Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Eduardo Robreno ruled that the FBI must disclose the redacted portions of a 1966 memo of a conversation between Associate FBI Director Cartha DeLoach and Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas concerning a background investigation of the movie star George Hamilton, who had been dating Lynda Bird Johnson. The court also concluded that the FBI's policy of categorically denying access to records containing third-party information without a privacy waiver, proof of death, or a strong showing of public interest in disclosure violates FOIA. The case involved a request from Villanova Law School Professor Tuan Samahon for records concerning the FBI's interactions with Fortas, a close confidante of President Lyndon Johnson, even after Johnson appointed him to the Supreme Court. The DeLoach memo, with identifying information about the individual to whom it referred redacted, had already been made public, but Samahon specifically requested an unredacted version of the memo. He also requested the file containing the memo, a file the FBI said pertained to a background check of the individual identified in the memo. The FBI refused to disclose any identifying information, claiming the records were protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno ordered the agency to provide an unredacted version of the memo as well as the file for in camera review. To place the records in context, Robreno explained that Johnson apparently asked Fortas to look into Hamilton's background because he was dating his daughter Lynda Bird. Johnson enlisted the FBI to conduct such a background check. The FBI turned up allegations of homosexuality, but no violations of the law, and the agency provided the information to Fortas. The DeLoach memo described a telephone conversation he had with Fortas on October 25, 1966, apparently about the Hamilton investigation. However, because Hamilton's personal information had been redacted, the public version of the memo took on a completely separate historical cast. DeLoach also memorialized an exchange with Fortas on the timing of the Supreme Court's decision in Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 (1966), a case that had implications for law enforcement. Fortas told DeLoach that the Court's decision would likely be announced shortly and that it would conclude that the case was not appropriate for Supreme Court review. Based on this exchange, DeLoach apparently concluded the case would be remanded and observed in the memo that the FBI would immediately check to find the identity of the lower court judge who had initially handled the case. The DeLoach memo also included an addendum in which DeLoach asserted that Fortas had not acted improperly or unethically in divulging information about the Black case. Viewed in this limited context, Samahon speculated that the deleted identity in the DeLoach memo referred to an individual to whom DeLoach had referred as a means of blackmailing Fortas into providing information about the Black case. Samahon's theory was given some credence by the fact that DeLoach had recounted the conversation with Fortas as being blatantly unethical in his published personal memoir. After reviewing the documents in camera, Robreno concluded that neither privacy exemption applied and even though the DeLoach memo referenced Hamilton it shed much more light on the conduct of the FBI and Fortas than it did on Hamilton. Robreno explained that "when the DeLoach Memorandum is read in its unredacted form, however, the potential embarrassment [of being identified as the subject of an FBI investigation] described by the Government seems highly speculative, at best. The DeLoach Memorandum itself makes no reference to an FBI background investigation. Without the additional information supplied by the FBI, a reader of the DeLoach Memorandum would be aware only that DeLoach and Justice Fortas had discussed information about George Hamilton, not that the FBI had conducted a background investigation of him." Robreno pointed out that the record was nearly 50 years old and that "the mere presence of Hamilton's name in an FBI document is therefore unlikely�"standing alone�"to engender speculations that he was suspected of any criminal conduct." He added that much of the contextual information had already been made public in DeLoach's memoir as well as Hamilton's autobiography. Assessing Hamilton's privacy interest, Robreno observed that "the fact that he was the subject of a conversation between the FBI and Justice Fortas, that information is not particularly sensitive or embarrassing, involves events that occurred long ago, and has been revealed previously in a book that is available to the general public. . .Accordingly, Hamilton's interest in avoiding disclosure of the specific information in the DeLoach Memorandum (which tells the reader very little about Hamilton himself) is minimal, at best." Turning to the public interest in disclosure, Robreno rejected Samahon's conjecture about the identity of the redacted individual, noting that 'the Court agrees with the Government that the redacted name and the Supreme Court's handling of the Black case were likely two unrelated subjects that Fortas and DeLoach happened to discuss in the same conversation. . .Plaintiff's blackmail theory is almost certainly incorrect." But he pointed out that "it does not follow, however, that, because the premise upon which