Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: After considering a serious challenge by a former CIA employee to the agency's claim that it cannot provide records in electronic formats without huge costs, Judge Beryl Howell has indicated that further briefing on the issue is probably pointless and that the parties will either have to agree to discovery or to hold a hearing. Howell recognized "the substantial costs in time and resources that may be incurred by both parties in the pursuit of standard discovery, such as document demands, interrogatories, and depositions. The parties may prefer to short-circuit an extensive discovery process and instead proceed directly to an evidentiary hearing to resolve the outstanding material factual disputes." She added that "although it is possible that deposition transcripts might provide the requisite material needed to resolve the factual disputes at issue, the voluminous briefing and multiple declarations filed by the defendant in at least two cases before this Court on this very issue tends to belie that conclusion." The case involved several FOIA requests filed by former CIA employee Jeffrey Scudder for electronic copies of a number of Studies in Intelligence articles that Scudder contended, based on his personal experience, the agency had already prepared in electronic format. The agency responded by indicating that the records requested by Scudder were not readily reproducible in that format and even if it were able to produce the information electronically the costs involved would be more than printing all the articles out on paper. Howell explained that she first needed to determine whether there were material facts remaining in dispute that would preclude summary judgment based on the existing court record. Pointing to several cases in which the D.C. Circuit had ruled that a hearing would be required to resolve disputes over the confidentiality of records under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Howell observed that "the process of determining the applicability of Exemption 4 to withhold a responsive document shares one important similarity with determining whether an agency must disclose documents in an electronic format: namely, both inquiries trigger a fact-based analysis. . .[W]hile FOIA cases generally turn on application of law to undisputed material facts set out in agency affidavits, courts may occasionally confront contested questions of fact that must be answered first. The meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B) and its key phrase of 'readily reproducible' sets the parameters for such a factual inquiry." Reflecting on the difference in the parties' positions, Howell noted that "the parties to the instant matter agree on this point regarding the fact-based nature of the 'readily reproducible' inquiry, but simply discount or reject outright the evidence presented by the other side about whether this FOIA requirement is met in this case." Although case law on the meaning of "readily reproducible" is sparse, Howell indicated that TPS, Inc. v. Dept of Defense, 330 F.3d 1191 (9th Cir. 2003), was remarkably on point. In that case, a government contractor who had previously received files from the Defense Department in a "zipped" format, made a FOIA request for a zipped file. The agency denied the request, contending that "readily reproducible" meant that the format was used commonly enough to be considered "business as usual" and that zipped files did not qualify under that definition. The Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff's declaration was sufficient to raise a question as to whether the agency could provide records in a zipped file format. Howell pointed out that "the situation described by the TPS, Inc. court is precisely the situation described in the instant matter: the plaintiff alleges that the requested records already exist and are maintained in the exact format requested by the plaintiff and that the defendant has provided such records, in such a format, to others. Despite the defendant's claims of incapability and incapacity, the defendant has not established through 'specific, compelling evidence' that complying with the plaintiff's request would constitute 'significant interference or burden' in the face of the plaintiff's contrary factual assertions, which are predicated on deep personal knowledge." Scudder argued that the agency was required to disclose records in the format of the requester's choice if it were "technically feasible." Howell disagreed, noting that "the defendant is correct that 'it cannot be that "readily reproducible" simply means technical capability or feasibility.'" While pointing out that the term "technically feasible" appeared in a separate provision of FOIA, Howell indicated that "the plaintiff is partially correct that the common sense meaning of the word 'reproducible,' standing alone, is synonymous with 'technically feasible,' yet, just because an agency has the technical capability to reproduce responsive records in the requested format, the agency is not automatically obligated to do so under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)(B). That obligation turns on the meaning of the full term 'readily reproducible.' The defendant too, is partially correct in that 'readily' does imply that an agency is relieved of its obligation to fulfill a format request that is onerous, but the defendant ignores the second sentence in 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)(B), which informs the meaning of 'readily' in the first sentence of this subsection: 'Each agency shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.'