Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that OMB failed to rebut the Center for Biological Diversity's showing that it was entitled to a fee waiver for its request concerning OMB's influence on a National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration's rule concerning fuel economy standards. CBD's request asked for communications between the agencies on the specific NHTSA rulemaking and requested a public interest fee waiver. OMB rejected the fee waiver request on the grounds that NHTSA was responsible for the rule and had already made a great deal of information public, OMB was unlikely to release much information because it would be protected by Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), and any information was unlikely to significantly contribute to public understanding of the issue or to whether or not OMB had complied with certain statutes. CBD then filed suit. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel first examined whether CBD had made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to a fee waiver. She noted that "there is no argument that the documents relate to the operations or activities of the government or that the CBD will disseminate the information to a reasonably large segment of the public interested in this subject. Further, the only documents requested are those not already in the public domain." She added that "the CBD's goal is to understand the administration's rationale and basis for setting the standards at the chosen level. The requested documents will aid the CBD in achieving this goal. The CBD means to challenge publicly the underpinnings of the cost-benefit analysis conducted by the OMB. . .Consequently, the request suffices for a prima facie showing that disclosure is 'likely to contribute significantly to public understanding.'" Patel dismissed OMB's claim that its records would not be particularly useful because NHTSA had been responsible for the actual rule and had already made a large amount of information public. Patel noted that "since the request only applies to documents that are not already in the public domain, this argument is without merit." She also rejected the claim that most of the information would be protected because of OMB's role as a deliberative agency advising the President on regulations. Patel responded that "finding this to be a rare case based not upon the facts of the case, but because of the OMB's role amongst federal agencies would effectively remove the OMB from the FOIA's reach." OMB also argued that the types of documents CBD was requesting were quintessentially deliberative. She indicated that "although the 'predecisional' prong is likely met, there is no indication regarding whether every single document requested would either make a recommendation or express opinions on legal or policy matters or reveal the agency's deliberative process itself." Patel found that CBD was not required to show that the documents would expose any kind of wrongdoing on the part of OMB. She pointed out instead that "the public's understanding of governmental activities will increase independent of the specific weight the OMB placed upon greenhouse gas emission when it conducted its analysis. Mere knowledge of the weight will significantly increase the public's understanding."
Issues: Public Interest Fee Waiver

FOIA Project Annotation: A recent decision by a federal court in California shows just how difficult it can be for an agency to support its exemption claims when dealing with a judge who holds the agency's feet to the fire and insists that it provide both detailed and tailored explanations of its claims in its Vaughn index. The case involved a request by the Center for Biological Diversity to OMB for records pertaining to the agency's role in reviewing a revision to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's fuel efficiency regulations for light trucks. After having ruled earlier this year that OMB must give the Center a fee waiver, District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who has long been regarded as one of the toughest judges on the government in FOIA cases, found this time around that the agency had failed to support is claims under Exemption 5 (privileges). The Center did not challenge claims made under the attorney-client privilege, but did dispute claims made under the deliberative process privilege and the presidential communications privilege. All the disputed documents were emails. The starting point in the Ninth Circuit for assessing the adequacy of an agency's affidavits is still Wiener v. FBI, 943 F.2d 972 (9th Cir. 1991), a case in which the appeals court rejected the FBI's index which inserted an exemption claim for withholdings but then referred back to a generic explanation of what kind of information the exemption protected. Patel observed that the government had clearly learned a lesson from the inadequacies of the Wiener index because the index supplied in the current case by OMB provided a much greater explanation of each withholding. But, Patel pointed out, more did not necessarily mean better. She explained that "the Vaughn index in this action likewise relies upon boilerplate explanations to claim exemption and does not provide a single particularized claim of exemption to any document. Instead of assigning numbers to its various boilerplate statements (such as those describing documents as 'deliberative' and describing the harm that would result from disclosure) as in Wiener, however, defendant OMB provides the full boilerplate texts; creating lengthy but practically meaningless document descriptions. Defendant's index, then, while distinguishable in form, is functionally similar to the one rejected in Wiener. This distinction is without a difference in law or fact. Accordingly, the court finds that defendant's overly simplistic and conclusory summaries, coupled with boilerplate explanations for exemption, do not provide sufficient facts for the court to conduct a de novo review of defendant's withholding under the deliberative process privilege." Specifically, she noted that "the inconsistent disclosure of documents with virtually identical descriptions further exemplifies the deficient nature of the index." She then compared an email that had been withheld entirely with another email that had been partially disclosed, observing that the explanation in both cases was virtually identical. Patel complained that "no further effort is made to tailor the claim of non-segregability to the contents of the document [completely withheld], as is the case for all other documents withheld in their entirety. The court finds this too thin a reed to support an exemption from disclosure. Moreover, for. . .all other partially released documents, there