Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the Office of Administration is not required to provide a copy of a memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concerning whether OA is an agency under FOIA. In litigation against CREW, the Office of Administration took the position that it was not an agency, but rather solely played an advisory role to the president. CREW, attempting to determine when OA stopped functioning as an agency subject to FOIA, asked Kollar-Kotelly to review the OLC memo in camera to determine if it was privileged. The Office of Administration received the OLC memo on August 21, 2007; the same day OA filed its motion taking the position that it was not an agency. The agency claimed the memo was protected under the attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process privilege. CREW argued that even if the memo was privileged, OA had relied upon it and incorporated it into its final decision concerning its agency status. Although the agency argued that OLC served as outside counsel for all executive agencies, Kollar-Kotelly noted that the attorney-client privilege did not apply. She pointed out that "the OLC Memo reveals that it does not rest on confidential information obtained from OA, and thus is not covered by the attorney-client privilege." But she found the memo fit within the deliberative process privilege. She indicated that "the OLC Memo reveals that it does not mandate a particular policy, rather it clearly contains legal advice from the equivalent of OA's outside counsel. . .Moreover, courts have upheld the withholding of specific OLC memoranda in the FOIA context based on findings that the memoranda are deliberative in nature." OA claimed that it had occasionally considered its agency status ever since 1995 when a district court ruled that the National Security Council was an agency, a decision subsequently overturned by the D.C. Circuit. However, the agency's affidavit claimed the decision was not made until August 21, 2007, when its opposition motion was filed. Although the OLC memo, which was received the same day, was helpful in the agency's decision-making process, it did not represent the final decision. After dismissing CREW's argument that the OLC memo embodied the final decision, Kollar-Kotelly also rejected the group's claim that OA had adopted the memo's conclusion and reasoning. She observed that "there can be no doubt that the Executive Branch has never expressly adopted or incorporated by reference the OLC Memo. To the contrary, OA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which [the agency] avers represents the final Executive Branch position on OA's status under FOIA, makes no mention of the OLC Memo, and OA only revealed its existence in response to direct questioning by the Court as to whether such a memo existed." CREW claimed that National Council of La Raza v. Dept of Justice, 411 F.3d 350 (2d Cir. 2005), a case in which the Second Circuit ruled that an OLC memo had been publicly adopted as the position of the Justice Department, supported its argument. But Kollar-Kotelly explained that "even if the OLC Memo reached the same conclusion as the Executive Branch's collaborative process, the Court could not assume�"in the absence of evidence indicating that the conclusion was reached on the same grounds�"that the Executive Branch actually adopted the OLC Memo. Moreover, having now reviewed the OLC Memo in camera, it is clear to the Court that any such assumption would be entirely inappropriate. The analysis contained in the OLC Memo meaningfully differs from the legal position ultimately taken in OA's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which [the agency's affidavit] describes as reflective of the Executive Branch's final position on whether OA is an agency subject to FOIA."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has ruled that the Office of Administration in the Executive Office of the President is not an agency for purposes of FOIA, even though the office had responded to FOIA requests in the past and had been identified on the White House website as the FOIA contact for the White House. Dismissing a FOIA suit brought against the Office of Administration by CREW, Kollar-Kotelly noted that "while OA's past functioning under the FOIA and the [Federal Records Act] is undisputed, it is also insufficient by itself to establish that OA is, as a matter of law, an agency subject to the FOIA. Rather, the Court has considered that very question and. . . finds that it is not an agency subject to the FOIA." Because of separation of powers concerns, the D.C. Circuit in Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (D.C. Cir. 1971), ruled that a component of the Executive Office of the President was not subject to FOIA if its primary role was to advise or assist the President. However, in Soucie the court found that the Office of Science and Technology was an agency because, aside from advising the President, it also exercised independent authority. When Congress passed the 1974 FOIA Amendments, it further defined an agency as one that met the criteria in the Administrative Procedure Act. Congress also indicated that EOP would be covered to the extent that components satisfied the Soucie standard. Within ten years it became apparent the courts were not going to blindly follow congressional interpretation when the D.C. Circuit ruled, in Rushforth v. Council of Economic Advisors, 762 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1985) that the Council was not an agency, even though the Conference Report on the 1974 Amendments described the Council as being a component that would be subject to FOIA. Except for its earlier rulings in Sierra Club v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1978), and Pacific Legal Foundation v. Council on Environmental Quality, 636 F.2d 1259 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the D.C. Circuit has not found any other EOP entity subject to FOIA. While the case law is sparse, since the last win in 1980 the D.C. Circuit has concluded not only that the Council of Economic Advisors did not qualify as an agency but also the National Security Council in Armstrong v. EOP, 90 F.3d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1996), and