. . .It is in disregarding the full meaning of this second sentence, when read in conjunction with the first, that the defendant errs." Howell explained that "the second sentence amplifies the importance of the requirement set out in the first sentence and imposes an over-arching obligation on federal agencies to be proactive ins satisfying format requests. . .[T]he second sentence requires an agency to take affirmative steps to maintain its records in a form that would be readily reproducible in response to FOIA requests for 'any form or format.' The defendant's position that this subsection limits an agency's obligation to honor format requests to only existing formats ignores the plain statutory text in the subsection's first sentence as well as the proactive admonition in the subsection's second sentence." She added that "this is not the law. If the records are 'readily reproducible' in the requested format, the agency must honor the request." The agency argued that because courts were to give substantial deference to agency determinations concerning the reproducibility of records in other formats its conclusion should be considered correct. But Howell pointed out that "such deference does not amount to a blanket exemption from judicial review of the agency's justification for declining to comply with a specific format request or failing to maintain records in readily reproducible formats. . ." She noted that "the defendant's position is that records are never 'readily reproducible' in electronic format from this agency. . .The defendant's position is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the statutory language of 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)(B), particularly since the defendant itself created the security procedures it now says make the production of documents in electronic format 'prohibitively time consuming and costly.'" She observed that "taken as a whole, the plaintiff's serious allegations challenging the accuracy and veracity of the defendant's declarations have raised sufficient concern to overcome the 'substantial weight' this Court must afford the defendant's declarations under 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(3)(B)."
Issues: Choice of format

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the CIA properly withheld 167 articles from its journal Studies in Intelligence and redacted an additional 10 articles under Exemption 1 (national security) in response to a request by Jeffrey Scudder, a former senior IT project manager at the CIA whose original request encompassed 2,000 articles from SII. Scudder claimed the CIA's Vaughn index was too vague and uninformative for him to challenge. Noting that the Vaughn index had to be read alongside its declaration, Howell pointed out that the agency's affidavits "show that the withheld information meets the requirements of E.O. 13526. Not only does the declarant explain how the withheld information meets the procedural requirements of E.O. 13526, the declarations and Vaughn indices, taken together, adequately detail how each withheld document and redacted material includes information about sources and methodsâ€"including information about foreign liaisons and governments, cover field installationsâ€"as well as specific intelligence activities." Based on his experiences at the CIA, Scudder argued that the agency had approved of disclosure of 133 of the articles, but had never followed through. Howell observed that "effectively, the plaintiff is asking the Court to second-guess the CIA's classification determination." She pointed out that "the plaintiff does not have, or purport to have, original classification authority. Consequently, his personal opinions and recollections are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether the articles withheld are classified." Scudder claimed that disclosure of the name of the author of one article suggested that there was no harm in disclosing the name of the author in conjunction with another article. However, Howell indicated that "the mere fact that an author's name is unclassified in one context does not imply that the same name is not classified in another context." Howell also rejected Scudder's argument that the topics of certain articles were silly or banal and did not require protection. But Howell pointed out that "the CIA has provided reasonably detailed descriptions about each of these articles that show that the articles contain material that cannot be released without jeopardizing sensitive and classified information."