is no information that specifically distinguishes the nature of the redacted versus the released portions of the documents; it is simply stated that a portion of the documents has been released." She indicated that this lack of detail raised a host of unanswered questions. "For instance," she noted, "what concerning the broad category of [fuel efficiency] rulemaking is being discussed in each e-mail and what deliberative process is involved? Indicating that an e-mail includes 'thoughts and opinions' that relate to the broad topic of [fuel efficiency] standards does little more than ensure that the documents are somehow responsive to the FOIA request. In addition, what types of facts are being intertwined with opinion? Scientific? Regulatory? There is no meaningful way of knowing what it is about [the authors'] 'thoughts and opinions' that makes one portion of [the author's] 'thoughts and opinions,' but not others, eligible for partial release." The agency's segregability analysis was no more adequate. Patel noted that "several withheld e-mails refer to thoughts, comments, analysis, perspectives, and reflections on 'standards and analysis used for [fuel efficiency] data'. . .However, the descriptions for these documents only use boilerplate segregability language without a 'detailed justification' for the withholding of the portions of exempt records. This denies both CBD the opportunity to argue for their release and the court the opportunity to consider the reasonableness of the withholding." She then observed that "the court recognizes that the process of segregating nonexempt information from exempt information, and furnishing the nonexempt data to CBD, may be time consuming and expensive. The government nonetheless bears the burden of justifying nondisclosure of any withheld records or segments of records." She found that the supplemental affidavits of two agency officials did little to illuminate the issues. She pointed out that "the OMB declarations provide opinions devoid of facts in support of their claim of exemption." Patel then found that, if anything, the agency had done even less to support its claim to the presidential communications privilege. Explaining that the threshold for invoking the privilege was that the communications were "authored or solicited and received" by the President's immediate advisors or their staff members, she indicated that the Vaughn index "fails to provide the individuals' specific capacities or other indicators of proximity to the President or his key advisers. For example, the index entry for [one] document, labeling an e-mail's recipients as 'EOP Officials,' is particularly deficient because not all EOP officials qualify to claim the privilege." Saying that the agency failed to identify specific individuals, she pointed out that "there are only about 15 unique authors and recipients of the e-mails claimed to be protected under this privilege. Surely it was well within OMB's ability to provide more detailed information about these individuals and their capacities at the time of the documents' creation. Without such information, the court cannot extend the presidential communications privilege to all such individuals. The case law makes clear that the privilege cannot extend to 'every person who plays a role in the development of presidential advice,' or to 'staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies.'" She added that "extending presidential privilege to the communications of all such persons creates the undesirable risk that a vast array of executive branch materials will become 'sequester[ed] from public view.' The court refuses to support a growing shroud of secrecy over the executive branch."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges

FOIA Project Annotation: After submitting a revised Vaughn index, OMB has fared reasonably well with its Exemption 5 (privileges) claims brought before District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. Finding that the agency had provided a significantly better description of how various privileges encompassed in Exemption 5 applied to documents concerning corporate average fuel economy standards, Patel also provided the first sustained discussion of how the changes in FOIA policy introduced by the Obama administration might affect the ongoing litigation. The case involved a suit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity for records involving OMB's role in CAFE standards discussions during the Bush administration. A similar suit brought by the State of California against the EPA is on-going. Because the vast majority of both cases involved claims under Exemption 5, the application of the "foreseeable harm" standard embodied in both President Barack Obama's Jan. 21 FOIA memo and the subsequent Mar. 19 memo issued by Attorney General Eric Holder implementing the President's memo may have a dramatic effect on the ultimate amount of information disclosed. Also, the recently announced agreement with car manufacturers to increase the CAFE standards by 2016 may largely obviate the deliberative nature of the documents involved in the current litigation since the policy they embody differs substantially from the policy just adopted. Patel provided no in depth discussion of the new FOIA policy, but since so few courts have yet spoken to the issue at all, her preliminary thoughts provide essentially the first judicial insights into the effects of the new FOIA policy. Remanding those documents for which OMB had not yet substantiated its claims, Patel noted that "at the March 23, 2009 oral hearing, the court asked OMB to address the impact of Attorney General Eric Holder's recent memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies on the Obama administration's 'presumption of openness' in FOIA disclosure. OMB requested an opportunity to revisit the pending Vaughn indices to determine if any additional documents merit release in view of this new transparency policy. The court granted OMB two weeks to consider a broadening release of documents." She then indicated that certain documents would no longer be in dispute, including documents that were properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege or the presidential communications privilege. She pointed out that "when deciding if a document is still in contention, pursuant to the guidance of the court, the parties should weigh on the side of inclusion. As instructed by the President, 'In the face of doubt, openness prevails.' This does not mean, however, that every document which CBD would like to include, which is not specifically excluded by the court, must be included. The parties are ordered to work together on achieving a reasonable, finalized list of contested documents through the prism