Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Relying primarily on the D.C. Circuit's decision last year in CREW v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180 (D.C. Cir. 2013), Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that an agency's grant of expedited processing requires only that the agency move the expedited request to its expedited queue and to process it as soon as practicable. Jackson rejected EPIC's request for a preliminary injunction that would have required the Justice Department to process its request within 20 days of the court's order granting the preliminary injunction. In CREW v. FEC, the D.C. Circuit found that, absent unusual circumstances, an agency was required to determine how it would respond to a FOIA request within the 20-day statutory time limit. If the agency failed to do so, the requester had exhausted his or her administrative remedies and could immediately go to court if they so chose. While the EPIC case involved a different set of circumstances, Jackson indicated that the holding in CREW v. FEC shaped her decision. EPIC had filed a request with the National Security Division at the Justice Department for reports submitted to Congress pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act summarizing the use of pen registers or trap and trace devices. EPIC also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. Two weeks after receipt of the request, NSD granted EPIC's requests for a fee waiver and expedited processing. After hearing nothing further, EPIC filed suit, contending DOJ had violated the time limits for responding to an expedited request and asking the court for a preliminary injunction requiring the agency to disclose the responsive records within 20 days of the court's order. In its memorandum supporting its request for a preliminary injunction, EPIC indicated that its request was prompted by articles in The Guardian describing the government's use of pen registers and trap and trace devices to collect bulk email and Internet metadata. EPIC said there was an urgent need for the records because of congressional debates over the limits of surveillance. Jackson first explained that to succeed in its request for injunctive relief, EPIC must show a likelihood of success on the merits and that it would be irreparably harmed if injunctive relief was not granted. She noted that "EPIC's argument regarding likelihood of success flows from its belief that DOJ's failure to respond to the FOIA Request within 20 days, as set forth in the FOIA statute, constitutes a per se violation of the law that entitles the requester to get the requested records immediately." However, she observed that "but nothing in the FOIA statute establishes that an agency's failure to comply with this 20-day deadline automatically results in the agency's having to produce the requested documents without continued processing, as EPIC suggests." She then turned to the CREW v. FEC holding, pointing out that "significantly for present purposes, CREW not only explains the timing and substance of the required FOIA response, it also unequivocally addressed the consequences that attach to an agency's failure to make the required 'determination' [as to how it will respond to the request] within the 20-day deadline." Indeed, "far from EPIC's reading of the FOIA to require an agency to immediately hand over all of the requested documents as a result of its failure to meet the deadline, CREW makes clear that the impact of blowing the 20-day deadline relates only to the requester's ability to get into court." She noted that "properly understood and applied, then, CREW substantially decreases the likelihood that EPIC will prevail on the merits of its argument that the NSD's failure to adhere to the 20-day deadline violates FOIA in a manner that entitles EPIC to a court order granting it immediate access to the requested records." Jackson explained that according to CREW, an agency's response to a FOIA request consisted of two steps, only one of which implicated the 20-day time limit. "First, an agency will gather and review documents and make a 'determination,' which is a decision regarding the scope of the documents the agency intends to produce and withhold, and the reasons for withholding any document. By statute, the agency is required to communicate this determination to the requester (and mention the right to appeal) within 20 days of receipt of the request. Then, after the determination has been made and communicated, the agency proceeds to the second step, which is to process the responsive documents and produce them to the requester 'promptly.' CREW also clearly recognizes that the 20-day determination deadline is not always practicable, and it explains what happens when that deadline is not met: in such a circumstance, the FOIA requester is deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies and can proceed immediately to federal court, after which the agency 'may continue to process the request,' but will do so under the court's supervision." EPIC