Issues: Search - Detailed description of search, Exemption 1 - Properly classified

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2012-05-16	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616048363) filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(dr) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
2012-05-16		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dr) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
2013-02-04	2	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS REISSUED as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (jf, ) (Entered: 02/04/2013)
2013-02-05	3	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (2) REISSUED as to U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General. (znmw, ) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
2013-02-07	4	NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by JEFFREY SCUDDER. Case related to Case No. 11-443. (Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 02/07/2013)
2013-03-14	5	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
2013-04-04		MINUTE ORDER. To ensure the expeditious resolution of this matter, it is ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule for dispositive motions on or before April 10, 2013. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4-4-2013.(lcrbw3) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
2013-04-10	6	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Joinjt response filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
2013-04-11		MINUTE ORDER. In accordance with the Parties' Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule 6 , it is ORDERED that this case shall proceed as follows: (1) the plaintiff shall make a formal fee waiver request to the defendant on or before April 30, 2013; (2) the plaintiff shall file a motion to compel production of electronic records, if any, on or before May 10, 2013; (3) the defendant shall respond to the plaintiff's fee waiver request on or before May 30, 2013; (4) the defendant shall file an opposition to the plaintiff's motion to compel, if any, on or before June 10, 2013; (5) the plaintiff shall file a motion to challenge any unfavorable fee waiver decision on or before June 21, 2013; (6) the plaintiff shall file a reply to the defendant's opposition to his motion to compel, if any, on or before June 24, 2013; (7) the defendant shall file an opposition to the plaintiff's motion to challenge any unfavorable fee waiver decision, if any, on or before July 22, 2013; and (8) the plaintiff shall file a reply to the defendant's opposition to his motion to challenge any unfavorable fee waiver decision, if any, on or before August 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 4-11-2013. (lcrbw3) (Entered: 04/11/2013)
2013-04-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Fee Waiver Request due by 4/30/2013; Response to Fee Waiver Request due by 5/30/13; Motion to Compel due by 5/10/13; Opposition to Motion to Compel due by 6/10/13; Reply to Opposition to Motion to Compel due by 6/24/13; Any Motions to Challenge due by 6/21/13; Opposition due by 7/22/13; Reply to Opposition due by 8/5/13.(mpt, ) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
2013-05-09	7	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
2013-05-14		MINUTE ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to File. For good cause shown, it is ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion to modify the briefing schedule is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the schedule in this case is modified as follows: (1) the plaintiff shall provide his motion for summary judgment and accompanying filings to the defendant for prepublication review on or before May 24, 2013; (2) the plaintiff shall file his motion for summary judgment with the Court within 48 hours of receiving the defendant's approval; (3) the defendant shall file its opposition to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before 30 days after the filing of the plaintiff's motion; and (4) the plaintiff shall file his reply brief on or before 14 days after the filing of the defendant's opposition brief. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 5-14-2013. (lcrbw3) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
2013-05-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motions due by 5/24/2013. (mpt) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
2013-06-01	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley P. Moss on behalf of JEFFREY SCUDDER (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 06/01/2013)
2013-06-11	9	MOTION for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or an Evidentiary Hearing by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Declaration of Jeffrey Scudder, # 2 Exhibit 1-A (FOIA Request Letters), # 3 Exhibit 1-B (Status Update Letter), # 4 Exhibit 1-C (CIA Response to Status Update Letter), # 5 Exhibit 1-D (CIA Letter Regarding Fees), # 6 Exhibit 2 (Notification Letter), # 7 Exhibit 3 (CIA Pleadings in separate case), # 8 Exhibit 4 (CIA pleadings in separate case), # 9 Exhibit 5 (Declaration of Scott Hodes), # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley). Added MOTION for Discovery, MOTION for Hearing on 6/12/2013 (td, ). (Entered: 06/11/2013)
2013-06-12		NOTICE OF ERROR re 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; emailed to brad@markzaid.com, cc'd 5 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Do not refile. FYI: The signature on the document and the ECF filer should be the same individual. (td, ) Modified text on 6/12/2013 (td, ). (Entered: 06/12/2013)
2013-06-21	10	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 06/21/2013)
2013-06-24		MINUTE ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time. For good cause shown, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File a Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file his motion, if any, on or before July 22, 2013. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 6-24-2013. (lcrbw3) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-06-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision due by 7/22/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
2013-07-01	11	Case reassigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell. Judge Reggie B. Walton no longer assigned to the case. (ds) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
2013-07-01	12	STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 1, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/01/2013)
2013-07-03	13	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or an Evidentiary Hearing MOTION for Hearing by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 07/03/2013)
2013-07-08		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 13 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall file, by July 19, 2013, any response to the 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 8, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
2013-07-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/19/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/08/2013)