of openness." But after finding OMB's justification for withholding documents wanting in the first rounds of the CBD litigation, Patel found the agency's affidavits were considerably more persuasive this time. CBD argued that draft press releases and related emails should not be considered privileged. But Patel noted instead that "drafts of documents, even those which may eventually be released to the public, may contain deliberative process-protected materials. Therefore, a blanket release is improper in this context." While CBD pointed out that the Ninth Circuit, in Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 539 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2008), had recently adopted the D.C. Circuit's requirement that a reviewing court conduct a segregability analysis, Patel indicated that OMB's analysis provided enough information for her to make a determination. She observed that "OMB has finally conducted an extensive review of the documents in question and provided a description as to why it is withholding a particular document in whole or in part. Although the segregability paragraph is boilerplate, the court finds that OMB has provided in its document descriptions, the non-conclusory description necessary to show its proper invocation without thwarting the deliberative process privileges purpose." Patel reined in the agency's presidential communications privilege claims. The agency contended that records related to "Policy Time" discussions at the White House were protected. But Patel reminded the agency that "while the documents and drafts of those documents prepared specifically for this meeting may be covered by this exception, there remain other documents which, by their description, fall outside of this exception." She pointed out that "the privilege does not extend to intra-OMB discussions relating to 'draft background papers and memorandum prepared for a presentation for the President.'" She noted, however, that these records could be covered by the deliberative process privilege. CBD argued that the attorney-client privilege was waived for inter-agency documents. Patel disagreed, noting that "contrary to CBD's assertion, the development of the CAFE standards was a common legal interest shared by different agencies. It is precisely because OMB is an oversight organization that OMB is involved with various agencies in tandem to create new CAFE regulations. The development of the new CAFE standards is therefore a common legal interest allowing all involved agency members the privilege of attorney-client confidentiality in discussions regarding the legality of various aspects of the proposed CAFE rulemaking. There is no indication that these e-mails were circulated broadly among agency members not authorized to speak or act for the organization in relation to the subject matter of the communication." Finally, Patel ruled that OMB had not waived exemption claims when it disclosed records that it had previously withheld. She observed that "to find that OMB violated the [Administrative Procedure Act] as evidenced by the fact that it subsequently released documents would discourage OMB from ever reexamining previously-withheld documents, something the court is loathe to do."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

FOIA Project Annotation: OMB did not fare quite so well in a companion decision by District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel concerning Exemption 5 (privileges) claims on hundreds of email exchanges. Criticizing the lack of specificity in its claims, she noted that "only the first and/or second sentence of each description [of the exemption claim] is different. The term 'different' is used with reservation, as the court noted that one particular description was replicated verbatim for other 350 entries." Pointing to some claims that indicated only that deliberative material was withheld from discussions concerning the CAFE rulemaking, she observed that "all this description provides is that it is responsive to CBD's document request. [W]hen combined with the boilerplate language as to why the document is deliberative, the description becomes meaningless. Essentially, by describing the document as containing 'deliberative discussions' and then justifying the documents as deliberative because they contain discussions, OMB has set forth a circular claim to the privilege." She added that "these [agency] declarations are nearly verbatim recitations of what was previously submitted, differing only in that they are, if possible, less detailed." Turning to the presidential communications privilege, she noted that "to extend the privilege to intra-OMB discussions relating to 'draft background paper and memorandum used to prepare a presentation for the President' without a more detailed description, would run contrary to the law on this FOIA exemption. The court declines to uphold the presidential communications privilege for the challenged documents." Documents withheld here under attorney-client privilege also did not pass her scrutiny. She pointed out that "the descriptions provided in this Index in support of the attorney-client privilege are simply not tailored. Several entries fail to identify how a lawyer is involved. Several fail to identify how the document contains legal advice. 'These documents might well contain legal advice and confidential information, but [OMB] does not say so.' OMB needs to say so." She pointed out that the supporting affidavit was inadequate. She noted that "the declaration provides no further description as to why these documents contain privileged material; instead it merely restates the scope of the [attorney-client] privilege, and that the documents fall within that scope." Some documents had also been withheld on the basis of Exemption 4 (confidential business information), but Patel indicated that the agency had not justified that claim. She observed that the agency declaration "appears unsure that the information contained in these documents is either (1) privileged and confidential or (2) would result in competitive disadvantage." OMB also argued that it could not disclose the information because it had been unable to contact the submitter as required by Executive Order 12,600 on predisclosure notification. Patel pointed out that "if OMB has not been able to contact the submitter of the information, it begs the question how OMB could assert a privilege that relies on [evidence that the submitter would suffer competitive harm]." She indicated that "because this court is not requiring OMB to release the documents at this point, OMB's attempted reliance on the fact that it cannot contact the submitters to withhold documents is premature. The court finds that there simply is not enough specific evidence to provide support for OMB's assertion of Exemption 4. More information is needed."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 4 - Competitive harm