the FOIA request was made is incorrect, disclosure of the redacted name serves no public interest." Instead, Robreno noted that the memo "reveals that senior FBI officials and a sitting Supreme Court Justice were involved in the investigation of the private life of an individual based upon the personal concern of the President. As the Government put it, such a situation is 'highly unconventional' and it suggests a potentially illegal use of executive power, as well as an unusual (and likely improper) collaboration between two branches of government." Finding the public interest in disclosure far outweighed Hamilton's privacy interest, Robreno observed that "put simply, disclosure of the redacted name tells the public few personal details about the named individual, but reveals a great deal about the functioning of the Hoover FBI during the Johnson presidency." Acknowledging that the bar to protecting personal information was somewhat lower under Exemption 7(C), Robreno first addressed whether or not the records qualified as law enforcement records. The government argued that because the FBI had authority to investigate individuals who would come into close proximity to Johnson the investigation of Hamilton was a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Calling the claim "circular," Robreno noted that "it is possible for the FBI to have the authority to investigate private citizens who will be in close proximity to the president, but for the actual investigation the agency conducted to be unrelated to a 'legitimate law enforcement concern.'" He indicated that "the Government's current position that the investigation was for 'protection of the person of the president' seems to be a post-hoc rationalization of the agency's conduct rather than the genuine motive for the FBI's investigation." He added that "here, the FBI has asserted a statutory basis for its investigation that could be indicative of a legitimate law enforcement concern, but the evidence in this case shows just the opposite, revealing that the White House enlisted the FBI to conduct a personal inquiry into a private individual's background without any suggestion of a security threat." Although he concluded Exemption 7(C) did not apply because the records were not compiled for law enforcement purposes, he pointed out that he still found the public interest in disclosure outweighed any privacy protection under Exemption 7(C). Robreno rejected the agency's claim that the contents of the file containing Hamilton's background investigation were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(C). Instead, he pointed out that "the Government cannot categorically withhold an entire FBI file on the basis that some of the information in the file is likely exempt from disclosure. Rather, after deleting the specific portions of the file that are exempt from disclosure, the FBI is required to release to a FOIA requester any 'reasonably segregable portion' of each record contained within the file. The Government has made no effort to demonstrate that it has fulfilled that obligation." Noting that "the file is overflowing with gossip, rumor, and third-level hearsay concerning potentially embarrassing allegations and personal details about private citizens," Robreno sent the file back to the FBI for a segregability review under Exemption 6.
Issues: Litigation - Segregability analysis, Litigation - In camera review, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7 - Threshold, Adequacy - Search

FOIA Project Annotation: In a case with a very strong public interest narrative, a federal court in Philadelphia has ruled that the FBI must disclose the redacted portions of a 1966 memo of a conversation between Associate FBI Director Cartha DeLoach and Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas concerning a background investigation of the movie star George Hamilton, who had been dating Lynda Bird Johnson. The court also concluded that the FBI's policy of categorically denying access to records containing third-party information without a privacy waiver, proof of death, or a strong showing of public interest in disclosure violates FOIA. The case involved a request from Villanova Law School Professor Tuan Samahon for records concerning the FBI's interactions with Fortas, a close confidante of President Lyndon Johnson, even after Johnson appointed him to the Supreme Court. The DeLoach memo, with identifying information about the individual to whom it referred redacted, had already been made public, but Samahon specifically requested an unredacted version of the memo. He also requested the file containing the memo, a file the FBI said pertained to a background check of the individual identified in the memo. The FBI refused to disclose any identifying information, claiming the records were protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). U.S. District Court Judge Eduardo Robreno ordered the agency to provide an unredacted version of the memo as well as the file for in camera review. To place the records in context, Robreno explained that Johnson apparently asked Fortas to look into Hamilton's background because he was dating his daughter Lynda Bird. Johnson enlisted the FBI to conduct such a background check. The FBI turned up allegations of homosexuality, but no violations of the law, and the agency provided the information to Fortas. The DeLoach memo described a telephone conversation he had with Fortas on October 25, 