Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that the Department of Justice failed to justify redactions made under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) concerning the selection of corporate compliance monitors for 15 corporations that settled charges brought for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act through deferred prosecution agreements, but that its redaction under Exemption 4 (confidential business information) was appropriate. Dylan Tokar, a reporter for the publication Just Anti-Corruption, requested the records. The agency provided pre-disclosure notifications to the corporations and Tokar submitted a second FOIA request for any objection letters filed by the corporations. After Tokar filed suit, the agency provided him with a table containing the information responsive to his first request and copies of letters he sought through the second request with redactions made under Exemption 6, Exemption 7(C) and Exemption 4. Because Tokar had narrowed his first request in an attempt to avoid processing delays, which resulted in DOJ compiling a table, the agency argued that Tokar had impermissibly requested information rather than records. Contreras sided with Tokar, noting that "if DOJ could not reasonably interpret from Mr. Tokar's narrowed request what types of records or information he was seeking, it had a duty to confer with Mr. Tokar to clear up any confusion. In order to save the agency some time and provide Mr. Tokar the requested information in a more user-friendly format, the agency certainly could have reached an agreement with Mr. Tokar regarding his acceptance of the chart in lieu of the requested documents. But the record does not reflect that such an agreement was reached and the agency cannot unilaterally reinterpret the request in this fashion." DOJ continued to withhold identifying information about individuals who were nominated but not selected, as well as their firms if they were small, under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). Contreras agreed that there was a de minimis privacy interest in the information. He pointed out that although "this could be a situation in which it is an honor just be nominated for this role," he observed that "it is plausible that these individuals would prefer to have their consideration and ultimately non-selection withheld from the public's view." Tokar identified a public interest in "evaluating who was nominated to be a monitor and who the agency did not ultimately choose, he will be able to learn about the inner workings of the selection process which is now cloaked in secrecy, outside of the supervision of any courts." Contreras indicated that "because Mr. Tokar has demonstrated that the release of even this small amount of information will serve the public interest, to an extent that outweighs the candidates for those lucrative positions' interest in keeping their identities secret, the Court finds the unselected candidates' names cannot be properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 6." He rejected the application of Exemption 7(C) as well, pointing out that "here, because the type of stigma or harassment that traditionally triggers protection under Exemption 7(C) is not present, as evidenced by the fact that DOJ freely released the names of those candidates who were selected to be compliance monitors, . . .the privacy interests are much weaker than in a traditional Exemption 7(C) case." Contreras ordered the agency to disclose the identities of DOJ attorneys and corporate attorneys involved in the cases since the agency had failed to articulate any real privacy interest in non-disclosure. Although Tokar had not challenged the redactions under Exemption 4, Contreras agreed with DOJ's position that the information was "commercial" for purposes of Exemption 4, explaining that case law in the D.C. Circuit had concluded that "information about 'the way companies implement their compliance programs' is 'sufficiently "instrumental" to the companies' operations to qualify as 'commercial.'"
Issues: Exemption 4 - Confidential business information, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rudolph Contreras has ruled that while the Department of Justice has gotten closer to resolving the remaining issues left in litigation brought by Dylan Tokar, a reporter for the trade publication, Just Anti-Corruption, there are still unanswered questions pertaining to why certain names of attorneys were redacted from the records while the names of similar attorneys were disclosed. Tokar's original requests asked for records about the appointment of corrupt compliance monitors under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act. The monitors are hired and paid by the companies under scrutiny for violations and are intended to help investigate the causes of non-compliance and help implement policies aimed at reducing the risk of future misconduct. After DOJ's Criminal Division provided pre-disclosure notification to subject companies, 14 companies objected to disclosure. DOJ eventually disclosed information on recommended candidates to serve as monitors. In his prior opinion in the case, Contreras ruled that DOJ had improperly narrowed Tokar's request and that the agency's withholding of names of non-selected monitor candidates, their firms, the private attorneys responding to response letters, and two DOJ processing attorneys was not justified. DOJ then disclosed emails that it had deemed non-responsive and released the names of DOJ attorneys and information about monitor candidates' former corporate clients. Tokar continued to challenge the withholding of names. He argued that much of the material was akin to information that would commonly appear in a resume. Contreras was less sure, noting that "the clients may have consented only to limited kinds of disclosure, and it is not clear that all of these CVs and biographies were intended to be (or were in fact) widely shared or published. And even then, past disclosure does not necessarily defeat an interest against further, potentially broader disclosure now." Contreras ordered DOJ to query the private attorneys and find out if they had their clients' permission for broader disclosure, and to assess the public domain status of such information. As to the disclosure of the names of government attorneys, Tokar provided evidence that the name of a DOJ attorney had been disclosed while the name of an SEC attorney had been redacted. Again sending the issue back to the agency, he pointed out that "given that DOJ has already been willing to release the names of the DOJ line attorneys involved in the relevant proceedings, the parties should be able to resolve this issue through further negotiations and, if necessary, production."
