Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that the Defense Department has failed to show that either Exemption 3 (other statutes) or Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) protects the names of students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly know at the U.S. Army School of the Americas, which provides combat and counterinsurgency training to military leaders primarily from Latin American countries. In a strong rebuke to the government's position, Judge Phyllis Hamilton found that the privacy interests were minimal and clearly outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. She also held that § 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010, requiring the agency to disclose the information unless the Secretary of Defense concluded that disclosure was not in the "national interest," did not even qualify as an Exemption 3 statute. The records were requested by two members of the School of the Americas Watch, founded in 1990 after SOA graduates were linked to the killing of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador. Starting in 1994, DOD had provided names of SOA students and instructors to SOA Watch dating back to 1946. SOA Watch used the data to create a database that could link SOA attendees with reported atrocities. DOD continued to provide SOA Watch with the data until 2004, when it stopped making the data public. In March 2011, Theresa Cameranesi and Judith Liteky requested the data on students and instructors from 2005-2010. DOD denied the request on the basis of Exemption 6. Cameranesi and Liteky appealed and the agency affirmed the original denial and added § 1083 as a further basis for denying the information. SOA Watch then filed suit. Hamilton first turned to the Exemption 3 claim, noting that "an Exemption 3 statute's 'identified class of nondisclosable matters' must be narrow to meet the requirements of Exemption 3." While DOD contended that § 1083 qualified as an Exemption 3 statute, SOA Watch argued the discretion to withhold in the "national interest" was far too broad. Hamilton agreed with SOA Watch. She first pointed out that § 1083 by its terms only applied to FY 2009 and 2010. She then noted that "the court is not persuaded that § 1083 qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute, primarily because it does not provide any specific criteria for withholding information. Section 1083 purports to give the Secretary of Defense unbounded discretion to disclose or withhold the names of WHINSEC attendees for FY 2009 and 2010 in the 'national interest,' but provides no guidance whatsoever for the exercise of that discretion." The Defense Department argued that a similar statute allowing for non-disclosure if the head of the agency decided it was in the national interest had been upheld in Lessner v. Dept of Commerce, 827 F.2d 1333 (9th Cir. 1987). Hamilton pointed out that the statute in Lessner provided for non-disclosure of information unless the head of the agency concluded disclosure was in the national interest while § 1083 required disclosure unless the Secretary of Defense concluded non-disclosure was in the national interest. She observed that "apart from the fact that both statutes allow the agency head to make a determination based on 'national interest,' the language and intent of the two statutes are remarkably un-similar." She observed that "in short, in Lessner, the statute plainly indicated a presumption that the information will not be disclosed, whereas here, the statute clearly provides that the information is to be disclosed unless the agency determines some national interest requires that it not be disclosed. Thus, the fact that the court in Lessner found that the court's ruling that 'in the national interest' was a sufficient 'criteria' to disclosure information is not persuasive in this caseâ€"particularly given that up until 2005, DOD routinely released this information in response to FOIA requests." Hamilton then found that Exemption 6 did not protect the information either. She pointed out that "defendants have not established that the WHINSEC students and instructors have a substantial privacy interest in their names and military unitsâ€"particularly the international students and instructors." She indicated that "at most, defendants have made a showing that some international students or instructors might consider their names and military units to be private information, and might object to disclosure of that information. . .DOD's position appears to be that the court should simply defer to the Secretary's determination that the information should be withheld. This position is clearly at odds with the entire premise of FOIA, which mandates a strong policy in favor of disclosure." Much of DOD's privacy argument relied on a 2002 memorandum regarding disclosures of information about members of the military. Hamilton pointed out that the memo "does not, on its face, apply to foreign individuals attending or working at WHINSEC, or to civilian contractors. Moreover, the memorandum does not establish a 'policy' of nondisclosure, but rather merely states a policy that after the events of September 11, 2001, nondisclosure will be given more serious weight in the analysis." She further explained that DOD's claim that "the Army's General Counsel 'recognized' in 2005 that international personnel should have the same privacy rights as U.S. personnel" carried no legal weight because "there is no evidence that this reflects official DOD policy. . ." Hamilton pointed out that DOD's argument focused more on security than privacy. She noted that "defendants argue 'safety' only in a generalized senseâ€"not 'invasion of privacy' or 'embarrassment' that would result from the disclosure of the names and military units. Defendants have made no showing that the military status of the attendees is a secret in their home countries. In addition, the assertion that withholding is proper based on a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy' is supported here solely by allegations of risk of violence." Finding a clear public interest in disclosure, Hamilton indicated that "plaintiffs have shown that there has been extensive media coverage, editorials, and scholarly works that have flowed from the prior public disclosure of the names, military units, and other information about SOA and WHINSEC personnel. This use of the information is indicative of the public interest in disclosure and knowing what the government is up to."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