the Office of the White House Usher in Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Addressing the issue of whether the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, chaired by Vice President George Bush, was subject to FOIA in Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993), the court identified three factors for discerning whether an EOP component was subject to FOIA: (1) whether it was operationally close to the President, (2) the degree of delegation of independent authority, and (3) whether it had a separate staff and self-contained structure. The Office of Administration was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 to provide administrative services to components of EOP. The appointment of the Director of OA is not subject to congressional approval and that individual is referred to organizationally as a Special Assistant to the President. OA organizes contracts for supplies and services to components of EOP but is not accountable for program or management responsibilities within those components. OA contracts with federal agencies for some services for OA or other EOP offices. It also supplies services for non-EOP entities�"particularly the Navy and the Secret Service�"consisting primarily of voice systems operation and maintenance on the White House complex. OA interacts with agencies in additional ways; for example, it is responsible for dealing with the National Archives on matters of record preservation/management functions for itself and other EOP components. Based on a 1978 memo from the Deputy White House Counsel, OA had operated as if it were subject to FOIA. However, during the Armstrong litigation in 1995, OA began to consider whether or not it qualified as an agency. After more than a decade of sporadic back-and-forth with the Justice Department, OA concluded in August 2007 that it was not an agency. Kollar-Kotelly first indicated that her examination of the case law "reveals that OA�"with its administrative rather than substantive responsibilities�"is not easily compared to the majority of the EOP entities previously considered by the D.C. Circuit. Perhaps the most comparable entity is the Executive Residence staff which, like OA, is charged with performing tasks of a non-substantive nature." But she added that "even the Executive Residence staff, however, is not directly comparable to OA as its responsibilities are of a different character and it employs roughly 70 employees, while OA employs over 200 employees." Looking at OA's charter documents, Kollar-Kotelly noted that they "authorize OA to perform a broad range of administrative services to EOP components, and to do so in the President's stead. They do not, however, invest OA with any authority beyond providing administrative services to the components within EOP." CREW pointed out that the charter directed OA to provide services to other EOP components but not to the President himself. But Kollar-Kotelly observed that "this distinction does not establish that OA performs functions beyond advising and assisting the President. Instead, OA's charter documents and President Carter's message to Congress make clear that OA's function is to support, i.e., assist, the President indirectly by providing efficient, centralized administrative services to the components within EOP." Turning next to the degree of independent authority possessed by OA, Kollar-Kotelly explained that CREW had shown only that OA exercised "substantial independence," "sufficient independence," and "significant independence." Agreeing with OA that those terms were inexact, she noted that "pursuant to D.C. Circuit precedent, however, the relevant standard is whether OA exercises 'substantial independent authority.' CREW's artful turning of phrases does not alter the showing that it is required to make in order to establish that OA is an agency subject to the FOIA. Instead, CREW's argument regarding the breadth of the President's delegation to the OA Director is irrelevant in the absence of evidence that that delegation carries with it the type of independent authority that the D.C. Circuit has found sufficient to make other EOP components agencies subject to the FOIA." Reviewing these functions, Kollar-Kotelly admitted that OA's operations were substantial, but concluded that "these activities do not establish that OA exercises 'substantial independent authority.'. . .Instead, OA performs a variety of administrative functions for EOP components, and the OA Director is specifically relieved of substantive responsibility for those units." After examining the three factors from Meyer, Kollar-Kotelly pointed out that "the nature of OA's delegated authority is entirely dissimilar to that of the other EOP components that the D.C. Circuit has found to be agencies subject to the FOIA. OA 'does not oversee and coordinate federal programs, as does [OST], or promulgate binding regulations, as does the [CEQ].' Rather, much like the Executive Residence staff, which is 'exclusively dedicated to assisting the President in maintaining his home and carrying out his various ceremonial duties,' OA is exclusively dedicated to assisting the President in providing uniform and efficient administrative services to the various components of the EOP. Further, when the nature of OA's delegated authority is considered along with the fact that OA is, at least as a matter of formal organization, proximate to the President, the Court is compelled to conclude that OA is not an agency subject to the FOIA under the test set forth in Meyer." After rejecting CREW's argument that OA's previous assumption that it was subject to FOIA was not probative of whether as a matter of law it was actually subject to FOIA, Kollar-Kotelly also rejected the argument that OA considered itself an agency in its implementation of the Privacy Act and the Economy Act. Finally, she dismissed the claim that OA was trying to change its status. Instead, she noted that "in essence, OA argues that it was never subject to the FOIA and that its prior conclusion that it was subject to that statute was in error." She concluded after reviewing all the evidence and case law that OA "is not (and has never been), as a matter of law, an agency subject to the FOIA."