1966, apparently about the Hamilton investigation. However, because Hamilton's personal information had been redacted, the public version of the memo took on a completely separate historical cast. DeLoach also memorialized an exchange with Fortas on the timing of the Supreme Court's decision in Black v. United States, 385 U.S. 26 (1966), a case that had implications for law enforcement. Fortas told DeLoach that the Court's decision would likely be announced shortly and that it would conclude that the case was not appropriate for Supreme Court review. Based on this exchange, DeLoach apparently concluded the case would be remanded and observed in the memo that the FBI would immediately check to find the identity of the lower court judge who had initially handled the case. The DeLoach memo also included an addendum in which DeLoach asserted that Fortas had not acted improperly or unethically in divulging information about the Black case. Viewed in this limited context, Samahon speculated that the deleted identity in the DeLoach memo referred to an individual to whom DeLoach had referred as a means of blackmailing Fortas into providing information about the Black case. Samahon's theory was given some credence by the fact that DeLoach had recounted the conversation with Fortas as being blatantly unethical in his published personal memoir. After reviewing the documents in camera, Robreno concluded that neither privacy exemption applied and even though the DeLoach memo referenced Hamilton it shed much more light on the conduct of the FBI and Fortas than it did on Hamilton. Robreno explained that "when the DeLoach Memorandum is read in its unredacted form, however, the potential embarrassment [of being identified as the subject of an FBI investigation] described by the Government seems highly speculative, at best. The DeLoach Memorandum itself makes no reference to an FBI background investigation. Without the additional information supplied by the FBI, a reader of the DeLoach Memorandum would be aware only that DeLoach and Justice Fortas had discussed information about George Hamilton, not that the FBI had conducted a background investigation of him." Robreno pointed out that the record was nearly 50 years old and that "the mere presence of Hamilton's name in an FBI document is therefore unlikelyâ€"standing aloneâ€"to engender speculations that he was suspected of any criminal conduct." He added that much of the contextual information had already been made public in DeLoach's memoir as well as Hamilton's autobiography. Assessing Hamilton's privacy interest, Robreno observed that "the fact that he was the subject of a conversation between the FBI and Justice Fortas, that information is not particularly sensitive or embarrassing, involves events that occurred long ago, and has been revealed previously in a book that is available to the general public. . .Accordingly, Hamilton's interest in avoiding disclosure of the specific information in the DeLoach Memorandum (which tells the reader very little about Hamilton himself) is minimal, at best." Turning to the public interest in disclosure, Robreno rejected Samahon's conjecture about the identity of the redacted individual, noting that 'the Court agrees with the Government that the redacted name and the Supreme Court's handling of the Black case were likely two unrelated subjects that Fortas and DeLoach happened to discuss in the same conversation. . .Plaintiff's blackmail theory is almost certainly incorrect." But he pointed out that "it does not follow, however, that, because the premise upon which the FOIA request was made is incorrect, disclosure of the redacted name serves no public interest." Instead, Robreno noted that the memo "reveals that senior FBI officials and a sitting Supreme Court Justice were involved in the investigation of the private life of an individual based upon the personal concern of the President. As the Government put it, such a situation is 'highly unconventional' and it suggests a potentially illegal use of executive power, as well as an unusual (and likely improper) collaboration between two branches of government." Finding the public interest in disclosure far outweighed Hamilton's privacy interest, Robreno observed that "put simply, disclosure of the redacted name tells the public few personal details about the named individual, but reveals a great deal about the functioning of the Hoover FBI during the Johnson presidency." Acknowledging that the bar to protecting personal information was somewhat lower under Exemption 7(C), Robreno first addressed whether or not the records qualified as law enforcement records. The government argued that because the FBI had authority to investigate individuals who would come into close proximity to Johnson the investigation of Hamilton was a legitimate law enforcement inquiry. Calling the claim "circular," Robreno noted that "it is possible for the FBI to have the authority to investigate private citizens who will be in close proximity to the president, but for the actual investigation the agency conducted to be unrelated to a 'legitimate law enforcement concern.'" He indicated that "the Government's current position that the investigation was for 'protection of the person of the president' seems to be a post-hoc rationalization of the agency's conduct rather than the genuine motive for the FBI's investigation." He added that "here, the FBI has asserted a statutory basis for its investigation that could