FOIA Project Annotation: Sorting out a misunderstanding between the parties as to the scope of the request, a federal court in California has ruled that the Defense Department has not adequately explained whether or not it has information identifying the military units of foreign students who attended the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation. In April, District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton rejected the agency's claim that personally identifying information of foreign students and instructors was protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). In the aftermath of that ruling, the agency informed Theresa Cameranesi for the first time that it did not have information identifying the military units of foreign students. Cameranesi contended, however, that she had requested both names and military units and that the agency had implied in its response that both categories of information were being withheld under Exemption 6. Hamilton explained that there was some question as to whether Cameranesi had exhausted her administrative remedies since she had only appealed the agency's exemption claims. She pointed out that "technically, the issue of the adequacy of the search was not administratively exhausted, as it was not raised in plaintiffs' appeal. On the other hand, it evidently was not clear to plaintiffs' before they filed the present action that defendants were taking the position that they did not have access to military unit information and were thus unable to provide it." She found that "plaintiffs did raise the issue of the adequacy of the response in the appeal, but defendants did not clearly respond and plaintiffs did not further pursue it." She indicated that "defendants must do more than simply submit a declaration stating that 'we do not collect unit information.'" She noted that "while in this case the issues of the adequacy of the search and the adequacy of the response have been somewhat conflated in the parties' analysis, they are two distinct issues, which must be further fleshed out in cross-motions for summary judgment." The agency also asked Hamilton to clarify if her previous order applied to U.S. military personnel as well as foreign military personnel since long-standing DOD policy protected the identities of active duty personnel. Hamilton observed that "the [previous] order made clear that [the DOD policy did not apply] to foreign military personnel�"just to U.S. military personnel. However, because the plaintiffs had not specifically argued that the information regarding U.S. military personnel should be released notwithstanding [the DOD policy], the court did not separately address or decode that issue in [its earlier] order."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2012-02-06	1	COMPLAINT against U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 34611070233.). Filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/7/2012: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-06	2	Summons Issued as to U.S. Department of Defense. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-06	3	Summons Issued as to U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-06	4	ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 5/16/2012. Case Management Conference set for 5/23/2012 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-06	5	MOTION for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice re Kent Spriggs ( Filing fee $ 305, receipt number 34611070233.) Filing fee previously paid on 2/6/12 filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2012) (Entered: 02/08/2012)
2012-02-09	9	ORDER granting 5 Kent Spriggs's Motion for admission Pro Hac Vice by Judge Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2012) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-10	6	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 2/10/2012) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-10	7	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky on U.S. Dept. of Defense (Personal Service) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 2/10/2012) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-10	8	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky on U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (Personal Service) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 2/10/2012) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-29	10	CLERKS NOTICE re: Failure to E-File. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2012) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
2012-03-08	11	Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint For Injunctive Relief Under The Freedom of Information Act byU.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
2012-03-08	12	Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense Declination to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge and Request for Reassignment To A United States District Judge . (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 3/8/2012) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
2012-03-09	13	CLERK'S NOTICE of Impending Reassignment to U.S. District Judge. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
2012-03-09	14	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense re 12 Declination to Proceed Before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, 11 Answer to Complaint (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 3/9/2012) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
2012-03-12	15	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. James Ware for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to the case. Signed by the Executive Committee on March 12, 2012. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2012) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
2012-03-13	16	CLERKS NOTICE UPON REASSIGNMENT Case Management Statement due by 6/1/2012. Case Management Conference set for 6/11/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order) (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2012) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
2012-05-02	17	ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 5/2/2012) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
2012-05-22	18	ADR Clerks Notice re: Non-Compliance with Court Order. (tjs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/22/2012) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-05-22	19	*** FILED IN ERROR. DUPLICATE OF DOCKET # 17 . *** ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 5/22/2012) Modified on 5/23/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-05-22	20	*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 22 . *** Joint MOTION to be Excused from the Formal ADR Process; [Proposed] Order filed by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. Responses due by 6/5/2012. Replies due by 6/12/2012. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 5/22/2012) Modified on 5/24/2012 (ewn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-05-22	21	NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 5/22/2012) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-05-23	22	MOTION to be Excused from the ADR Process; [Proposed] )Order filed by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. Responses due by 6/6/2012. Replies due by 6/13/2012. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 5/23/2012) (Entered: 05/23/2012)
2012-05-25	23	ORDER by Judge James Ware signed May 25, 2012, granting 22 Motion Excusing Parties from Formal ADR Process. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012) (Entered: 05/25/2012)
2012-06-04	24	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and [Proposed] Case Management Order filed by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 6/4/2012) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