Issues: Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2016-12-09	1	COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4769558) filed by DYLAN TOKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 11 Summons U.S. Attorney, # 12 Summons U.S. Attorney General, # 13 Summons Department of Justice)(Wheeler, John) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
2016-12-09		Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (sb) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
2016-12-09	2	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Consent Form)(sb) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
2017-01-04	3	NOTICE of Appearance by Bruce D. Brown on behalf of DYLAN TOKAR (Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
2017-01-24	4	NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy S. Simon on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/24/2017)
2017-01-25	5	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
2017-01-25		MINUTE ORDER granting 5 Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its response to the complaint on or before February 28, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/25/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/25/2017)
2017-02-28	6	ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
2017-02-28		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before March 14, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/28/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
2017-03-14	7	Joint STATUS REPORT and Proposed Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
2017-03-14		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 7 Joint Status Report and Proposed Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties meet, confer, and submit a joint status report on or before May 31, 2017. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/14/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
2017-03-14		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/31/2017 (tj) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
2017-05-31	8	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
2017-05-31		SCHEDULING MINUTE ORDER adopting 8 Status Report and Proposed Schedule: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment on or before July 19, 2017; Plaintiff shall file any cross-motion and opposition on or before August 23, 2017; Defendant shall file any opposition and reply on or before September 13, 2017; and Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before October 4, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/31/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
2017-06-01		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Summary Judgment motions due by 7/19/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/23/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/13/2017. Plaintiff's Reply due by 10/4/2017 (hs) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
2017-07-19	9	MOTION for Summary Judgment , Local Rule 7(h) Statement, and Supporting Memorandum by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Peter C. Sprung)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
2017-08-23	10	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DYLAN TOKAR (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts and Response to Defendant's Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Dylan Tokar, # 4 Exhibit A to the Tokar Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to the Tokar Declaration, # 6 Exhibit C to the Tokar Declaration, # 7 Exhibit D to the Tokar Declaration, # 8 Exhibit E to the Tokar Declaration, # 9 Exhibit F to the Tokar Declaration, # 10 Exhibit G to the Tokar Declaration, # 11 Exhibit H to the Tokar Declaration, # 12 Exhibit I to the Tokar Declaration, # 13 Exhibit J to the Tokar Declaration, # 14 Exhibit K to the Tokar Declaration, # 15 Exhibit L to the Tokar Declaration, # 16 Exhibit M to the Tokar Declaration, # 17 Exhibit N to the Tokar Declaration, # 18 Exhibit O to the Tokar Declaration, # 19 Text of Proposed Order, # 20 Certificate of Service)(Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
2017-08-23	11	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Local Rule 7(h) Statement, and Supporting Memorandum filed by DYLAN TOKAR. (See Docket Entry 10 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
2017-09-11	12	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply and Opposition and to Adjust Remaining Deadlines in Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
2017-09-11		MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Defendant's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before September 27, 2017. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its reply to Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on or before October 25, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 09/11/2017. (lcrc1) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
2017-09-27	13	Memorandum in opposition to re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiff's Local Rule 7(h) Statement, # 2 Second Declaration of Peter Sprung, # 3 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
2017-09-27	14	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Local Rule 7(h) Statement, and Supporting Memorandum (duplicate of docket entry number 13) filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiff's Local Rule 7(h) Statement, # 2 Second Declaration of Peter Sprung, # 3 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 09/27/2017)
2017-10-25	15	REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DYLAN TOKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Dylan Tokar (Supplemental), # 2 Exhibit P to Supplemental Tokar Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Q to Supplemental Tokar Declaration, # 4 Exhibit R to Supplemental Tokar Declaration, # 5 Exhibit S to Supplemental Tokar Declaration, # 6 Exhibit T to Supplemental Tokar Declaration, # 7 Certificate of Service)(Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 10/25/2017)
2018-01-17	16	NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Anne Nelson on behalf of DYLAN TOKAR (Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-03-29	17	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 9 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/29/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
2018-03-29	18	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 9 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 10 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/29/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
2018-03-29		MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that, by April 13, 2018, the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed schedule to govern further proceedings. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 03/29/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
2018-03-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Proposed Schedule due by 4/13/2018 (tj) (Entered: 03/30/2018)
2018-04-05	19	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by DYLAN TOKAR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Brown, Bruce) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
2018-04-05		MINUTE ORDER denying as premature 19 Plaintiff's Consent Motion for Extension of Time: Because judgment has not yet been entered in this case, there is not yet a deadline for Plaintiff to move for the awarding of costs and attorneys' fees. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file his motion for fees is DENIED AS PREMATURE. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/05/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/05/2018)
2018-04-13	20	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
2018-04-13		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 20 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before June 14, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 04/13/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
2018-04-13		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/14/2018 (tj) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
2018-06-14	21	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
2018-06-14		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 21 the parties' Joint Status Report and Proposed Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a further joint status report on or before July 30, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 06/14/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/14/2018)
2018-06-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 7/30/2018 (tj) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
2018-07-30	22	Joint STATUS REPORT by DYLAN TOKAR. (Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
2018-07-30		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 22 the parties' Joint Status Report and Proposed Schedule, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a further joint status report on or before October 2, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 07/30/2018. (lcrc1) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
2018-07-31		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/2/2018 (hs) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
2018-10-02	23	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
2018-10-02		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 23 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report advising the Court further as to the status of this matter on or before November 16, 2018. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/2/18. (lcrc1) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