be indicative of a legitimate law enforcement concern, but the evidence in this case shows just the opposite, revealing that the White House enlisted the FBI to conduct a personal inquiry into a private individual's background without any suggestion of a security threat." Although he concluded Exemption 7(C) did not apply because the records were not compiled for law enforcement purposes, he pointed out that he still found the public interest in disclosure outweighed any privacy protection under Exemption 7(C). Robreno rejected the agency's claim that the contents of the file containing Hamilton's background investigation were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(C). Instead, he pointed out that "the Government cannot categorically withhold an entire FBI file on the basis that some of the information in the file is likely exempt from disclosure. Rather, after deleting the specific portions of the file that are exempt from disclosure, the FBI is required to release to a FOIA requester any 'reasonably segregable portion' of each record contained within the file. The Government has made no effort to demonstrate that it has fulfilled that obligation." Noting that "the file is overflowing with gossip, rumor, and third-level hearsay concerning potentially embarrassing allegations and personal details about private citizens," Robreno sent the file back to the FBI for a segregability review under Exemption 6.
Issues: Exemption 7 - Threshold, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2012-08-22	1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 068315.), filed by TUAN SAMAHON.(ks, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
2012-08-22		4 Summonses Issued as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. 1 Forwarded To: Counsel on 8/23/12 (ks, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
2012-08-23	2	REQUEST FOR REISSUANCE OF SUMMONS, by TUAN SAMAHON. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
2012-08-23		Reissuance of Summons Issued as to FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General Forwarded To: Plaintiffs Counsel on 8/23/2012 (sg, ) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
2012-08-28	3	PRAECIPE FOR ALIAS SUMMONS, by TUAN SAMAHON. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
2012-08-28		Alias Summons Issued as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FORWARD TO PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/28/2012)
2012-08-30	4	Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint for FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION on 8/30/2012; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on 8/30/2012. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/30/2012)
2012-09-14	5	AFFIDAVIT of Service by Gabrielle Gomez & Joseph Wolfe re: served Complaint 12-4839 upon FBI; DOJ; US Attorney General; EDPA US Attorney by Certified Mail on 08/28/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Proof of Service, # 2 Affidavit Proof of Service, # 3 Affidavit Proof of Service)(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 09/14/2012)
2012-09-27	6	Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time with which to File by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; COPY FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) Modified on 9/28/2012 (nd). (Entered: 09/27/2012)
2012-09-28	7	STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH DEFENDANTS MAY MOVE, ANSWER, OR OTHERWISE PLEAD IN RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT IN THE CAPTIONED ACTION IS HEREBY EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING 11/16/2012. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/28/2012. 9/28/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/28/2012)
2012-11-01	8	NOTICE of Appearance by GABRIELLE M. GOMEZ on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON (sg, ) (Entered: 11/01/2012)
2012-11-16	9	MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.Memorandum, Declaration, and Certificate of Service.(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
2012-11-16	10	EXHIBIT TO GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.. (sg, ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
2012-11-19	11	Stipulation for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by TUAN SAMAHON.Certificate of Service.(LYON, MARY). (FILED IN ERROR BY ATTORNEY; FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL). Modified on 11/20/2012 (ahf, ). (Entered: 11/19/2012)
2012-11-21	12	STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE TIME WITHIN WHICH PLAINTIFF MAY OPPOSE THE DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THE CAPTIONED ACTION IS HEREBY EXTENDED TO AND INCLUDING 1/4/2013. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 11/20/2012. 11/21/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
2013-01-04	13	PLAINTIFF'S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, filed by TUAN SAMAHON. EXHIBITS, CERTIFICIATE OF SERVICE, PROPOSED ORDER. (Attachments: # 1 EXHBIITS, # 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(sg, ) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
2013-01-18	14	RESPONSE in Opposition re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Certificate of Service filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
2013-02-01	15	NOTICE of Appearance of Student Attorney Andrea May filed by TUAN SAMAHON with Certificate of Service.(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 02/01/2013)