Issues: Agency - Federal

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has granted CREW a stay pending its appeal of her decision last month that the Office of Administration was not an agency for purposes of FOIA. CREW filed an expedited appeal to the D.C. Circuit and then asked Kollar-Kotelly to order the Office of Administration to preserve all records that may be responsive to CREW's FOIA request. Agreeing to issue an order until the end of the Bush administration, Kollar-Kotelly first rejected OA's argument that CREW was trying to change the status quo by urging the court to recognize that its records were subject to the Federal Records Act rather than the Presidential Records Act. Kollar-Kotelly reminded OA that CREW was not asking her to reconsider her ruling and that until her June ruling in favor of OA an order requiring all potentially responsive records preserved had been in effect. She observed that "CREW's request for a stay pending appeal actually seeks to reinstate the Preservation Order so as to ensure that CREW can obtain relief if it is successful on appeal." While Kollar-Kotelly assumed the White House would abide by the recordkeeping requirements of the PRA, she noted that since OA had never processed CREW's request there was a possibility that potentially responsive records could be innocently destroyed under the provisions of the PRA without a court order alerting the White House to preserve such records. Although Kollar-Kotelly accepted the counsel's agreement to preserve the records, she pointed out that "the Court agrees with CREW that the assurances of OA's counsel do not have the force of a Court Order, and that violations of such assurances are not punishable by contempt. While the Court accepts OA's counsels' assurances that the documents responsive to CREW's FOIA requests will be preserved, absent a Court Order to that effect, CREW would have no recourse if they were not." She explained that the potential disclosure of records if OA was found to be an agency on appeal served the public interest and observed that it was premature to consider OA's concerns about
Issues: Delay - Stay of proceedings

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has granted CREW an extension of the stay pending appeal until the D.C. Circuit rules on whether or not the Office of Administration is an agency for purposes of FOIA. Since she had ruled against CREW on the merits of the case, Kollar-Kotelly indicated that she did not think there was a likelihood that CREW would succeed on appeal. However, since CREW's initial litigation against OA was based on an FOIA request for records pertaining to actions OA had taken to identify the extent of missing emails and ways in which they might be recovered, she explained that requiring OA to retain custody and control of responsive records did nothing more than preserve the status quo if CREW were to win on appeal. OA had informed the court that it had identified and collected approximately 38 or 39 boxes of potentially responsive records and that the National Archives and Records Administration had agreed to keep those boxes separated upon transfer of the Bush administration's presidential records. OA argued that requiring it to keep the records rather than transfer them to NARA was an "extraordinary and drastic" remedy. Kollar-Kotelly disagreed, noting instead that "CREW's renewed request for a stay pending appeal actually seeks to ensure the continued preservation of such records within the care and custody of OA so as to ensure that CREW can obtain relief if it is successful on appeal." She then pointed out that since NARA was not a party to the suit the court was "without authority to order NARA or the Archivist to maintain and preserve all records potentially responsive to CREW's FOIA request. Although OA has assured the Court and CREW that NARA has agreed to maintain and preserve all documents identified and properly labeled as potentially responsive to CREW's FOIA requests, the Court is not persuaded that such assurances are sufficient." She added that "even assuming NARA maintains and preserves the records at issue, as CREW emphasizes, the Court is without authority to order NARA or the Archivist to return those records to OA if the D.C. Circuit determines the documents are, in fact, subject to the FOIA or the [Federal Records Act]. . .[T]he Court agrees with CREW that, absent a court order punishable by contempt requiring the return of the records at issue to OA, in the event CREW is successful on its appeal, it would have no recourse if the documents were not returned."