relied on EPIC v. Dept of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006), in which a district court had granted EPIC the identical kind of relief after Justice failed to respond to its request within the statutory deadline. But Jackson distinguished the earlier ruling by noting that "the judge in [the first EPIC case] did not have the benefit of the D.C. Circuit's decision in CREW, and in particular, its holding regarding the specific consequences that attach to an agency's failure to meet the 20-day deadline." She pointed out that the judge in the first EPIC case had found a "presumption of agency delay" simply because DOJ had failed to respond to EPIC's request on time and had not presented any evidence to rebut the presumption. Here, Jackson indicated, DOJ had presented an affidavit from the NSD FOIA officer explaining that there were 13 other expedited requests in its queue before EPIC and that the volume of classified material made it impossible to respond in 20 days. Jackson observed that "even if a presumption of delay exists�"and in light of CREW this Court is doubtful that it does�"no such presumption even arguably arises on the facts of the instant case." Instead of being entitled to all responsive records for a violation of the time limits as EPIC claimed, Jackson pointed out that if an agency granted a request for expediting processing it was required to move the request "to the front of the agency's queue" and the agency must process it "as soon as practicable." She noted that "DOJ has represented that EPIC's FOIA Request was moved to the head of the line of regular FOIA requests that the NSD is handling, and that EPIC's FOIA request is now in a queue of 13 other 'expedited' document requests." Jackson questioned why EPIC believed it was more entitled than the other 13 expedited requesters and indicated that EPIC had failed to "cast doubt on DOJ's representations about the current status of EPIC's FOIA Request relative to all others" or to show that NSD was not working to respond "as soon as practicable." Jackson then found that EPIC could not show that it would be irreparably harmed if the records were not disclosed promptly. She observed that "while it is true that some courts have granted preliminary injunctions where 'time is of the essence,' EPIC's own subjective view of what qualifies as 'timely' processing is not, and cannot be, the standard that governs this Court's evaluation of irreparable harm, and EPIC offers nothing more than a bald assertion that DOJ is obviously not processing its FOIA Request in a timely fashion." She noted that EPIC had not shown that the records on the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices were vital to the current surveillance debate. Nor had EPIC shown that it was entitled to the documents under FOIA since many of them were classified. Weighing the interests between EPIC's demands for disclosure and the government's claims that it could not disclose the records that quickly regardless, Jackson concluded that "the bottom line is this: given the competing public interests at stake in this matter, and also EPIC's failure to provide any evidence that DOJ is intentionally dragging its feet until the surveillance storm blows over, this Court sees no need to short-circuit the NSD's ongoing document review process preliminarily and in the manner that EPIC's motion requests."
Issues: Expedited processing - Time limit

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has ruled that the issues remaining in litigation between EPIC and the Department of Justice over a now-expired national security program that involved the government's surreptitious use of certain devices to collect communications information have narrowed to such an extent that the government's affidavits do not adequately address the handful of documents still in dispute. As a result, Jackson ordered the government to provide a new Vaughn index addressing the remaining contested documents. Jackson indicated that the parties had done an admirable job in winnowing down the issues, but noted that it was not until she held a hearing that she was able to understand the scope of the remaining issues. What remained were Westlaw printouts that had been attached to a DOJ memo as well as redacted portions of 25 semiannual reports to Congress summarizing FISC legal opinions. Jackson ordered the agency to provide new Vaughn affidavits, one that "set forth the government's reasons for withholding the Westlaw printouts attached to [the memo] apart from the FISC brief." She noted that "because it is difficult to glean from the [current affidavits] precisely what information DOJ is actually withholding [in the other contested documents] much less ascertain the government's reasons for withholding summaries of legal opinions and statements related to the FISA court's jurisdiction and processes," she would require a new affidavit explaining and justifying these withholdings. She also told the agency to provide the contested documents for in camera review.