2013-02-01	16	MOTION for Leave to File Reply to Response to Motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by TUAN SAMAHON. Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(LYON, MARY) Modified on 2/4/2013 (ahf, ). (Entered: 02/01/2013)
2013-08-27	17	ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY 16 IS GRANTED. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 9 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PLAINTIFF'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 13 IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFENDANTS ARE GRANTED LEAVE FOR 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER TO PROVIDE A SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/27/2013.8/28/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
2013-08-27	18	PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, filed by TUAN SAMAHON. (sg, ) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
2013-09-18	19	ENTRY of Appearance of Certified Student Chad E. Odhner on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Order of Student Certification)(LYON, MARY) Modified on 9/19/2013 (lisad, ). Modified on 9/24/2013 (sg, ). (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-18	20	ENTRY of Appearance of Certified Student Landon K. Synnestvedt on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Order of Student Certification)(LYON, MARY) Modified on 9/19/2013 (lisad, ). Modified on 9/24/2013 (sg, ). (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-18	21	First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint filed by TUAN SAMAHON.Motion to File Supplemental Complaint, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - FOIA email request, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - FBI Receipt of FOIA request)(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-26	22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Supplemental Summary Judgment Motion filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.Certificate of Counsel and Certificate of Service.(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
2013-10-02	23	Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.Memorandum, Affidavit, and Certificate of Service.(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
2013-10-07	24	RESPONSE in Opposition re 21 First MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint and Certificate of Service filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
2013-10-10	25	ORDERED THAT A STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE IS SET FOR 10/22/2013 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/10/2013. 10/11/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
2013-10-16	26	ORDERED THAT HTE TELEPHONE STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET FOR 10/22/2013 IS HEREBY RESCHEDULED TO 10/23/2013 02:00 PM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/16/2013. 10/16/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
2013-10-16	27	Second MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Government's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment filed by TUAN SAMAHON.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
2013-10-17	28	ORDERED THAT THE GOVERNMENT'S CONSENT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION 22 IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/17/2013. 10/17/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
2013-10-24	29	ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 21 IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL HAVE UNTIL 12/23/2013 TO MOVE ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT. PLAINTIFF SHALL THEN HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY 1/31/2014 TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' FILING, AND DEFENDANTS SHALL THEN HAVE UNTIL MONDAY 2/17/2014 TO FILE ANY REPLY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/23/2013.10/25/2013 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
2013-10-24	30	PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT against FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, filed by TUAN SAMAHON.(sg, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
2013-11-01	31	RESPONSE in Opposition re 27 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Government's Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment and Certificate of Service filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 11/01/2013)
2013-11-14	32	MEMORANDUM in Response to Opposition re 27 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment, 23 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by TUAN SAMAHON. Certificate of Service. (LYON, MARY) Modified on 11/14/2013 (lisad, ). (Entered: 11/14/2013)
2013-12-03	33	TRANSCRIPT of held on 10/23/2013, before Judge EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 12/24/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/3/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/3/2014. (sg, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
2013-12-03	34	Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 33 Transcript - PDF, 12/4/2013 Entered and Copies Emailed and mailed.. (sg, ) (Entered: 12/04/2013)
2013-12-23	35	Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.Memorandum, Affidavit, and Certificate of Service.(BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