Issues: Agency - Federal

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2007-05-23	1	COMPLAINT against OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616004471) filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-05-23		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-05-23	2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (jf, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-05-23	3	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support# 2 Exhibit # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(jf, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-05-30		MINUTE ENTRY ORDER (paperless). A conference call was held on the record at 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, 2007 with counsel for both parties regarding resolution of the issues raised in CREW's PI/TRO. Another conference call was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2007.Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 30, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
2007-05-30		MINUTE ENTRY ORDER (paperless). Conference calls were held on the record at 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 with counsel for both parties, regarding the issues raised by Plaintiff's PI/TRO. Another conference call shall be held on the record at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 2007. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 30, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
2007-05-30		Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly : Telephone Conference held on 5/30/2007. (Court Reporter Lisa Griffith.) (dot, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
2007-06-01	4	NOTICE by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
2007-06-01	5	NOTICE of Appearance by Jean Lin on behalf of OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 06/01/2007)
2007-06-01	6	RESPONSE to 4 Plaintiff's Notice to the Court and Defendant filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Lin, Jean) . (Entered: 06/01/2007)
2007-06-01		Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly : Telephone Conference held on 6/1/2007. (Court Reporter Jacqueline Sullivan.) (dot, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
2007-06-04	7	ORDER. A final conference call was held on the record at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 1, 2007 with counsel for both parties in attendance, following previous conference calls on the record on May 24, 2007 and May 30, 2007. In addition, Keith Roberts, the Deputy General Counsel of Defendant, the Office of Administration, participated in the June 1, 2007 conference call, during which the parties agreed to a schedule for production that will resolve CREW's oustanding TRO/PI. Accordingly, with respect to Categories 1 through 4, described in CREW's letter of May 29, 2007: (1) On or before June 21, 2007, OA shall review and produce documents responsive to Categories 1 through 4 from the universe of 30,000-plus e-mails covering the time period between September 2005 and February 3, 2006, and culled by OA in response to a previous request for documents; (2) On or before June 21, 2007, OA shall review and produce copies of paper documents that are responsive to Categories 1 through 4; (3) In the event that CREW determines that these two productions are not fully responsive to Categories 1 through 4, OA shall initiate an electronic search for documents responsive to Categories 1 through 4 that date from the time period between February 3, 2006 and February 28, 2006. This search shall be complete, and the responsive documents shall be reviewed and ready for production no later than August 24, 2006; and (4) Counsel for CREW shall work to craft a list of search terms that CREW believes will lead to the identification of documents responsive to Category 4, and dated between February 3, 2006 and February 28, 2006. OA has committed to conducting such searches. With respect to Category 5, described in CREW's May 29, 2007 letter: (1) On or before June 21, 2007, OA shall review and produce copies of paper documents responsive to Category 5; and (2) OA shall initiate a search for electronic documents responsive to Category 5. This search shall be complete, and the responsive documents shall be reviewed and ready for production, no later than August 24, 2006. With respect to Category 6, described in CREW's May 29, 2007 letter: (1) On or before June 21, 2007, OA shall review and produce copies of documents responsive to Category 6 that are currently within OA's possession; (2) OA shall initiate a search for documents responsive to Category 6 that are in the possession of the Department of the Interior, and shall furnish the Court and CREW with notice of when OA expects to be able to produce such documents to CREW. Finally, in light of the foregoing, it appears that the issues raised in CREW's TRO/PI motion have been resolved. CREW's TRO/PI 3 is therefore DENIED. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 4, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
2007-06-06	8	Unopposed MOTION for Order Clarifying the Court's June 4, 2007 Order by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
2007-06-11	9	ORDER granting 8 Motion for Clarification of the Court's June 4, 2007 Order. The first sentence of paragraph 4, page 3, of the June 4, 2007 Order shall be revised as follows: "Counsel for CREW shall work to craft a list of search terms that CREW believes will lead to the identification of documents responsive to Category 4, and dated between March 1, 2006 and the present". That OA's obligation under the June 4, 2007 Order is to process and respond to CREW's FOIA requests (as defined in CREW'S May 29, 2007 letter to counsel for OA), which includes the production of any responsive, non-exempt documents by the deadlines set forth in the Order. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6/7/07. (dot, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
2007-06-25	10	ANSWER to Complaint by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. Related document: 1 Complaint filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON.(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