Issues: Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - In camera review

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Kejanti Brown Jackson has upheld the remaining claims made by the Justice Department that a handful of records pertaining to the use of pen register and trap-and-trace devices for surveillance â€" including materials from Westlaw â€" were properly withheld under Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes). The case raises some interesting questions, not only about how a publicly-available non-government legal document could be classifiable, but also the extent to which agencies that receive FOIA requests are responsible for the referral decisions and claims made during the processing of a request. EPIC's original request was sent to the National Security Division at the Department of Justice for records concerning the government's prior surreptitious use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. After the agency failed to respond within the statutory deadline, EPIC filed suit. NSD referred some records to the FBI and the National Security Agency for review and withholding determinations. The agency submitted a Vaughn index with 92 entries that included affidavits from the NSD, the FBI, and the NSA, invoking Exemption 1, Exemption 3, Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). By the time Jackson ruled, only two issues remained â€" (1)whether the government properly withheld Westlaw printouts that were part of a classified legal belief that had been submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and (2) whether the government properly redacted from Semi-Annual Reports that DOJ made to Congress information regarding the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, consisting of summaries of FISC legal opinions, descriptions of the scope of the FISC's jurisdiction, and discussions of FISA process improvements. EPIC challenged the agency's Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 claims. After reviewing the remaining records in camera, Jackson upheld the government's claims. She pointed out that the agencies had relied on three separate statutes â€" Section 102A(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, Section 6 of the National Security Agency Act of 1959, and 18 U.S.C. § 798 â€" to justify its claims under Exemption 3. EPIC did not contest that the three statutory provisions qualified as Exemption 3 statutes, but instead "seeks to advance the novel contention that, even though DOJ's NSD referred certain documents to the FBI and the NSA for exemption determinations under governing FOIA regulations, the government cannot assert certain otherwise applicable FOIA exemptions in the instant context because the FOIA request was directed to NSD in the first instance." Jackson found the exemption claims appropriate, noting that "given the context in which the [Westlaw] printouts exist in this litigation â€" i.e., as part of a classified brief submitted to the FISC â€" the printouts also constitute intelligence sources and methods for purposes of Section 102A(i)(1), and therefore the FBI properly withheld those materials." Jackson pointed out that "EPIC vigorously maintains that DOJ has not followed the right procedure for establishing the applicability of Exemption 3 with respect to the withholdings at issue," because even though NSD created and controlled the records, it had provided no declaration to justify the withholding. Further, it was unclear whether a non-Intelligence Community agency had the legal authority to assert Section 102A(i)(1). EPIC also claimed the agency had acted in bad faith by not asserting Exemption 3 during the earlier rounds of summary judgment briefings in the case. Jackson addressed EPIC's bad faith argument first. Acknowledging that Maydak v. Dept of Justice, 218 F.3d 760 (D.C. Cir. 2000), and its progeny generally required agencies to make all their exemption claims at the beginning of litigation, Jackson explained that "the Court does not perceive the government as having acted in bad faith, nor does it view the government's filings as providing post-hoc rationalizations for the withholdings already made. Rather, the document-production process is a fluid one at the district-court level, and it often includes contemporaneous review and continuous production determinations made by agency-defendants. Thus, in this Court's view, the government is entitled to articulate fully all of the justifications for the withholdings that it makes prior to the Court's ruling on summary judgment." Generally speaking, an agency that receives a FOIA request is responsible for the processing of that FOIA request, including any decision to withhold information. Agencies can consult with other agencies who may have a greater interest in certain responsive documents, but EPIC here questioned the NSD's authority to delegate its FOIA responsibilities to the FBI and the NSA and allow those agencies to determine whether the records were exempt or not. Rejecting the challenge, Jackson noted that "the record clearly reveals that DOJ followed its referral process when it responded to EPIC's FOIA request, consistent with the agency's regulations." Those regulations instructed the agency to which the records were referred to take responsibility to respond directly to the requester. Jackson observed that "the undisputed evidence establishes that DOJ's NSD referred the SARs and Westlaw printouts to the FBI and the NSA pursuant to these regulations with the intent of having those other agencies determine whether any exemptions should be invoked. Courts in this district have long recognized the permissibility of such a referral and EPIC neither challenges the validity of DOJ's referral regulations nor cites any authority that limits the ability of an agency receiving the FOIA referral to invoke any otherwise-applicable FOIA exemption." Jackson found the records were properly classified as well. She pointed out that "mindful of the deference it must afford to the government in this context, this Court finds that the government's explanation of the harm that might result from release of the Westlaw printouts, and how such a disclosure could reveal national security information that is not evident from looking at the documents in isolation, is reasonable and sufficient to support its invocation of Exemption 1. In this regard, the Court accepts the government's assertion that the Westlaw printouts and the main brief to which they are attached are rightfully construed as a single document, and that disclosure of the attachments would elucidate the substance of the main (undeniably classified) document, such that the government is entitled to withhold the attachments themselves."