2012-06-06	25	SCHEDULING ORDER. The Case Management Conference is vacated. Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Chief Judge James Ware. Signed by Chief Judge James Ware on June 6, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2012) (Entered: 06/06/2012)
2012-09-06	26	ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton for all further proceedings. Judge Hon. James Ware no longer assigned to the case. Signed by the Executive Committee on 9/6/2012. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012) (Entered: 09/06/2012)
2012-09-17	27	ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Joint Case Management Statement due by 9/27/2012. Case Management Conference set for 10/4/2012 02:00 PM. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 9/17/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2012) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
2012-09-26	28	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT and {Proposed] Case Management Order filed by U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Judith Liteky, Theresa Camaranesi. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 9/26/2012) Modified on 9/27/2012 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/26/2012)
2012-10-04	29	Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/4/2012 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 10/4/2012). Cross motions for summary judgment will be heard on 11/28/2012. (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/4/2012) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
2012-10-10	30	MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. Motion Hearing set for 11/28/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 10/17/2012. Replies due by 10/26/2012. (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) Modified on 10/11/2012 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	31	Declaration of Judith Liteky in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5a, 5b, 5c, # 6 Exhibit 5d, 5e, # 7 Exhibit 5f, 5g, 5h, 5i, # 8 Exhibit 5j, 5k, 5l, 5m, 5n, # 9 Exhibit 5o, 5p, # 10 Exhibit 5q, 5r, 5s, # 11 Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit 7, # 13 Exhibit 8)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	32	Declaration of Theresa M. Cameranesi in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	33	Declaration of Roy Bourgeois in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	34	Declaration of John Lindsay-Poland in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (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) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	35	Declaration of Luis Roberto Zamora Bolanos in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	36	Declaration of Nicholas Udu-Gama in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	37	Declaration of Hendrik Voss in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	38	Declaration of Pamela Bowman in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	39	Declaration of Katherine E. McCoy in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	40	Declaration of Adam Isacson in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	41	Declaration of Lesley Gill in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	42	Declaration of Laura Jung in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10	43	Declaration of Lora Lumpe in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
2012-10-10		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Defendant's Response/Cross Motion due by 10/17/2012. Plaintiff's Opposition/Reply due by 10/26/2012. Defendant's reply 11/7/2012. Motion Hearing set for 11/28/2012 09:00 AM before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2012) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
2012-10-17	44	CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment and RESPONSE (re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment) filed by U.S. Department of Defense. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/18/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	45	Declaration of Lee A. Rials in Support of 44 Opposition/Response to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment< filed by U.S. Department of Defense. (Related document(s) 44 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/18/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	46	Declaration of Juan D. Walker in Support of 44 Opposition/Response to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 44 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/18/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	47	Declaration of Anastasia Kakel in Support of 44 Opposition/Response to Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 44 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/18/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17	48	Proposed Order re 44 Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment by U.S. Department of Defense. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/17/2012) Modified on 10/18/2012 (kcS, ). (Entered: 10/17/2012)
2012-10-17		Set/Reset Deadlines as to 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 10/31/2012. Replies due by 11/7/2012. Motion Hearing set for 11/28/2012 09:00 AM before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. (kcS, ) (Filed on 10/17/2012) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
2012-10-18	49	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Administrative Motion) filed by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Walker, Juan) (Filed on 10/18/2012) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
2012-10-19		CLERKS NOTICE Set/Reset Deadlines as to 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 10/26/2012. ***CORRECTION OF DEADLINE ENTERED BY CLERK ON 10/18/2012*** THIS IS A TEXT ENTRY ONLY. THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY (kcS, ) (Filed on 10/19/2012) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
2012-10-26	50	REPLY (re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof , 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment ) (Combined) in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order On Cross Motions for Summary Judgment)(Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/26/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-10-26	51	DECLARATION of Kent Spriggs in Opposition to 50 Reply to Opposition/Response, Declaration of Kent Spriggs in Support of Plaintiffs Theresa Cameranesi's and Judith Liteky's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byTheresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 50 ) (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 10/26/2012) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
2012-11-07	52	REPLY (re 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment ) filed byU.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
2012-11-07	53	Declaration of Lee A. Rials in Support of 52 Reply to Opposition/Response to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed byU.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 52 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
2012-11-07	54	Declaration of Anastasia Kakel in Support of 52 Reply to Opposition/Response Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment filed byU.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 11/7/2012) (Entered: 11/07/2012)