2007-06-28	11	ORDER. Defendant has filed its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. In light of this filing, the parties shall confer and propose a schedule for proceeding in this matter. The schedule should address the status of Plaintiff's FOIA requests, the anticipated number of documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests, the anticipated date(s) for release of the documents requested by Plaintiff, whether a motion for an Open America stay is likely in this case, whether a Vaughn index will be required in this case, etc. The parties shall file the schedule not later than July 27, 2007. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 28, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
2007-07-02	12	MOTION Modify Order by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/3/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 07/02/2007)
2007-07-02	13	ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION Exhibits to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify re 12 MOTION Modify Order by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) Modified on 7/3/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 07/02/2007)
2007-07-03		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: Docket Entry 13 MOTION Exhibits to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify was entered in error as a separate motion and the exhibits have been added to Docket Entry 12 MOTION Modify Order. (nmw, ) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
2007-07-13	14	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 12 MOTION Modify Order by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Tyler, John) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
2007-07-16		ORDER granting 14 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Order. Accordingly, Defendant shall have until and including July 19, 2007, to respond to Plaintiff's motion. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 16, 2007. (SM) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
2007-07-19	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 12 MOTION Modify Order filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 07/19/2007)
2007-07-25	16	REPLY to opposition to motion re 12 MOTION Modify Order filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
2007-07-27	17	MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 07/27/2007)
2007-08-07	18	ORDER. On July 27, 2007, the parties filed a Joint Status Report setting forth the productions that have been made thus far in compliance with the Court's June 4 and June 7, 2007 Orders, which set forth the schedule agreed-upon by the parties for resolving Plaintiff's then-pending motion for preliminary injunction, and raising a number of issues as to how this matter should proceed. The Court hereby orders that OA shall file its opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss on the issue of whether OA is an agency subject to FOIA or before August 21, 2007; CREW shall file its brief in opposition to OA's motion to dismiss on or before September 4, 2007; and OA shall file its reply brief on or before September 11, 2007. In the event that the Court denies OA's motion to dismiss, the Court shall set a status conference at which the Court shall address the parties' remaining obligations under the Court's June 4 and June 7, 2007 Orders. In the interim, the parties shall comply with the fixed deadlines set forth in the Court's June 4 and June 7, 2007 Orders. In particular, OA shall, on or before August 24, 2007, complete its electronic searches for and processing of documents responsive to Categories 1 through 4 dating from the time period between February 3, 2006 and February 28, 2006, as well as documents responsive to Category 5. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on August 7, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
2007-08-07		Set/Reset Deadlines: Opening Brief due by 8/21/2007. Responses due by 9/4/2007. Replies due by 9/11/2007. Electronic searches completed by 8/24/2007. (dot, ) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
2007-08-21	19	ORDER Establishing Procedures for Electronic Filing for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, signed on August 21, 2007. (SM) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
2007-08-21	20	MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 08/21/2007)
2007-08-30	21	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the US Attorney. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION served on 5/24/2007, answer due 7/23/2007 (Weismann, Anne) Modified on 8/31/2007 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/30/2007)
2007-08-30	22	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION served on 5/25/2007, answer due 7/24/2007 (Weismann, Anne) Modified on 8/31/2007 (znmw, ). (Entered: 08/30/2007)
2007-09-04	23	Memorandum in opposition to re 20 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 09/04/2007)
2007-09-04	24	MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Proposed Amicus Brief# 3 Exhibit 1 to Amicus Brief)(nmw, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
2007-09-11	25	REPLY to opposition to motion re 20 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
2007-09-26	26	MOTION Supplement Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re 23 Memorandum in Opposition by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
2007-09-26	27	RESPONSE re 26 MOTION Supplement Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re 23 Memorandum in Opposition MOTION Supplement Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings re 23 Memorandum in Opposition filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 09/26/2007)
2007-10-01		MINUTE ORDER. On September 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a 26 Motion to Supplement its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The same day, Defendant filed a Response indicating that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's Motion. Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Supplement is therefore GRANTED. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 1, 2007. (lcckk2) (Entered: 10/01/2007)
2008-01-18	28	MOTION for Hearing /Immediate Status Conference by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2-8, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
2008-01-18	29	MOTION Shorten Defendant's Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Immediate Status Conference re 28 MOTION for Hearing /Immediate Status Conference by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