2013-07-19	14	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or an Evidentiary Hearing MOTION for Hearing and Defendant's Cross-motion for summary judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 statement of material in support of defendant's motion for summary judgment, # 2 Defendant's response to Plaintiff's statement of material facts, # 3 Lutz declaration, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
2013-07-19	27	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (See Docket Entry 14 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
2013-07-22	15	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
2013-07-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 15 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time. The plaintiff shall file, by August 21, 2013, any further dispositive motions, which shall address any remaining legal issues on which the plaintiff seeks summary judgment. See 12 Standing Order, para. 5(e). Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 22, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
2013-07-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Further Dispositive Motions due by 8/21/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
2013-08-01	16	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or Evidentiary Hearing and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
2013-08-02		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) granting 16 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File A Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall submit to the defendant for prepublication review, by August 26, 2013, any reply in further support of his 9 Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall file any such reply with the Court within 48 hours of receiving the defendant's approval. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 2, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
2013-08-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of 9 Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/26/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
2013-08-20	17	MOTION for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/20/2013)
2013-08-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiff's 17 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion to Challenge the Unfavorable Fee Waiver Decision. Pursuant to the 12 Standing Order, section 6(b), having received no opposition to the extension of time motion by 5:00 p.m., August 22, 2013, the Court deems the motion conceded. The plaintiff shall, by September 4, 2013, submit any challenge to the unfavorable fee waiver decision to the defendant for prepublication review. The plaintiff shall file any such motion with the Court within 48 hours of receiving the defendant's approval. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 22, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 08/22/2013)
2013-08-23		Set/Reset Deadline: The plaintiff shall, by 9/04/203, submit any challenge to the unfavorable fee waiver decision to the defendant for prepublication review. (ad) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
2013-08-26	18	NOTICE of Filing of Submission for Classification Review by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 08/26/2013)
2013-09-04	19	NOTICE OF FILING OF SUBMISSION FOR CLASSIFICATION REVIEW by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
2013-09-10	20	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or Evidentiary Hearing and Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
2013-09-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 20 Unoppposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File. The plaintiff shall, by September 16, file any reply in support of his 9 Motion for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or an Evidentiary Hearing and opposition to the Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 11, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
2013-09-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Cross Motions due by 9/16/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
2013-09-16	21	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Electronic Production of Requested Records or Alternatively for Discovery and/or an Evidentiary Hearing MOTION for Hearing filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Scudder Second Decl, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Dell Decl, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Griffey CIA FOIA Responses, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Zaid Rule 56(f) Decl, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
2013-09-16	22	MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Scudder Fee Waiver Request, # 2 Exhibit 2 - CIA Fee Waiver Response, # 3 Exhibit 3 - CIA FOIA Response, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Scudder Decl, # 5 Exhibit 5 - Zaid Decl, # 6 Exhibit 6 - CIA CFR Regs, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
2013-09-16	23	ERRATA by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Scudder Second Decl (Executed))(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
2013-09-16	28	Memorandum in opposition to re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (See Docket Entry 21 to view document) (jf, ) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
2013-09-20	24	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
2013-09-20		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's consent 24 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The defendant shall, by October 10, 2013, file any reply to the plaintiff's 21 Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall, by October 17, 2013, file any response to the plaintiff's 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial. The plaintiff shall, by October 24, 2013, file any reply to the defendant's response to the plaintiff's 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 20, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
2013-09-23		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion due by 10/10/2013. Response to 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 10/17/2013; Reply due by 10/24/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
2013-10-01	25	Consent MOTION to Stay Briefing by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 25 Consent Motion for a Stay of Briefing. The Court stays briefing in this matter until such time as funding is restored to the Department of Justice. The parties shall, within seven days of funding being restored, jointly file any appropriate motion to amend the schedule set forth in this Court's Minute Order of September 20, 2013. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 1, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-23	26	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order on Motion to Stay, Joint proposed scheduling Order filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
2013-10-23		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) Upon consideration of the parties' 26 Joint Proposed Schedule, the Court enters the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this matter: The defendant shall, by November 8, 2013, file any reply to the plaintiff's 21 Opposition to the defendant's 14 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall, by November 22, 2013, file any opposition to the plaintiff's 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by December 23, 2013, file any reply to the defendant's opposition. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 23, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
