Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: One area of the case law concerning the reach of the deliberative process privilege that has remained open to judicial interpretation has been whether drafts of public statements â€" such as the preparation of congressional testimony or press releases â€" qualify for protection since they inherently contain information that is intended ultimately to be made public. District court judges in the Second Circuit tend to view such materials as more explanatory in nature than deliberative and, as a result, have concluded that they are not privileged. But district courts in the D.C. Circuit have coalesced around the conclusion that there is no principled reason to differentiate such materials â€" regardless of whether the aim in producing them is to explain an issue to the public â€" if the materials bear the typical indicia of other types of records that qualify for the deliberative process privilege â€" they are both pre-decisional and deliberative. In her recent decision ruling in a case brought by journalist Jason Leopold and researcher Ryan Shapiro for records from various intelligence community agencies concerning how the agencies were publicly responding to inquiries about the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly made clear that materials dealing with the preparation of agencies' talking points qualified for the deliberative process privilege. After the agencies finished their searches and made their exemption claims, Leopold and Shapiro told Kollar-Kotelly that they planned to challenge only claims made under Exemption 5 (privileges) or Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). That left three agencies that had claimed the deliberative process privilege to withhold records. The Office of the National Director of Intelligence withheld 29 documents in part and five documents in full, the CIA withheld 19 documents in full, and the State Department withheld three documents in full or in part. Leopold and Shapiro argued that the deliberative process privilege did not apply to the withheld documents for two reasons. First, they contended that "the deliberative process privilege only applies to deliberations about substantive agency policy, not merely how to articulate the policy to outside entities." Secondly, they asserted that "even if public relations matters could potentially qualify under the deliberative process privilege, the defendants' affidavits are insufficient to establish entitlement to that privilege." Noting that Leopold and Shapiro provided no D.C. Circuit case law to support their claims, Kollar-Kotelly observed that "governmental decisions and policies can include the formulation of an agency's statements to the public and other entities. As such, the Court finds unduly restrictive Plaintiffs' arguments that the formulation of an agency's public statements cannot be deliberative." Kollar-Kotelly pointed to several recent cases in which other district court judges in the D.C. Circuit had found that talking points qualified for protection under the deliberative process privilege, particularly American Center for Law & Justice v. Dept of Justice, 325 F. Supp.3d 162 (D.D.C. 2018) and Judicial Watch v. Dept of State, 306 F. Supp. 3d 97 (D.D.C. 2018). Leopold and Shapiro pointed instead to a series of older decisions from district court judges in the Southern District of New York, including New York Times v. Dept of Defense, 499 F. Supp. 2d 501 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) and Fox News Network v. Dept of Treasury, 739 F. Supp. 2d 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). But Kollar-Kotelly observed that the district court decisions from the Southern District of New York "appear to be implicitly undercut by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in ACLU v. Dept of Justice, 844 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2016). In that case, the Second Circuit concluded that 'a set of suggested talking points concerning the legal basis for drone strikes' and 'a draft proposed op-ed article that suggested some ways of explaining the Government's legal reasoning in support of drone strikes' were protected by the deliberative process privilege." Embracing the other district court decisions from the D.C. Circuit and rejecting those from the Second Circuit, Kollar-Kotelly indicated that "as long as communications are pre-decisional and deliberative, internal agency communications about public statements can be protected by the deliberative process privilege. This conclusion complies with the purpose of the deliberative process privilege which is to encourage 'honest and frank communication within the agency' unhampered by fear of public disclosure. Agency decisions about how to present substantive policies to the public or to other outside entities often involve sensitive deliberations." But she explained that "in order to receive the protection of FOIA Exemption 5, through the deliberative process privilege, defendant agencies must still provide 'context about the particular press-related deliberations at issue and cannot rely solely on conclusory labels.'" Kollar-Kotelly then applied the deliberative process privilege to the records withheld by the three agencies. ONDI had the largest number of documents withheld. Indicating that the ONDI records fell into five categories, she described them overall as "including information such as the date and general description of the documents as well as more detailed information which was provided in the agency Declaration." For one entry describing an email exchange to develop a response to press inquiries, Kollar-Kotelly noted that "the exchanges reveal back-and-forth communications between personnel at ODNI and other stakeholders. The emails were sent in an effort to revise any potential response to the media inquiries. And, in the attempt to develop an appropriate response, multiple stakeholders shared their opinions and their candid advice regarding strategy for these two media inquiries. Disclosure of such information risks chilling government personnel from providing their true feedback on controversial issues. Additionally, disclosure risks causing public confusion as the communications may be materially different from the agency's actual, final response on these issues." She found that both the CIA and the State Department had also articulated why their deliberative process privilege claims were appropriate. As to the CIA, she pointed out that "higher-level officials were not required to follow these recommendations." She added that "the recommendations did not represent final agency policy, and any potential responses were not intended to be presented as written" and that "the recommendations reflected in the document may have been further revised after the documents were crafted and prior to any public statements by higher-level officials." As to the State Department's withholding claims, Kollar-Kotelly observed that "the withheld information reflects which aspects of the subject matter in question lower-level subject matter experts found important or otherwise worthy of addressing. The talking points were subject to further revision and changes by senior officials prior to use. As such, they reflect the 'give-and-take consultative process' by which the State Department decides how to issue statements to outside entities."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2016-12-26	1	COMPLAINT against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4788146) filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Summons, # 6 Summons, # 7 Summons)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/26/2016)
2016-12-27		Case Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (sb) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
2016-12-27	2	SUMMONS (6) Issued Electronically as to CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments # 1 Consent Form)(sb) (Entered: 12/27/2016)
2017-01-03	3	ORDER Establishing Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on January 3, 2017. (NS) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
2017-02-17	4	AMENDED COMPLAINT (First) against CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO.(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
2017-02-17	5	REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE re 4 Amended Complaint filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. Related document: 4 Amended Complaint filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO.(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