2008-01-18		MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Plaintiff's Motion to Shorten Time to Respond. Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiff's motion for an immediate status conference by January 22, 2008, and Plaintiff shall file its reply by January 23, 2008. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 18, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/18/2008)
2008-01-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response due by 1/22/2008. Reply due by 1/23/2008. (dot, ) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
2008-01-22	30	Memorandum in opposition to re 28 MOTION for Hearing /Immediate Status Conference filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 01/22/2008)
2008-01-23	31	REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 MOTION for Hearing /Immediate Status Conference filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/23/2008)
2008-01-25	32	ORDER denying 28 CREW's Motion for Immediate Status Conference. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the filings relating to CREW's Motion and does not discern a basis for CREW's unfounded speculation that documents responsive to its FOIA request have been destroyed. Nevertheless, the Court agrees with CREW that OA is required to preserve all documents that are potentially responsive to CREW's original April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 FOIA requests, which form the basis of CREW's Complaint. Accordingly, OA shall preserve all records, no matter how described, currently in its possession or under its custody or control, which are potentially responsive to CREW's April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 FOIA requests. In addition, OA shall not transfer any potentially responsive records out of its custody or control without leave of this Court. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 25, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
2008-02-11	33	ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 20 motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant, the Office of Administration ("OA"); and HOLDING IN ABEYANCE Plaintiff's 12 motion to modify this Court's scheduling order pending resolution of the threshold issue of whether OA is an agency subject to FOIA. The parties shall have 45 days-through and including March 28, 2008-to conduct very limited discovery on the manner in which OA carries out the authority delegated to it in its charter documents and any functions that OA in fact carries out beyond those specifically delineated in its charter documents. In order to ensure that the discovery is conducted promptly and is limited to the question at issue, the parties shall submit a Joint Discovery Plan on or before February 21, 2008 setting forth the precise discovery that each party proposes to conduct. The parties' Joint Discovery Plan shall also set forth a proposed schedule for revised briefing of OA's dispositive motion on the issue of its agency status. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on February 11, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 02/11/2008)
2008-02-21	34	NOTICE of Joint Discovery Plan by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, re 33 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,, Order on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Proposed Requests for Documents)(Weismann, Anne) Modified on 2/22/2008 (jf, ). (Entered: 02/21/2008)
2008-02-22	35	ERRATA by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON 34 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
2008-02-22	36	ORDER. CREW may seek the discovery encompassed in its Request No. 5 and may seek limited discovery encompassed within its Request No. 7; all of CREW's other document requests are beyond the scope of probative discovery; CREW may take the deposition of OA Director Alan Swendiman, but shall not depose OA's prior FOIA Officer, Chief Operating Officer, or Chief Information Officer; Defendant shall file its revised dispositive motion on the issue of its agency status on or before April 25, 2008; Plaintiff shall file its Opposition to that motion on or before May 9, 2008; and Defendant shall file its Reply on or before May 16, 2008. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on February 22, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 02/22/2008)
2008-02-22		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant revised Dispositive Motions due by 4/25/2008. Response to Dispositive Motions due by 5/9/2008. Reply to Dispositive Motions due by 5/16/2008. (dot, ) (Entered: 03/12/2008)
2008-03-21	37	MOTION to Compel by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
2008-03-21	38	MOTION Shorten defendant's time to respond re 37 MOTION to Compel by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
2008-03-25	39	Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents in Response to Plaintiff's Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things Or Alternatively to Amend the Court's Order of February 22, 2008 filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
2008-03-26	40	REPLY to opposition to motion re 37 MOTION to Compel filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Holmes, William) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
2008-03-28		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly: Telephone Conference held on 3/28/2008. (Court Reporter Lisa Hand.) (dot, ) (Entered: 03/28/2008)
2008-03-30	41	ORDER. As set forth during the March 28, 2008 conference call on the record, CREW's 37 Motion to Compel is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Specifically: (1) CREW's motion to compel documents responsive to its Request for Production No. 13 is DENIED; (2) CREW's 38 Motion to Shorten Defendant's Time to Respond to Its Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT; (3) On or before April 7, 2008, OA shall either produce, or submit a privilege log regarding, any document(s) in OA's possession or control reflecting (a) OA's final decision after its deliberative process concluded regarding whether OA was an agency subject to FOIA, and (b) OA's final determination that it was subject to the PRA rather than the FRA; (4) if OA asserts a privilege, CREW shall file its brief regarding that privilege invocation on or before April 14, 2008; (5) OA shall file its responsive brief regarding any privilege invocation on or before April 18, 2008; (6) Also on or before April 18, 2008, OA shall file an affidavit setting forth the answers to those questions posed by the Court during the March 28, 2008 conference call as to which defense counsel was unable to provide answers. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on March 30, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 03/30/2008)