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2007-09-27	1	COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against Office of Management and Budget (Filing fee $ 350.00, receipt number 34611010860). Filed by Center for Biological Diversity. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2007 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
2007-09-27	2	ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 12/31/2007. Case Management Conference set for 1/7/2008 04:00 PM. (Attachments: # 1 MHP Standing Order# 2 New Standing Order)(gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
2007-09-27	3	Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons by Center for Biological Diversity (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/5/2007 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/28/2007)
2007-09-27		Summons Issued as to Office of Management and Budget. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
2007-09-27		CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
2007-10-24	4	SUMMONS Returned Executed by Center for Biological Diversity. Office of Management and Budget served on 10/1/2007, answer due 11/30/2007. (FOIA Case: Answer due in 30 Days--10/31/2007) (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 10/24/2007) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
2007-11-02	5	ANSWER to Complaint byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 11/2/2007) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
2007-12-10	6	Memorandum in Opposition to OMB's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 12/10/2007) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
2007-12-10	7	Proposed Order re 6 Memorandum in Opposition to OMB's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related by Center for Biological Diversity. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 12/10/2007) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
2007-12-17	8	CLERK'S NOTICE - The Court has reviewed the motion and determined that no cases are related and no reassignments shall occur. (jjo, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2007) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
2007-12-19	9	ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2007) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
2007-12-20	10	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/20/2007) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
2007-12-20	11	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5b) of discussion of ADR options (Russin, Leah) (Filed on 12/20/2007) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
2007-12-20	12	NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Russin, Leah) (Filed on 12/20/2007) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
2007-12-21	13	**PLEASE SEE DOCUMENT #14** ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 1/3/08 at 11:30 a.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) Modified on 12/21/2007 (tjs, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/21/2007)
2007-12-21	14	*CORRECTED* ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on 1/3/08 at 11:30 a.m. Please take note that plaintiff's counsel initiates the call to all parties. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
2007-12-21		ADR Remark: The ADR Phone Conference has been rescheduled to 1/4/08 at 11:30 a.m. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2007) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
2007-12-31	15	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/31/2007) (Entered: 12/31/2007)
2008-01-09	16	***FILED IN ERROR*** Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 1/7/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 1/9/2008). Further Status Conference set for 5/5/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Order re ADR Mediation stayed.(Court Reporter Katherine Powell.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/9/2008) Modified on 1/9/2008 (awb, COURT-STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2008)
2008-01-09	17	Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 1/7/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 1/9/2008)Briefing schedules as follows: Cross Motions to be filed 1/25/2008; Oppositions to be filed by 2/8/2008; No Replies; Motions to be heard 2:00 pm on 2/25/2008. (Court Reporter Katherine Powell.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/9/2008) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
2008-01-25	18	MOTION for Summary Ajudication of Fee Waiver Issue filed by Office of Management and Budget. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/25/2008) Modified on 1/29/2008 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	19	Declaration of John F. Morrall, III in Support of 18 MOTION for Summary Ajudication of Fee Waiver Issue filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Related document(s) 18 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/25/2008) Modified on 1/29/2008 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	20	Proposed Order re 18 MOTION for Summary Ajudication of Fee Waiver Issue by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/25/2008) Modified on 1/29/2008 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	21	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Fee Waiver Issue filed by Center for Biological Diversity. Motion Hearing set for 2/25/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	22	Declaration of Kassia Siegel in Support of 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Fee Waiver Issue filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 21 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	23	Declaration of Justin Augustine in Support of 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Fee Waiver Issue filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 21 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-01-25	24	Proposed Order re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Fee Waiver Issue Granting Plaintiff's Motion and Denying Defendant's Cross-Motion by Center for Biological Diversity. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2008) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-02-08	25	Memorandum in Opposition re 21 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Fee Waiver Issue to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Ajudication of Fee Waiver Issue filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/8/2008) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