Issues: Exemption 1 - Harm to national security, Exemption 3 - Statutory prohibition of disclosure, Search - Referral

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2013-12-09	1	COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3559629) filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Attorney General, # 3 Summons U.S. Attorney, # 4 Summons Department of Justice)(Stepanovich, Amie) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
2013-12-09	2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Stepanovich, Amie) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
2013-12-09	3	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Stepanovich, Amie) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
2013-12-09		Case Assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (zmd, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
2013-12-11	4	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (3) ISSUED as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons 2nd, # 2 Summons 3rd, # 3 Notice of Consent, # 4 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 12/11/2013)
2014-01-02	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 12/20/2013. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 1/19/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Affidavit of Service - DC Attorney, # 2 Affidavit Affidavit of Service - U.S. Attorney General, # 3 Affidavit Affidavit of Service - Department of Justice, # 4 Exhibit Receipt for Certified Mail - DC Attorney, # 5 Exhibit Receipt for Certified Mail - U.S. Attorney General, # 6 Exhibit Receipt for Certified Mail - Department of Justice)(Stepanovich, Amie) (Entered: 01/02/2014)
2014-01-03	6	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
2014-01-03		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction . It is hereby ORDERED that defendant shall respond to plaintiff's motion by January 10, 2014. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties and Court will convene by teleconference at 2:30 PM on January 7, 2014, to discuss scheduling, potential consolidation, and further proceedings in this matter. The parties shall coordinate a conference line and call Chambers at the appointed time. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 1/3/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
2014-01-03	7	NOTICE of Appearance by Marc Rotenberg on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 01/03/2014)
2014-01-06		NOTICE OF ERROR re 7 Notice of Appearance; emailed to rotenberg@epic.org, cc'd 4 associated attorneys -- The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Invalid attorney signature (jf, ) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
2014-01-06	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Marc Rotenberg on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 01/06/2014)
2014-01-07		MINUTE ENTRY: Teleconference held with parties regarding scheduling, consolidation, and procedures for moving case forward. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 1/7/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 01/07/2014)
2014-01-07		MINUTE ORDER setting Motion Hearing on 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction for 1/24/2014 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. The deadline set in the Court's January 3, 2014, Minute Order for Defendant to file its Opposition to 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction is unchanged. Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, if any, by 1/17/2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 1/7/2014. (lckbj1) Modified on 1/16/2014 to correct motion hearing date (jf, ). (Entered: 01/07/2014)
2014-01-10	9	Memorandum in opposition to re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 Declaration of Mark A. Bradley, # 2 Exhibit 2 Order Granting, in Part, Expedited Relief for the Government in EPIC v. Dep't of Justice, No. 06cv96-HHK (D.D.C.), # 3 Exhibit 3 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction in EPIC v. Dep't of Justice, No. 03cv2078-JR (D.D.C.), # 4 Exhibit 4 Order Denying Preliminary Injunction in Judicial Watch v. Dep't of Justice, No. 00cv1396-JR (D.D.C.), # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
2014-01-16	10	NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Jay Butler on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Butler, Alan) (Entered: 01/16/2014)
2014-01-17	11	REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Butler, Alan) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
2014-01-22	12	ANSWER to Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
2014-01-24		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Motion Hearing held on 1/24/2014. Oral Argument heard re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Taken Under Advisement. (Court Reporter Lisa Griffith) (gdf) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
2014-02-03	13	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. Attorney Amie L. Stepanovich terminated. (Stepanovich, Amie) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-11	14	ORDER denying 3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and requiring parties to file a joint status report on the status of defendant's response to plaintiff's FOIA request by March 7, 2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 2/11/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
2014-02-11	15	MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 2/11/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 02/11/2014)
2014-03-07	16	STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report of the Parties) by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
2014-03-10		MINUTE ORDER. Upon consideration of the representations made in the parties' 16 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report on the status of defendant's response to plaintiff's FOIA request by March 28, 2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 3/10/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 03/10/2014)
2014-03-28	17	STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report of the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
2014-03-31		MINUTE ORDER. Based on the representations made in the parties 17 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties file a further StatusReport informing the Court of the status of defendants response to plaintiffs FOIA request and proposing dates for further proceedings, as appropriate, by 8/12/2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 3/31/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-04-09	18	NOTICE of Appearance by Ginger P. McCall on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (McCall, Ginger) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
2014-07-28	19	STATUS REPORT (Interim) by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 07/28/2014)