2008-04-07	42	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 41 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,, filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
2008-04-14	43	MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce OLC Memorandum by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
2008-04-18	44	Memorandum in opposition to re 43 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce OLC Memorandum filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of M. Elizabeth Medaglia)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
2008-04-18	45	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 41 Order on Motion to Compel,,,,,, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,, Order requiring submission of declaration by OA filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
2008-04-23	46	REPLY to opposition to motion re 43 MOTION to Compel Defendant to Produce OLC Memorandum filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
2008-04-25	47	MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Part 1, # 5 Exhibit 2 - Part 2, # 6 Exhibit 2 - Part 3, # 7 Exhibit 3, # 8 Exhibit 4, # 9 Exhibit 5, # 10 Exhibit 6)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
2008-04-28		MINUTE ORDER. In order to inform the Court's decision on Plaintiff's 43 Motion to Compel Defendant to Produce the OLC Opinion Addressing OA's Agency Status, the Court requests that Defendant file a copy of the memorandum at issue in camera, ex parte and under seal. The Court will sign an appropriate Order prepared by Defendant placing the memorandum under seal. Defendant shall file the OLC memorandum in chambers, along with a proposed Order, by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2008. Defendant need not reargue issues addressed in its Opposition, which the Court will continue to rely upon in resolving Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on April 28, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
2008-04-30	48	NOTICE of Ex Parte Filing by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION re Order,, (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 04/30/2008)
2008-05-05	49	ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, 43 CREW's Motion to Compel or Alternatively to Amend the Court's Order of March 30, 2008 to Require Defendant to Produce the OLC Opinion Addressing OA's Agency Status is DENIED. The memorandum prepared by the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, dated August 21, 2007, regarding OA's "agency" status under FOIA, and filed ex parte and in camera by Defendant on April 30, 2008, shall be placed under seal and shall remain under seal and ex parte. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 5, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
2008-05-05	50	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on May 5, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
2008-05-09	51	Memorandum in opposition to re 47 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-7, # 2 Exhibit 8-10, # 3 Exhibit 11-18)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
2008-05-16	52	REPLY to opposition to motion re 47 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Lin, Jean) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
2008-06-16	53	ORDER granting Defendant OA's 47 Motion to Dismiss. As the Court's conclusion that OA is not an agency subject to the FOIA obviates OA's obligation to comply with Plaintiff CREW's FOIA request, CREW's 12 motion to modify this Court's scheduling orders, which was previously held-in-abeyance, is DENIED AS MOOT, and this case is DISMISSED in its entirety. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 16, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
2008-06-16	54	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 16, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
2008-06-16	55	NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 54 Memorandum & Opinion, 53 Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 00900000000001527662. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
2008-06-17		Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 55 Notice of Appeal, (td, ) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
2008-06-20	56	MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
2008-06-20		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). In light of the pressing nature of CREW's 56 Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, the Court has set an expedited briefing schedule for the motion. Accordingly, Defendant OA shall file any Opposition to CREW's Motion by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 26, 2008, and CREW shall file its Reply in support of its Motion by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 1, 2008. Further, in order to maintain the status quo pending the Court's resolution of CREW's Motion to Stay, OA is hereby ORDERED to retain all documents that were the subject of CREW's FOIA action until the Court has resolved CREW's Motion. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 20, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
2008-06-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant OA Response due by 6/26/2008 at 5:00 p.m. CREW's Reply due by 7/1/2008 at 5:00 p.m. (dot, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
2008-06-23		USCA Case Number 08-5188 for 55 Notice of Appeal, filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (td, ) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
2008-06-26	57	Memorandum in opposition to re 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
2008-07-01	58	REPLY to opposition to motion re 56 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 07/01/2008)