2008-02-08	26	Memorandum in Opposition re 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment Ajudication of Fee Waiver Issue filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 2/8/2008) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
2008-02-13	27	CLERK'S NOTICE: Motions Hearing reset for 3/10/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2008) (Entered: 02/13/2008)
2008-03-10	28	CLERK'S NOTICE submitting defendant's motion for summary adjudication on the papers; Hearing date of 3/10/2008 vacated (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2008) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
2008-03-13	29	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel denying 18 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 21 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
2008-03-13	30	CLERK'S NOTICE: Further Case Management Conference set for 4/21/2008 03:00 PM. Joint Case Management Statement due by 4/11/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2008) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
2008-04-11	31	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Subsequent Case Management Conference Statement filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 4/11/2008) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
2008-04-22	32	Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 4/21/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 4/22/2008); Further Status Conference set for 8/4/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Juanita Gonzales.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/22/2008) (Entered: 04/22/2008)
2008-06-04	33	NOTICE of Change of Address by Justin Augustine (Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 6/4/2008) (Entered: 06/04/2008)
2008-07-11	34	STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DATE BY WHICH OMB SHALL PRODUCE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS AND VAUGHN INDICES TO PLAINTIFF by Center for Biological Diversity, Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 7/11/2008) (Entered: 07/11/2008)
2008-07-15	35	STIPULATION AND ORDER continuing dates by which OMB shall complete production of documents and a Vaughn index in response to the FOIA request at issue in this case; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 7/14/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 7/15/2008) (Entered: 07/15/2008)
2008-07-28	36	CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Subsequent Case Management Conference Statement filed by Center for Biological Diversity, Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 7/28/2008) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
2008-08-05	37	Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 8/4/2008 before the Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 8/5/2008); Further Status Conference set for 9/15/2008 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/5/2008) (Entered: 08/05/2008)
2008-08-06	38	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Schedule for Remainder of the Case by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 8/6/2008) (Entered: 08/06/2008)
2008-08-07	39	ORDER granting 38 Stipulation Regarding Schedule For Remainder of Case filed by Office of Management and Budget.Case Management Conference set for 9/8/2008 03:00 PM. Cross Motions Hearing set for 11/17/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Marilyn H. Patel on 8/7/2008. (mat, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/7/2008) (Entered: 08/08/2008)
2008-09-02	40	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Center for Biological Diversity. (Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 9/2/2008) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
2008-09-08	41	Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 9/8/2008 before the Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 9/8/2008). (Court Reporter Kathy Wyatt.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/8/2008) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
2008-10-06	42	MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support; Proposed Order, filed by Center for Biological Diversity. Motion Hearing set for 11/10/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 10/6/2008) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
2008-10-06	43	Declaration of Justin Augustine in Support of 42 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support; Proposed Order, filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 42 ) (Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 10/6/2008) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
2008-10-06	44	MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION filed by Office of Management and Budget. Motion Hearing set for 11/17/2008 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/6/2008) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
2008-10-06	45	Declaration of RICHARD P. THEROUX in Support of 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 1 of 5, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 2 of 5, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 3 of 5, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 4 of 5, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 1 part 5 of 5)(Related document(s) 44 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/6/2008) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
2008-10-06	46	Declaration of KEVIN F. NEYLAND in Support of 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Related document(s) 44 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/6/2008) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
2008-10-16	47	STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DEADLINE FOR FILING OPPOSITION BRIEFS ON PENDING MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/16/2008) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
2008-10-22	48	STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULES re 44 42 Motions for Summary Judgment; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/21/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2008) (Entered: 10/22/2008)
2008-10-23	49	Memorandum in Opposition to 44 OMB's Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by Center for Biological Diversity. (Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 10/23/2008) Modified on 10/24/2008 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-10-23	50	Memorandum in Opposition to 42 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/23/2008) Modified on 10/24/2008 (gba, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-10-23	51	Declaration of Kevin F. Neyland in Support of 50 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Related document(s) 50 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/23/2008) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-10-23	52	Declaration of Michael T. Pyle in Support of 50 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Related document(s) 50 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/23/2008) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-10-23	53	Proposed Order re 50 Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/23/2008) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-10-23	54	STIPULATION re 50 Memorandum in Opposition and [Proposed] Order Regarding Filing of Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/23/2008) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