2014-01-25	36	Second MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint filed by TUAN SAMAHON.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 01/25/2014)
2014-01-29	37	ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT 36 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. THE THE EXTEND THAT PLAINTIFF REQUESTS ANOTHER STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE, THAT REQUEST IS DENIED. PLAINTIFF MAY, HOWEVER, HAVE AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO RESPOND DEFENDANT'S MOTION. IN THAT RESPONSE, PLAINTIFF CAN RAISE HIS ARGUMEENTS OPPOSING DEFENDANT'S DECISION TO CATEGORICALLY WITHHOLD THE REQUESTED FBI FILE. PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL FRIDAY, 2/14/2014, TO FILE HIS RESPONSE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE COMPLAINT IWTH AN ADDITIONAL FOIA CLAIM ARISING FROM DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED FAILURE TO RELEASE REASONABLY SEGREGABLE, NON-EXEMPT MATERIAL FROM THE REQUESTED FBI FILE IS GRANTED. DEFENDANT MAY RESPOND TO THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM IN ITS REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE, WHICH MUST BE FILED BY MONDAY, 3/3/2014. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 1/28/2014. 1/30/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
2014-02-14	38	Third MOTION for Summary Judgment , Response to Government, and Memorandum in Support filed by TUAN SAMAHON.Memorandum, Certificate of Service.(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
2014-02-14	39	NOTICE of Appearance by RUSSELL T. CROTTS, INDRANIL GHOSH on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
2014-02-28	40	RESPONSE in Opposition re 38 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment , Response to Government, and Memorandum in Support and Certificate of Service filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
2014-04-23	41	ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT BY 5/27/2014 THE FOLLOWING: AN UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DELOACH MEMRANDUM FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. A SUPPLEMENTAL VAUGHN INDEX THAT DESCRIBES EACH OF THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS IN FBI FILE NUMBER 62-HQ-110654 AND PROVIDES A PARTICULARIZED DESCRIPTION OF HOW EACH DOCUMENT FALLS WITHIN A STATUTORY EXEMPTION. ANY ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVITS NECESSARY TO EXPLAIN WITH SUFFICIENT DETAIL WHY "EACH DOCUUMENT OR PORTION OF A DOCUMENT WITHHELD IS PUTATIVELY EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE." SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/23/2014. 4/24/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
2014-05-12	42	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by GABRIELLE M. GOMEZ on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-12	43	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by ANDREA E. MAY on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-12	44	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by CHAD E. ODHNER on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-12	45	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by LANDON K. SYNNESTVEDT on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-12	46	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by RUSSELL T. CROTTS on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-12	47	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by INDRANIL GHOSH on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-05-29	48	ORDERED THAT BY 6/16/2014, THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT THE FOLLOWING: DEFENDANTS SHALL SUBMIT AN UNREDACTED COPY OF THE RECORDS CONTAINED IN FBI NUMBER 62-HQ-110654 FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. PLAINTIFF SHALL FILE A RESPONSE TO THE FOURTH DECLARATION OF DAVID M. HARDY AND ATTACHED VAUGHN INDEX. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 5/29/2014. 5/30/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
2014-06-10	49	NOTICE of Appearance of Certified Students Mary Emily Pagano and Matthew Nicodemo on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, Certificates of Service. (LYON, MARY) Modified on 6/11/2014 (md). (Entered: 06/10/2014)
2014-06-16	50	Response to FBI's Fourth Hardy Declaration and Vaughn Index by TUAN SAMAHON, Certificate of Service. (LYON, MARY) Modified on 6/17/2014 (md). (Entered: 06/16/2014)
2014-06-19	51	ORDER THAT, AS PART OF ITS IN CAMERA REVIEW OF THE RECORDS SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANTS, THE COURT REQUIRES AN EX PARTE HEARING WITH COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON THE RECORD AND PLACED UNDER SEAL. THE EX PARTE HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY, 6/27/14, AT 10:30 AM, IN COURTROOM 15A, U.S. COURTHOUSE, 601 MARKET ST., PHILA., PA. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/18/14. 6/19/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(fdc) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
2014-06-26	52	Statement by TUAN SAMAHON. (LYON, MARY) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
2014-06-27	53	Minute Entry. (FILED UNDER SEAL.) (sg, ) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
2014-07-08	54	TRANSCRIPT FILED UNDER SEAL. (sg, ) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
2014-08-18	55	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by MATTHEW NICODEMO on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