2013-10-24		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply to Opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/8/2013. Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/22/2013; Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/23/2013. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
2013-11-08	29	REPLY to opposition to motion re 27 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Lutz supplemental Dec)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
2013-11-22	30	Memorandum in opposition to re 22 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs and defendant's cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to fees filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS, # 2 statement of material facts in support of cross motion, # 3 Ex A, # 4 Ex B, # 5 Ex C, # 6 Ex D, # 7 Ex E-1, # 8 Ex E-2, # 9 Ex E-3, # 10 Ex E-4, # 11 Lutz Dec, # 12 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
2013-11-22	31	MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (See Docket Entry 30 to view document)(rdj) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
2013-11-25		NOTICE OF ERROR re 30 Memorandum in Opposition; emailed to rhonda.fields@usdoj.gov, cc'd 5 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Two-part docket entry, 2. Counsel is reminded to docket the motion as a separate entry in the future. NO ACTION REQUIRED. (zrdj, ) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
2013-12-19	32	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Fees by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 12/19/2013)
2013-12-20		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 32 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. The plaintiff shall, by January 13, 2014, file any opposition to the defendant's 31 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment as to fees and reply to the defendant's opposition to the plaintiff's 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding fees. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 20, 2013. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2013-12-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Opposition to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/13/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
2014-01-11	33	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Fees by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/11/2014)
2014-01-13		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 33 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time. The plaintiff shall, by January 27, 2014, file any reply in support of his 22 Partial Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and any opposition to the defendant's 31 Partial Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Fees. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 13, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
2014-01-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of 22 Partial Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and any opposition to the defendant's 31 Partial Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Fees due by 1/27/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
2014-01-27	34	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs and Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to Fees by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
2014-01-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING nunc pro tunc the plaintiff's 34 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. The plaintiff shall, by January 31, 2014, submit any reply in support of his 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
2014-01-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment due by 1/31/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
2014-01-31	35	NOTICE of Partial Withdrawal of Parties' Cross-Summary Judgment Motions Pertaining to Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
2014-01-31	36	REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
2014-02-21	37	MOTION for Leave to File surreply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 lodged surreply, # 2 lodged surreply exhibit, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, over the plaintiff's opposition, the defendant's 37 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. The plaintiff may, by February 28, 2014, file any sur-surreply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 21, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21	38	SURREPLY to re 22 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Records Production Costs filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(rdj) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21		Set/Reset Deadline: The plaintiff may, by 2/28/2014, file any sur-surreply. (ad) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the plaintiff, by February 26, 2014, to submit to the Court a clarification of his 35 Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Parties' Cross-Summary Judgment Motions Pertaining to Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial. The plaintiff shall (1) clarify whether his decision to "forgo[] pursuit, with a narrow exception, of those articles sought as part of [FOIA Request] F-2011-00450" applies only to the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the fee waiver denial or to this matter in its entirety and (2) provide an estimate of the number of articles still in dispute under each of the three FOIA requests at issue. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 21, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-21		Set/Reset Deadline: The plaintiff, by 2/26/2014, shall submit to the Court a clarification of his 35 Notice of Partial Withdrawal of Parties' Cross-Summary Judgment Motions Pertaining to Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial. (ad) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-02-27	39	NOTICE of Clarification of his Notification of Partial Withdrawal of Parties' Cross-Summary Judgment Motions Pertaining to Defendants' Fee Waiver Denial by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
2014-02-27	40	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Clarification of Plaintiff's Notification of Partial Withdrawal of Parties' Cross-Summary Judgment Motions Pertaining to Defendants' Fee Waiver Denial by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
2014-02-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 40 Nunc Pro Tunc Motion for Extension of Time to File Clarification. The plaintiff's 39 Clarification is deemed timely filed. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 27, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
2014-02-28	41	SURREPLY to re 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding the Defendant's Fee Waiver Denial and Electronic Record Production Costs filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Moss, Bradley) Modified to add link on 3/3/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 02/28/2014)