2008-11-03	55	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding November 3, 2008 Deadline by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 11/3/2008) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
2008-11-18	56	STIPULATION AND ORDER extending 11/3/2008 deadline to 11/13/2008 for OMB to produce final Vaughn index and supporting declarations; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/14/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2008) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
2008-11-19	57	Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 11/17/2008 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 11/19/2008) re 44 42 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/19/2008) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
2008-11-25	58	***DOCKETED IN ERROR - SEE DOC. 59 *** MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel: By stipulation of the parties, defendant is GRANTED partial summary judgment as to the documents withheld under the attorney-client privilege; However, the court must partially DENY defendants motion for summary judgment as to the documents withheld under the other two privileges. The Vaughn index and declarations submitted by defendant are deficient in many respects. The index and declarations identified each document withheld or redacted and the statutory exemption claimed, but failed to provide sufficiently particularized explanations of how disclosure of the particular document would damage the interest protected by the claimed exemption. The court hereby orders defendant to produce a more particularized Vaughn index as to the remaining privileges consistent with this opinion, to provide the court with an adequate factual basis upon which it could conduct a de novo review of the defendants withholding decisions.The court does not conclude that the documents are not exempt as a matter of law, only that the agency has failed to supply the court with the minimal information necessary to make such a determination. Therefore, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is also DENIED.This order explains why defendants index and declarations are insufficient. Given the number of extensions already granted to defendant to produce documents responsive to CBDs FOIA request, the OMB is ordered to give the production of revised materials sufficient priority to ensure that they are submitted by January 5, 2009. Further, the OMB is on notice that a failure to submit adequate revisions that provide the court with sufficiently particularized explanations of how disclosure will damage the interest protected by the claimed privilege will be deemed a waiver of that privilege. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2008) Modified on 12/4/2008 (awb, COURT-STAFF). (Entered: 11/25/2008)
2008-12-04	59	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/25/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008) (Entered: 12/04/2008)
2008-12-16	60	MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Ajudication filed by Office of Management and Budget. Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
2008-12-16	61	Declaration of Kevin F. Neyland in Support of 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Ajudication filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8)(Related document(s) 60 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
2008-12-16	62	Declaration of Richard P. Theroux in Support of 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Ajudication filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Part 1 of 3, # 2 Exhibit 1 Part 2 of 3, # 3 Exhibit 1 Part 3 of 3, # 4 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 60 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
2008-12-16	63	Proposed Order re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Ajudication by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
2008-12-16	64	Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Center for Biological Diversity. Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Vera Pardee, # 2 Proposed Order)(Augustine, Justin) (Filed on 12/16/2008) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
2008-12-18	65	NOTICE by Center for Biological Diversity WITHDRAWAL OF LEAH RUSSIN AS COUNSEL (Russin, Leah) (Filed on 12/18/2008) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
2008-12-19	66	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule for 1/5/09 Vaughn Index and Declarations by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/19/2008) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
2008-12-22	67	STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING BRIEFING SCHEDULES for 1/5/09 Vaughn Index and declarations; Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 12/22/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2008) (Entered: 12/22/2008)
2008-12-30	68	Memorandum in Opposition re 60 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Ajudication filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/30/2008) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
2008-12-30	69	Declaration of Michael T. Pyle in Support of 68 Memorandum in Opposition filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Related document(s) 68 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 12/30/2008) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
2008-12-30	70	NOTICE of Appearance by Vera Prinz Pardee (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 12/30/2008) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
2008-12-30	71	Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment By Defendant Office of Management and Budget Re "Exchange" Documents filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 12/30/2008) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
2009-01-06	72	NOTICE by Office of Management and Budget re 59 Memorandum & Opinion Defendant Office of Mangement and Budget's Notice of Compliance with Court Order (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/6/2009) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