2014-08-18	56	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by MARY EMILY PAGANO on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
2014-08-25	57	MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/25/2014. 8/25/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-25	58	ORDERED THAT DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 23 ) AND SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 35 ) ARE DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 27 ) AND THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 38 ) ARE GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE FBI'S FAILURE TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH AN UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DELOACH MEMORANDUM IS DECLARED UNLAWFUL; 2. THE FBI IS ORDERED TO PROMPTLY PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH AN UNREDACTED VERSION OF THE DELOACH MEMORANDUM; 3. THE FBI'S CATEGORICAL DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR FBI FILE NO. 62-HQ-110654 IS DECLARED UNLAWFUL; 4. THE FBI IS ORDERED TO REVIEW FBI FILE NO. 62-HQ-110654 AGAIN IN LIGHT ON THE COURT'S RULING AND TO RELEASE TO PLAINTIFF ANY REASONABLY SEGREGABLE, NONEXEMPT MATERIAL CONTAINED WITHIN THE FILE; 5. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF COMPELLING THE FBI TO PRODUCE THE ENTIRETY OF FBI FILE NO. 62-HQ-110654 IS DENIED; 6. ANY ADDITIONAL RELIEF SOUGHT UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/25/2014. 8/25/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-25	59	ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS ON THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CLAIMS BROUGHT IN THE COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 1 ) AND IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 30 ) AS AMENDED BY THE COURT'S ORDER OF 1/28/2014 (ECF NO. 37 ). SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/25/2014. 8/25/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 08/25/2014)
2014-08-29	60	NOTICE of Appearance by MARY BETH LYON on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON with Certificate of Service(LYON, MARY) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
2014-09-02	61	NOTICE of Appearance by MICHAEL BOWERS on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
2014-09-02	62	NOTICE of Appearance by ANTHONY FRATTONE on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (sg, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
2014-09-02	63	NOTICE of Appearance by MARY EMILY PAGANO on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(sg, ) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
2014-09-08	64	PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER LITIGATION COSTS, filed by TUAN SAMAHON. MEMO, EXHIBITS, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, PROPOSED ORDER..(sg, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
2014-09-23	65	RESPONSE in Opposition re 64 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Certificate of Service filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
2015-01-16	66	ORDERED THAT A MOTION HEARING IS SET FOR 2/18/2015 09:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 1/16/2015. 1/16/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
2015-02-17	67	LETTER REQUEST to Continue filed by TUAN SAMAHON..(LYON, MARY) Modified on 2/18/2015 (afm, ). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-17	68	Letter RESPONSE to Motion re 67 First MOTION to Continue filed by FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION. (BERNSTEIN, RICHARD) Modified on 2/18/2015 (afm, ). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-17	69	ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR A 30 DAY CONTINUANCE IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 2/17/2015. 2/17/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-17	70	NOTICE of Appearance OF JOHN D'ELIA by MARY BETH LYON on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON with Certificate of Service(LYON, MARY) Modified on 2/20/2015 (afm, ). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-17	71	NOTICE of Appearance OF CODY WADE by MARY BETH LYON on behalf of TUAN SAMAHON with Certificate of Service(LYON, MARY) Modified on 2/20/2015 (afm, ). (Entered: 02/17/2015)
2015-02-18	72	Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO Motion Hearing held on 2/18/2015 re 64 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by TUAN SAMAHON (sg, ) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
2015-02-18	73	ORDERED THAT BY NO LATER THAN 2/25/2015 PLANTIFF SHALL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE COURT IDENTIFYING AND DISCUSSING SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORIES IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS RAISED BY THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, BY NO LATER THAN 3/4/2015 THE GOVERMENT WILL SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE COURT IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 2/18/2015. 2/19/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
2015-02-24	74	NOTICE by TUAN SAMAHON NOTICE of SETTLEMENT (LYON, MARY) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
2015-03-03	75	ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND OTHER LITIGATION COSTS (ECF. NO. 64 ) IS DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/2/2015. 3/4/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E-MAILED.(sg, ) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
Hide Docket Events