2014-03-12	42	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment; 9 Motion for Discovery; and 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and the defendant's 27 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and 31 Partial Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 12, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2014-03-12	43	ORDER DENYING the defendant's 27 Motion for Summary Judgment and 31 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; DENYING the plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment and 22 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and GRANTING the plaintiff's 9 Motion for Discovery. The parties shall meet and confer and by March 31, 2014, submit to the Court a joint status report outlining the results of the parties' meeting for resolving the outstanding issues of material fact, including (1) a plan for discovery necessary to resolve the disputed issues of material fact; (2) a statement of the parties' views on whether an evidentiary hearing in this matter should be scheduled; and (3) a proposed schedule to control such discovery and/or hearing and renewed dispositive motion briefing. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 12, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2014-03-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Meet & Confer Statement due by 3/31/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
2014-03-28	44	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. Attorney Rhonda C. Fields terminated. (Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-28	45	NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan Bradley Parker on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-28	46	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Submit Joint Status Report by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-28		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 46 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to Submit Joint Status Report. The parties shall, by April 7, 2014, submit the joint status report required by this Court's 43 Order of March 12, 2014. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 28, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-31		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/7/2014 (tg, ) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-04-07	47	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
2014-04-07		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties, in light of their 47 Joint Status Report, to file jointly, by May 7, 2014, a status report (1) updating "the progress of Defendants' document production;" (2) stating whether additional briefing is necessary regarding any withholdings; and (3) if briefing is necessary, setting forth a proposed briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on April 7, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 04/07/2014)
2014-04-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/7/2014 (tg, ) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
2014-05-07	48	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-07		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties, in light of their 48 Joint Status Report, jointly to submit, on September 15, 2014, a status report stating (1) whether the defendant's production of documents is complete; (2) whether additional briefing is necessary regarding any withholdings; and (3) if briefing is necessary, a proposed schedule to govern that briefing. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 7, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
2014-05-08		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/15/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
2014-09-15	49	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/15/2014)
2014-09-16		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties, by September 29, 2014, to file jointly a status report with the Court stating (1) whether additional briefing is necessary regarding any withholdings from the defendant's production and (2) if briefing is necessary, proposing a schedule to control further proceedings in this matter. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 16, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
2014-09-16		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/29/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
2014-09-29	50	STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
2014-09-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) DIRECTING the parties, by October 10, 2014, to file jointly a schedule to control further proceedings in this matter. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 29, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
2014-09-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Schedule to Control Proceedings due by 10/10/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
2014-10-10	51	STATUS REPORT Proposing Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
2014-10-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) ISSUING, in light of the parties' 51 Jointly Proposed Briefing Schedule, the following SCHEDULING ORDER to control further proceedings in this matter: the defendant shall, by December 17, 2014, file any motion for summary judgment; the plaintiff shall, by January 12, 2015, file any opposition; the defendant shall, by January 26, 2015, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 12, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 10/12/2014)
2014-10-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 12/17/2014; Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 1/12/2015; Reply due by 1/26/2015. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-12-12	52	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
2014-12-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 52 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to File Its Motion for Summary Judgment. The defendant shall, by December 19, 2014, file any motion for summary judgment. The remaining deadlines set in the Court's Order of October 12, 2014, remain unchanged. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 12, 2014. (lcbah1) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
2014-12-12		Set/Reset Deadline: The defendant shall, by 12/19/2014, file any motion for summary judgment. (kt) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
2014-12-19	53	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Marth M. Lutz, # 2 Vaughn Index, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
2015-01-09	54	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
2015-01-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the plaintiff's 54 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by February 11, 2015, submit any opposition to the defendant's 53 Motion to the defendant for classification review. If this classification review is not completed by February 25, 2015, the defendant shall, on February 25, 2015 and on every Wednesday thereafter until the review is complete, file a status report with the Court describing (1) the status of the review and (2) the expected date of completion of the review. The plaintiff shall, within 72 hours of the completion of the classification review, file any opposition. The defendant shall, within fourteen days of the plaintiff's submission of his opposition to the Court, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on January 12, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