2014-08-08	20	STATUS REPORT (Joint) and Proposed Schedule by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
2014-08-18		MINUTE ORDER setting briefing schedule for cross-motions for summary judgment. Defendant's Summary Judgment motion is due by 10/17/2014. Plaintiff's consolidated Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 11/14/2014. Defendant's consolidated Reply and Opposition to the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 12/5/2014. Plaintiff's Reply is due by 12/19/2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 08/18/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
2014-10-14	21	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file Motion for Summary Judgment, and Proposed Modified Briefing Schedule by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
2014-10-15		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown Defendant's 21 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. The briefing schedule in this matter is modified as follows: Defendant's Summary Judgment motion is due by 10/31/2014. Plaintiff's consolidated Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 11/21/2014. Defendant's consolidated Reply and Opposition to the Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 12/11/2014. Plaintiff's Reply is due by 12/19/2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/15/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 10/15/2014)
2014-10-31	22	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Index of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit I. Declaration of Mark A. Bradley & Exhibit A thereto (Vaughn Index), # 4 Exhibit II. [Notice Regarding Submission of] Classified Declaration of David M. Hardy, # 5 Exhibit III. Public (Redacted) Declaration of David M. Hardy, # 6 Exhibit IV. Declaration of Alan J. Sherman, # 7 Exhibit V. Declaration of Martha M. Lutz, # 8 Statement of Facts, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
2014-11-05	23	ERRATA by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David M. Hardy (Unclassified))(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 11/05/2014)
2014-11-07	24	NOTICE of Filing Supplemental Declaration of David M. Hardy by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Second) of David M. Hardy)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
2014-11-21	25	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
2014-11-21	26	Memorandum in opposition to re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
2014-12-11	27	Memorandum in opposition to re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit I. 3d Declaration of Mark Bradley, # 3 Exhibit to 3d Bradley Declaration (Part 1 of 3), # 4 Exhibit to 3d Bradley Declaration (Part 2 of 3), # 5 Exhibit to 3d Bradley Declaration (Part 3 of 3), # 6 Exhibit II. (Notice Regarding) Classified Third Declaration of David M. Hardy, # 7 Exhibit III. Unclassified Third Declaration of David M. Hardy, # 8 Statement of Facts)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
2014-12-11	28	REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
2014-12-12	29	NOTICE That the Attachments to Defendant's Reply Memorandum in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment may be found at Docket Entry 27 (ECF Nos. 27-1 through 27-8) by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 28 Reply to opposition to Motion (Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
2014-12-19	30	REPLY to opposition to motion re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
2015-05-19	31	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. Attorney Ginger P. McCall terminated. (McCall, Ginger) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
2015-12-07		MINUTE ORDER Setting Hearing on 22 Motion for Summary Judgment and 25 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment for 1/21/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 12/7/2015. (lckbj1) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
2016-01-21		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson: Motion Hearing held on 1/21/2016, re 25 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and 22 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Oral argument heard and Motions taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Barbara DeVico) (gdf) (Entered: 01/21/2016)
2016-02-04	32	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying DOJs 22 Motion for Summary Judgment and EPICs 25 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment without prejudice; requiring DOJ to submit a revised Vaughn Index and supporting declarations by 3/11/2016, and setting a briefing schedule for renewed motions for summary judgment. Motions for Summary Judgment are due by 4/8/2016. Responses to Motions for Summary Judgment are due by 5/6/2016. Replies re Motions for Summary Judgment are due by 5/27/2016. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 02/04/2016. (lckbj1) (Entered: 02/04/2016)
2016-03-08	33	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Provide Supplemental Vaughn Index, Declarations, and In Camera Submissions by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 03/08/2016)
2016-03-09		MINUTE ORDER granting, for good cause shown, 33 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Provide Supplemental Vaughn Index, Declarations, and In Camera Submissions. It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline for DOJ to submit the materials required by this Court's 32 Memorandum Opinion and Order is extended to 3/18/2016. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 03/09/2016. (lckbj1) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
2016-03-18	34	NOTICE of Lodging of Documents for In Camera Review with the Classified Information Officer by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-03-18	35	NOTICE of Filing of Revised Vaughn Index and Supplemental Declarations by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Unclassified Declaration (Fourth) of David Hardy, # 2 Unclassified Declaration (Second) of David Sherman)(Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
2016-04-08	36	MOTION for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-04-08	37	MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Index of Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit 3, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
2016-05-06	38	Memorandum in opposition to re 37 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Facts, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
2016-05-06	39	Memorandum in opposition to re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
2016-05-18	40	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply Briefs by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 05/18/2016)