2009-01-13	73	STIPULATION and Proposed Order Regarding Briefing Schedule for 1/05/09 Vaughn Index and Declarations by Center for Biological Diversity. (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 1/13/2009) (Entered: 01/13/2009)
2009-01-14	74	STIPULATION AND ORDER re briefing schedule for Vaughn index: opening briefs to be filed by 2/9/2009; Oppositions to be filed by 2/23/2009; Motion Hearing set for 3/9/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/14/2009. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2009) (Entered: 01/14/2009)
2009-02-02	75	Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/2/2009 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 2/2/2009) re 60 64 MOTIONS for Summary Judgment filed by Center for Biological Diversity; Hearing on all pending motions reset for 3/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Kelly Bryce.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/2/2009) (Entered: 02/03/2009)
2009-02-04	76	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Briefing Schedule for Remainder of Case by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/4/2009) (Entered: 02/04/2009)
2009-02-06	77	STIPULATION AND ORDER re briefing schedule for remainder of case; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 2/6/2009. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2009) (Entered: 02/06/2009)
2009-02-27	78	MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Office of Management and Budget. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	79	Declaration of Richard P. Theroux, Ph.D. in Support of 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Ajudication filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 78 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	80	Declaration of Kevin F. Neyland in Support of 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment Ajudication filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 78 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	81	Proposed Order re 78 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	82	Second MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Center for Biological Diversity. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	83	Declaration of Vera Pardee in Support of 82 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 82 ) (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-02-27	84	Proposed Order re 82 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Center for Biological Diversity. (Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 2/27/2009) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
2009-03-13	85	MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Office of Management and Budget. Motion Hearing set for 3/23/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-13	86	Declaration of Michael T. Pyle in Support of 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Related document(s) 85 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-13	87	Declaration of Kevin F. Neyland in Support of 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 85 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-13	88	Declaration of Richard P. Theroux, Ph.D. in Support of 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment filed byOffice of Management and Budget. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 85 ) (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-13	89	Proposed Order re 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-13	90	MEMORANDUM in Opposition to OMB's Motion for Summary Judgment on ARMS Documents and Notice and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Second Motion for Partial Judgment on Exchange Documents filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff's Second Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Exchange Documents)(Pardee, Vera) (Filed on 3/13/2009) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-03-23	91	Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 3/23/2009 before Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (Date Filed: 3/23/2009) re Cross Motions for Summary Judgment; Further Status Conference set for 4/27/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Margo Garule.) (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/23/2009) (Entered: 03/23/2009)
2009-04-01	92	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Continuing Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion to Permit an Action Which Exceeds the Total Amount of Government Claim by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 4/1/2009) (Entered: 04/01/2009)
2009-04-20	93	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 4/20/2009) (Entered: 04/20/2009)
2009-04-24	94	CLERKS NOTICE: Status Conference reset from 4/27/2009 to 6/15/2009 03:00 PM before the Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2009) (Entered: 04/24/2009)
2009-05-05	95	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel: The court DENIES defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Vaughn Index and declarations are insufficient to allow the court to make a de novo review of how disclosure of a particular document would damage the interest provided by the claimed exemption. The court has ordered defendant to produce a more particularized Vaughn Index as to the privileges asserted, so that the court may have an adequate factual basis upon which it may make a de novo review of the defendant's withholding decisions. That Index should provide an accurate count of how many documents are contested and under which privileges, to address plaintiff's concerns about FOIA Exemption 6, inter alia, and to facilitate matters going forward.The court does not conclude that the documents are not exempt as a matter of law, only that the agency has failed to supply the court with the minimal information necessary to make such a determination. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED. However, OMB remains on notice that a failure to submit adequate revisions that provide the court with sufficiently particularized explanations of how disclosure will damage the interest protected by the claimed privilege will be deemed a waiver of that privilege. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2009) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
2009-05-05	96	MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Defendant's motion for summary judgement is GRANTED in part, with respect to documents asserted under FOIA Exemption 5, the attorney-client privilege, and FOIA Exemption 6, privacy. Defendant's motion for summary judgement is further GRANTED in part, with respect to documents which meet the courts rulings under FOIA Exemption 5, the deliberative process and presidential communications privileges. Defendant's motion for summary judgement is DENIED in part with respect to the remaining documents, which will be submitted in accordance with the parties future stipulation for in camera review.Plaintiff's motion for summary judgement is accordingly DENIED; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 5/5/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2009) (Entered: 05/05/2009)