2012-11-08	55	Appendix re 52 Reply to Opposition/Response Table of Contents and Table of Authorities for Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed byU.S. Department of Defense. (Related document(s) 52 ) (Walker, Juan) (Filed on 11/8/2012) (Entered: 11/08/2012)
2012-11-20	56	Declaration of Kent Spriggs in Support of 30 Plaintiffs Theresa Cameranesi's and Judith Liteky's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 11/20/2012) Modified on 11/21/2012 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-20	57	OBJECTIONS to Defendants Evidence Submitted in Conjunction With Defendants' Reply Brief by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 11/20/2012) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
2012-11-21	58	CLERKS NOTICE. You are hereby notified that the hearing on the parties cross motions for summary judgment is continued to February 13, 2013, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof . Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2013 09:00 AM before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NOTICE)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2013-01-29	59	NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Ann Marie Reding (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 1/29/2013) (Entered: 01/29/2013)
2013-02-13	60	Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 2/13/2013 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 2/13/2013) re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky, 44 CROSS-MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. Department of Defense. (Court Reporter Raynee Mercado.) (nah, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/13/2013) (Entered: 02/13/2013)
2013-02-13	61	Letter to Judge Hamilton re cross motions for summary judgment . (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 2/13/2013) Modified on 2/14/2013 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/13/2013)
2013-02-14	62	Letter Objecting to Plaintiffs' February 13, 2013 Letter . (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 2/14/2013) (Entered: 02/14/2013)
2013-04-22	63	ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 44 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/22/2013) (Entered: 04/22/2013)
2013-05-20	64	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER (Proposed Order Granting Extension; Stipulation Requesting Extension of Time to File Status Statement or Proposed Form of Judgment) filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 5/20/2013) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-05-21	65	STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION by Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 64 Stipulation.(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
2013-06-20	66	NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th CCA U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Appeal fee FEE WAIVED.) (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 6/20/2013) (Entered: 06/20/2013)
2013-06-21	67	USCA Case Number 13-16281 for 66 Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. (cjl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2013) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
2013-07-10	68	JOINT STATUS REPORT by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense, Judith Liteky, Theresa Cameranesi. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 7/10/2013) Modified on 7/11/2013 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-16	69	TRANSCRIPT ORDER by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense for Court Reporter Raynee Mercado. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 7/16/2013) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
2013-07-16	70	Transcript Designation and Ordering Form re 66 Notice of Appeal Transcript due by 8/19/2013. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 7/16/2013) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
2013-07-29	71	ORDER re Cross Motions for Summary Jugdment. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 7/29/2013. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013) Modified on 7/30/2013 (vlk, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/29/2013)
2013-08-05	72	Statement Defendant's Status Statement Regarding Ninth Circuit Appeal by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 8/5/2013) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
2013-09-13	73	Transcript of Proceedings held on February 13, 2013, before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Court Reporter Raynee H. Mercado, CSR, Telephone number 510-451-7530, cacsr8258@gmail.com, raynee_mercado@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2013. (Related documents(s) 69 ) (rhm) (Filed on 9/13/2013) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
2013-10-21	74	ORDER of USCA as to 66 Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command. DISMISSED. (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
2013-12-16	75	MANDATE of USCA as to 66 Notice of Appeal filed by U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2013) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
2014-01-08	76	NOTICE of Change of Address by Duffy Carolan (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 1/8/2014) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
2014-01-14	77	ORDER of USCA as to 66 Notice of Appeal granting request for consideration of transfer of attorney's fees incurred (vlkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2014) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
2014-03-06	78	CLERKS NOTICE SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. You are hereby notified that a case management conference will be held on April 3, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/27/2014. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/3/2014 02:00 PM. (THIS IS A TEXT ONLY DOCKET ENTRY, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NOTICE) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
2014-03-27	79	JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense, Judith Liteky, Theresa Cameranesi. (Reding, Ann) (Filed on 3/27/2014) Modified on 3/28/2014 (vlkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/27/2014)
2014-04-03	80	Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 4/3/2014 before Phyllis J. Hamilton (Date Filed: 4/3/2014). (Court Reporter Not Reported.) (nahS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/3/2014) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
2014-05-23	81	STATUS REPORT and Proposed Judgment by U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Proposed Judgment)(Reding, Ann) (Filed on 5/23/2014) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
2014-05-27	82	JUDGMENT, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 5/27/14. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/27/2014) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
2014-05-30	83	STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR FEES AND COSTS FOLLOWING JUDGMENT filed by Theresa Cameranesi, Judith Liteky. (Carolan, Duffy) (Filed on 5/30/2014) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
Hide Docket Events