2008-07-08	59	ENTERED IN ERROR.....ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART CREW's 56 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Pending the resolution of CREW's expedited appeal or January 5, 2009, whichever is earlier, OA shall preserve all records, no matter how described, currently in its possession or under its custody or control, which are potentially responsive to CREW's April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 FOIA requests. In addition, OA shall not transfer any potentially responsive records out of its custody or control without leave of this Court. If CREW's appeal has not been resolved by January 5, 2009, CREW may, at that time, filed a renewed motion for stay pending appeal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 8, 2008. (lcckk2) Modified on 7/9/2008 (jeb, ). (Entered: 07/08/2008)
2008-07-08	60	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 8, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/08/2008)
2008-07-09	61	ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART and DENYING-IN-PART CREW's 56 Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Pending the resolution of CREW's expedited appeal or January 5, 2009, whichever is earlier, OA shall preserve all records, no matter how described, currently in its possession or under its custody or control, which are potentially responsive to CREW's April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 FOIA requests. In addition, OA shall not transfer any potentially responsive records out of its custody or control without leave of this Court. If CREW's appeal has not been resolved by January 5, 2009, CREW may, at that time, filed a renewed motion for stay pending appeal. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 8, 2008. (lcckk2) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
2008-07-09		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 59 Order on Motion to Stay was entered in error and the court has re-issued the correct order.(jeb, ) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
2009-01-06	62	MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
2009-01-06	63	Unopposed MOTION Shorten Time For Defendant To File Opposition To Plaintiff's Motion for Stay re 62 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
2009-01-06		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING Plaintiff's 63 Unopposed Motion to Shorten Defendant's Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Appeal. Accordingly, Defendant shall file its opposition brief no later than 12:00 noon on January 12, 2009, and Plaintiff shall file its reply brief no later than 5:30 p.m. on January 13, 2009. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 6, 2009. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
2009-01-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's opposition brief due by 1/12/2009 at 12:00 noon. Plaintiff's reply brief due by 1/13/2009 at 5:30 p.m. (dot, ) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
2009-01-12	64	Memorandum in opposition to re 62 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
2009-01-12	65	REPLY to opposition to motion re 62 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
2009-01-15	66	ORDER. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is this 15th day of January, 2009, hereby ordered that CREW's 62 Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is GRANTED. It is further ordered that OA shall preserve all records, no matter how described, currently in its possession or under its custody or control, which are potentially responsive to CREW's April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 FOIA requests. In addition, OA is required to physically segregate such documents from the records of the incoming administration and shall authorize only the Chief Administrative Officer of OA, or his or her designee, to access the records for the sole purpose of ensuring the records are properly preserved and stored until the D.C. Circuit issues a ruling and mandate resolving CREW's appeal in this case. At that time, by court order, the Chief Administrative Officer, or his or her designee, shall process the records as required. Finally, it is further ordered that OA shall not transfer any potentially responsive records out of its custody or control without leave of this Court. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 15, 2009. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
2009-01-15	67	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 15, 2009. (lcckk2) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
2009-03-13	68	Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 66 Order on Motion to Stay,,,, by OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lin, Jean) (Entered: 03/13/2009)
2009-04-07	69	STATUS REPORT by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 04/07/2009)
2009-05-21	70	Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 66 Order on Motion to Stay,,,, by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 05/21/2009)
2009-06-08	71	MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 55 Notice of Appeal, filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON; Affirming the judgment of the District Court in this cause. USCA Case Number 08-5188. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Opinion Argued 11/14/08 and Decided 5/19/09)(hsj, ) (Entered: 06/16/2009)
2009-06-24	72	ORDER. Pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia's Mandate, issued on June 8, 2009, see Docket No. 71 , the Court's June 16, 2008 53 Order and 54 Memorandum Opinion are affirmed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 70 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Stay Pending Appeal is GRANTED and the stay pending appeal issued in this case is hereby VACATED. The Chief Administrative Officer of the Office of Administration ("OA"), or his or her designee, is directed to process the documents at issue in this case--i.e., those records identified by OA as potentially responsive to CREW's April 16, 2007 and April 18, 2007 Freedom of Information Act requests--as required under the Presidential Records Act ("PRA"). The documents shall be transferred from OA's possession to the control and custody of the National Archives and Records Administration, and all rights and privileges provided under the PRA shall inhere to those documents. Finally, Defendant's 68 Unopposed Motion to Amend the January 15, 2009 Order is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on June 24, 2009. (lcckk2 ) (Entered: 06/24/2009)
Hide Docket Events