2009-06-03	97	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order to Continue Date for Further Case Management Conference by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 6/3/2009) (Entered: 06/03/2009)
2009-06-04	98	STIPULATION AND ORDER: Status Conference reset for 7/13/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 6/4/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2009) (Entered: 06/04/2009)
2009-07-01	99	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 7/1/2009) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
2009-07-13	100	Minute Entry: Status Conference held (Date Filed: 7/13/2009). Further Status Conference set for 10/5/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. Case referred to Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation for In Camera Review. (Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan.) (ls, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/13/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
2009-07-14		CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman for Report and Recommendation "for in camera review." (wh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2009) (Entered: 07/14/2009)
2009-07-31	101	NOTICE by Office of Management and Budget of In Camera Submissions to Judge Zimmerman (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 7/31/2009) (Entered: 07/31/2009)
2009-08-25	102	REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objections to R&R due by 9/9/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 8/24/2009. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/25/2009) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
2009-09-09	103	AMENDMENT TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 102 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman on 9/9/2009. (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2009) (Entered: 09/09/2009)
2009-09-28	104	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 9/28/2009) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
2009-10-06	105	Minute Entry: Status Conference (Date Filed: 10/6/2009). Defendant to identify documents by 10/6/09 and turnover documents by 4:00 p.m. on 10/13/09. Response is due by 10/15/09.Further Status Conference set for 10/19/2009 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Court Reporter Belle Ball.) (fj, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/6/2009) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
2009-10-13	106	STIPULATION [Proposed] Stipulation Re Case Management Conference Date by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/13/2009) (Entered: 10/13/2009)
2009-10-14	107	STIPULATION AND ORDER amending briefing schedules AND continuing Status Conference to 11/2/2009 03:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 10/14/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2009) (Entered: 10/14/2009)
2009-10-28	108	STIPULATION [Proposed] Stipulation Re Case Management Conference and Further Briefing Schedule by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 10/28/2009) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
2009-11-02	109	ORDER by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ADOPTING 102 Report and Recommendations. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2009) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
2009-11-03	110	STIPULATION AND ORDER vacating 11/2/09 Case Management Conference; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/3/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/3/2009) (Entered: 11/03/2009)
2009-11-05	111	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Schedule for Resolution of Fee & Cost Request by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 11/5/2009) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
2009-11-06	112	STIPULATION AND ORDER setting briefing schedules: Motions re Costs/Fees to be filed by 1/15/2010; Oppositions to be filed by 1/29/2010; Replies to be filed by 2/16/2010; Motion Hearing reserved for 3/1/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 11/6/2009. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2009) (Entered: 11/06/2009)
2010-01-05	113	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Schedule for Resolution of Fee & Cost Request by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/5/2010) (Entered: 01/05/2010)
2010-01-06	114	STIPULATION AND ORDER amending briefing schedules: Motions to be filed by 1/25/2010; Oppositions to be filed by 2/5/2010; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 1/6/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2010) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
2010-01-20	115	NOTICE by Office of Management and Budget of Unavailability (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 1/20/2010) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
2010-01-25	116	MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Center for Biological Diversity. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2010 02:00 PM in Courtroom 15, 18th Floor, San Francisco. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	117	Declaration of Vera Pardee in Support of 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	118	Declaration of Deborah Sivas in Support of 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	119	Declaration of Justin Augustine in Support of 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	120	Declaration of Richard Toshiyuki Drury in Support of 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	121	Declaration of James Wheaton in Support of 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed byCenter for Biological Diversity. (Related document(s) 116 ) (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-01-25	122	Proposed Order re 116 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Center for Biological Diversity. (Sivas, Deborah) (Filed on 1/25/2010) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
2010-02-04	123	STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Approving Settlement and Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims by Office of Management and Budget. (Pyle, Michael) (Filed on 2/4/2010) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
2010-02-09	124	STIPULATION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 2/8/2010. (awb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2010) (Entered: 02/09/2010)
Hide Docket Events