2016-05-19		MINUTE ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Briefs. Is is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall provide a status report to the Court detailing whether or not the Government has decided to declassify additional material within the remaining challenged withholdings by June 21, 2016. That status report shall also specify the amount of time the parties request to file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 05/19/2016. (lckbj1) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
2016-06-21	41	STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
2016-06-24		MINUTE ORDER. Based on the representations in the parties' 41 Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file their reply briefs in further support of their motions for summary judgment on or before 7/20/2016. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 06/24/2016. (lckbj1) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
2016-07-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 7/20/2016. (tj) (Entered: 07/01/2016)
2016-07-20	42	REPLY to opposition to motion re 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment and accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Anderson, Caroline) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
2016-07-20	43	REPLY to opposition to motion re 37 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
2016-08-12	44	NOTICE of Appearance by Rodney Patton on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 08/12/2016)
2017-09-30	45	ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DOJs 26 Motion for Summary Judgment, and DENYING without prejudice EPICs 37 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Memorandum Opinion to be issued shortly, absent unforeseen circumstances. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 09/30/2017. (lckbj1) (Entered: 09/30/2017)
2017-11-07	46	MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING in part and DENYING in part DOJs 26 Motion for Summary Judgment, DENYING without prejudice EPICs 37 Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and requiring supplemental submissions. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/7/2017. (lckbj1) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
2017-11-07	47	ORDER requiring DOJ to submit, on or before 12/9/2017, one or more declarations that explain with specificity the grounds for each partial or complete withholding that the Court has identified in Section III.D of the 46 Memorandum Opinion, as well as the reasons why any non-exempt material within these redactions cannot reasonably be segregated from the exempt material, and setting summary judgment briefing schedule as follows: renewed motions for summary judgment with respect to the withholdings specifically addressed in Section III.D of the 46 Memorandum Opinion shall be filed on or before 1/12/2018; the briefs in opposition to such motions for summary judgment shall be filed on or before 2/9/2018; and reply briefs shall be filed on or before 3/2/2018. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 11/7/2017. (lckbj1) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
2017-11-09	48	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Attorney Steven Y. Bressler terminated. (Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
2017-12-07	49	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's Order by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-07		MINUTE ORDER granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's Order. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file any supplemental declarations on or before 12/21/2017. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 127/2017. (lckbj1) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
2017-12-21	50	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 47 Order,,,, Set Deadlines,,, filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
2018-01-11	51	Joint MOTION to Vacate Briefing Schedule and to Set a Deadline for Filing a Joint Status Report by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
2018-01-11		MINUTE ORDER granting 51 Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule. It is hereby ORDERED that the summary judgment briefing schedule in this matter is VACATED and that the parties shall file a joint status report on or before 2/26/2018, which shall contain a proposed schedule for further proceedings if litigation is going to be necessary. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 1/11/2018. (lckbj1, ) (Entered: 01/11/2018)
2018-02-26	52	Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
2018-02-27		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the representations in the parties' 52 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further status report on or before 4/25/2018, which shall contain a proposed schedule for further proceedings if litigation is going to be necessary. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 02/27/2018. (lckbj1) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
2018-04-11	53	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Jean-Michel Voltaire on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney Rodney Patton (Voltaire, Jean-Michel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
2018-04-25	54	Joint STATUS REPORT by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
2018-04-26		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the representations on the parties' 54 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before 6/8/2018, which shall contain a proposed schedule for further proceedings if litigation is going to be necessary. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 04/26/2018. (lckbj1) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
2018-06-08	55	Joint STATUS REPORT by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
2018-06-11		MINUTE ORDER. Based on the representations in the parties' 55 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before 7/23/2018. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 6/11/2018. (lckbj1) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
2018-07-18	56	Joint STATUS REPORT by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
2018-07-22		MINUTE ORDER. In light of the representations in the parties' 56 Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before 9/10/2018, which shall include a proposed schedule for further proceedings if litigation is going to be necessary. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 7/22/2018. (lckbj1) (Entered: 07/22/2018)
2018-08-30		MINUTE ORDER. Where only attorneys' fees remain at issue in a FOIA case, it is the practice of this Court to close the case administratively while it awaits notice from the parties regarding settlement of the attorneys' fee or or a joint proposed schedule for briefing this remaining dispute. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED ORDER. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 08/30/3018. (lckbj1) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
Hide Docket Events