52 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,, filed by DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(Sealls, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
2013-07-15	62	NOTICE of Non-Filing of Opposition to Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by GREG MUTTITT re 59 MOTION for Summary Judgment (McClanahan, Kelly) (Entered: 07/15/2013)
2013-07-30	63	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting as unopposed the 59 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying the 55 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. See Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 30, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/30/2013)
Hide Docket Events