2018-10-04	24	NOTICE of Change of Address by Jennifer Anne Nelson (Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
2018-10-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 11/16/2018 (tj) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
2018-11-16	25	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
2018-11-16		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 25 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit another joint status report on or before January 8, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on November 16, 2018. (lcrc3) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
2018-11-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 1/8/2019 (tj) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
2019-01-07	26	Unopposed MOTION to Stay in Light of Lapse in Appropriations by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
2019-01-22		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Motion to Stay: It is hereby ORDERED that the joint status report previously due on January 8, 2019 shall be due within 7 days of Congress appropriating funds for the Department of Justice. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/22/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
2019-02-01	27	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
2019-02-01		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 27 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit another joint status report on or before February 11, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/1/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
2019-02-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 2/11/2019 (tj) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
2019-02-11	28	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
2019-02-11		MINUTE ORDER adopting the proposed schedule in 28 the parties' Joint Status Report: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on or before April 4, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 17, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion on or before June 10, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file its Reply on or before June 28, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/11/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
2019-03-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 5/17/2019. Response to Cross Motions due by 6/10/2019. Reply to Cross Motions due by 6/28/2019. Summary Judgment motions due by 4/4/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/17/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/28/2019. (tj) (Entered: 03/06/2019)
2019-04-03	29	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and for Adjustment of Remaining Deadlines in Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
2019-04-03		MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment on or before April 11, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 24, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion on or before June 17, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file his Reply on or before July 5, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/3/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
2019-04-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 5/24/2019. Response to Cross Motions due by 6/17/2019. Reply to Cross Motions due by 7/5/2019. Summary Judgment motions due by 4/11/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 5/24/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/17/2019. (tj) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
2019-04-11	30	MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 7(h) Statement and Supporting Memorandum by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Third Declaration of Peter Sprung, # 3 Declaration of Amanda Marchand Jones)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
2019-05-14	31	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and for Adjustment of Remaining Deadlines in Briefing Schedule by DYLAN TOKAR (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
2019-05-14		MINUTE ORDER granting 31 motion for extension of time: it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including June 3, 2019 to file its opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's reply and opposition to the cross-motion shall be due on or before June 27, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's reply shall be due on or before July 15, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/14/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
2019-05-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 6/3/2019. Response to Cross Motions due by 6/27/2019. Reply to Cross Motions due by 7/15/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/3/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/27/2019. (tj) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
2019-06-03	32	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DYLAN TOKAR (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts and Response to Defendant's Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration of Dylan Tokar, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit L, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
2019-06-03	37	Memorandum in opposition to re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 7(h) Statement and Supporting Memorandum filed by DYLAN TOKAR. (See Docket Entry 30 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 08/09/2019)
2019-06-24	33	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Combined Reply and Opposition to Cross-Motion and for Adjustment of Remaining Deadlines in Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
2019-06-24		MINUTE ORDER granting 33 motion for extension of time: it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's reply in further support of its 30 motion for summary judgment and opposition to 32 Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment shall be due on or before July 16, 2019. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's reply shall be due on or before August 6, 2019. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/24/19. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
2019-06-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Response to Cross Motions due by 7/16/2019. Reply to Cross Motions due by 8/6/2019. Reply to Show Cause due by 7/16/2019. (tj) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
2019-07-16	34	Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Amanda Marchand Jones, # 2 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-07-16	35	REPLY to opposition to motion re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, Local Rule 7(h) Statement and Supporting Memorandum (duplicate of docket entry number 34) filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Second Declaration of Amanda Marchand Jones, # 2 Proposed Order)(Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
2019-08-06	36	REPLY to opposition to motion re 32 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DYLAN TOKAR. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jennifer A. Nelson)(Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
2019-12-19	38	ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/19/2019. (lcrc1) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
2019-12-19	39	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 30 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 12/19/2019. (lcrc1) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
2020-02-18	40	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
2020-02-18		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 40 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before March 17, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/18/2020. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
2020-03-03		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 3/17/2020. (tj) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
2020-03-17	41	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
2020-03-17		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 41 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before April 21, 2020. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/17/2020. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
2020-03-18		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 4/21/2020 (tj) (Entered: 03/18/2020)
2020-04-21	42	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
2020-04-21		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 42 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before May 20, 2020, unless this case has been dismissed by that date. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/21/2020. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
2020-04-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 5/20/2020 (tj) (Entered: 04/21/2020)
2020-05-20	43	Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Simon, Jeremy) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
2020-05-20		MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 43 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall file another joint status report on or before June 30, 2020, unless this case has been dismissed by that date. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 5/20/2020. (lcrc1) (Entered: 05/20/2020)
2020-05-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Status Report due by 6/30/2020 (tj) (Entered: 05/21/2020)
2020-06-04	44	STIPULATION of Dismissal Pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by DYLAN TOKAR. (Nelson, Jennifer) (Entered: 06/04/2020)
Hide Docket Events