2015-01-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's 53 Motion due by 2/11/2015. If classification review is not completed a Status Report is due by 2/25/2015 and on every Wednesday thereafter until the review is completed. (tg, ) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
2015-02-11	55	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
2015-02-12		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , the plaintiff's 55 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. The plaintiff shall, by March 4, 2015, submit any opposition to the defendant's 53 Motion to the defendant for classification review. If this classification review is not completed by March 18, 2015, the defendant shall, on March 18, 2015 and on every Wednesday thereafter until the review is complete, file a status report with the Court describing (1) the status of the review and (2) the expected date of completion of the review. The plaintiff shall, within 72 hours of the completion of the classification review, file any opposition. The defendant shall, within fourteen days of the plaintiff's submission of his opposition to the Court, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on February 12, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
2015-02-12		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's opposition to 53 Motion to the defendant for classification review due by 3/4/2015. Defendant's Status Report due by 3/18/2015 and on every Wednesday thereafter until the classification review is completed. (tg, ) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
2015-03-09	56	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
2015-03-09		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING, nunc pro tunc , the plaintiff's unopposed 56 Motion for an Extension of Time. The plaintiff shall, by March 13, 2015, submit any opposition to the defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment to the defendant for classification review. If this classification review is not completed by March 27, 2015, the defendant shall, on March 27, 2015 and on every Friday thereafter until the review is complete, file a status report with the Court describing (1) the status of the review and (2) the expected date of completion of the review. The plaintiff shall, within 48 hours of the completion of the classification review, file any opposition. The defendant shall, within fourteen days of the plaintiff's submission of his opposition to the Court, file any reply. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 9, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
2015-03-09		Set/Reset Deadlines: Opposition to 53 Motion for Summary Judgment to the defendant for classification review due by 3/13/2015. If the classification review is not completed, a Status Report is due by the Defendant by 3/27/2015 and on every Friday thereafter until the review is complete. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
2015-03-13	57	NOTICE of Filing of Document for Classification Review by JEFFREY SCUDDER (Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
2015-03-21	58	Memorandum in opposition to re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JEFFREY SCUDDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Scudder Declaration, pt 1, # 2 Exhibit 1 - Scudder Declaration, pt 2, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Zaid 56(f) Declaration, # 4 Statement of Facts Shudder Response to Govt Statement of Material Facts, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Zaid, Mark) (Entered: 03/21/2015)
2015-03-27	59	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
2015-03-27		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 59 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time to File Its Reply. The defendant shall, by April 24, 2015, file any reply in support of its 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 27, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
2015-03-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply in support of 53 motion for summary judgment due by 4/24/2015. (tg, ) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
2015-04-24	60	REPLY to opposition to motion re 53 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
2015-05-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) STAYING this matter and DIRECTING the defendant to submit, by July 1, 2015, (1) an in camera , ex parte supplemental declaration that provides context for the information withheld pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, in accordance with the declaration of Martha Lutz, Chief, Litigation Support Unit, CIA para. 18, ECF No. 53-1, and (2) an amended Vaughn Index that matches each of the withheld records to the spreadsheets submitted by the plaintiff in conjunction with his initial FOIA requests in this matter, docketed at Exhibits 1A and 1B to the plaintiff's declaration, ECF No. 58-1. The defendant's supplemental declaration shall contain "reasonably specific detail" as to each of the 177 records remaining in dispute to "sustain [the defendant's] action" in withholding those records. Wolf v. CIA , 473 F.3d 370, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). In view of the plaintiff's sworn declaration stating that, based on his personal knowledge derived from his employment in the defendant's Historic Records Division component, thirty-five articles and "sixty-four of the [article] titles" previously "marked for release" are now being withheld as classified, Decl. of Pl. at paras. 14-15, an updated Vaughn Index will assist the Court in evaluation the parties' arguments. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 22, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
2015-05-22		Case Stayed. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
2015-05-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's in camera, ex parte supplemental declaration due by 7/1/2015. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
2015-06-01	61	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File In Camera, Ex Parte Supplemental Declaration and Amended Vaughn Index by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
2015-06-01		MINUTE ORDER (paperless) GRANTING the defendant's 61 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Submit Its In Camera, Ex Parte Supplemental Declaration and Amended Vaughn Index. The defendant shall, by September 1, 2015, comply with the Court's Order of May 22, 2015. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on June 1, 2015. (lcbah1) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
2015-06-02		Set/Reset Deadlines: Compliance with the Court's Order of May 22, 2015 due by 9/1/2015 (tg) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
2015-09-01	62	NOTICE of Lodging by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (Parker, Ryan) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
2017-05-17	63	ORDER GRANTING the defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk is directed to close this case. See Order for further details. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 17, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
2017-05-17	64	MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendant's 53 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on May 17, 2017. (lcbah4) (Entered: 05/17/2017)
Hide Docket Events