2017-02-21	6	SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (znmw) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
2017-02-22	7	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 2/22/2017., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 2/22/2017. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 3/24/2017.) (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
2017-03-10	8	NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen M. Pezzi on behalf of CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Pezzi, Stephen) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
2017-03-20	9	ANSWER to 4 Amended Complaint by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. Related document: 4 Amended Complaint filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO.(Pezzi, Stephen) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
2017-03-21	10	ORDER. Joint Status Report due April 10, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/21/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
2017-03-21		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 4/10/2017. (dot) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
2017-04-10	11	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Dec. 14, 2016 Request to CIA, # 2 Dec. 15, 2016 Request to CIA)(Pezzi, Stephen) (Entered: 04/10/2017)
2017-04-11		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 11 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that the Defendants are in the process of determining how to respond to Plaintiffs' requests, including analyzing whether they will need to issue Glomar responses and how to best search for responsive records. The parties are currently discussing potentially narrowing or clarifying Plaintiffs' requests, and ask to be permitted to submit a further status report on or before May 10, 2017. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to file a further status report by no later than MAY 10, 2017, updating the Court on the parties' progress negotiating the scope of Plaintiffs' requests and Defendants' progress in responding to those requests. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 4/11/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
2017-04-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/10/2017. (dot) (Entered: 04/11/2017)
2017-05-10	12	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Pezzi, Stephen) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
2017-05-10		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that they have made progress in negotiating the scope of Plaintiffs' FOIA requests and in preparing adequate searches that will result in Plaintiffs receiving any documents to which they are entitled while avoiding unreasonable burden on the Defendants, and that these discussions are ongoing. The parties further represent that it would be premature at this time to set a summary judgment briefing schedule. At the parties' request, the Court sets the following schedule: Defendants shall formally respond to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests with any partial Glomar responses by no later than JUNE 23, 2017. Additionally, one or more Defendants shall make an initial production of responsive documents to Plaintiffs by no later than JUNE 23, 2017, and one or more Defendants shall then make rolling productions once every six weeks thereafter. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Report updating the Court on the parties' progress negotiating the scope of Plaintiffs' requests and Defendants' progress in responding to those requests by no later than SEPTEMBER 29, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5/10/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
2017-05-10		Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants shall formally respond to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests with any partial Glomar responses by no later than 6/23/2017; One or more Defendants shall make an initial production of responsive documents to Plaintiffs by no later than 6/23/2017; Joint Status Report due by no later than 9/29/2017. (kt) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
2017-06-23	13	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Invoke Any Partial Glomar Responses by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pezzi, Stephen) (Entered: 06/23/2017)
2017-06-26		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' 13 Consent Motion for an Extension of Time. Defendants request a one week extension of time to invoke any partial Glomar responses in response to Plaintiffs' FOIA requests because Defendants need additional time to discuss and decide the appropriate breadth of any such responses. Defendants' motion is untimely, as it was made the same day as the affected deadline, but they represent that the need for the extension was not apparent until that day. This is the first motion for an extension of time filed in this case, and Plaintiffs consent. Accordingly, Defendants' motion is GRANTED. Defendants may formally invoke any partial Glomar responses by no later than JUNE 30, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6/26/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
2017-09-28	14	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Amy E. Powell on behalf of All Defendants Substituting for attorney Stephen Pezzi (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/28/2017)
2017-09-29	15	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-09-29		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 15 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that Defendants have made three productions of documents to Plaintiffs and that Defendants will continue to make rolling productions every six weeks. The parties propose filing their next status report after three more document productions. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Report updating the Court on Defendants' progress processing Plaintiffs' FOIA requests by no later than JANUARY 26, 2018. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 9/29/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 09/29/2017)
2017-09-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 1/26/2018. (dot) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
2018-01-26	16	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 01/26/2018)
2018-01-29		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 16 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that the four Defendant agencies have made some rolling productions to Plaintiffs and will continue to make rolling productions every six weeks. Each Defendant agency is at a different stage of its search for and processing of responsive records. The parties propose to file another Joint Status Report on March 2, 2018 regarding the status of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence's ("ODNI") processing of Plaintiff's FOIA requests in particular, and then another Joint Status Report on October 5, 2018 regarding the status of all Defendant agencies' efforts to process Plaintiff's requests. The parties are accordingly ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report on MARCH 2, 2018 regarding the status of the ODNI's processing of Plaintiff's FOIA requests in particular, and then another Joint Status Report on OCTOBER 5, 2018 regarding the status of all Defendant agencies' efforts to process Plaintiff's requests. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/29/2018. (lcckk3) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
2018-01-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/2/2018, and then another 10/5/2018. (dot) (Entered: 01/30/2018)
2018-03-05	17	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
2018-03-06		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 17 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("ODNI") has been reviewing documents that it has collected for responsiveness, and has made rolling productions to Plaintiffs. However, as a result of its document review, ODNI has discovered that it needs to conduct additional searches. ODNI intends to complete those new searches and the review of any documents that it finds by May 30, 2018. The parties agree that ODNI will continue to make rolling productions in accordance with the Court's scheduling orders. The parties suggest filing another Joint Status Report on or before October 5, 2018, the date on which the next Joint Status Report regarding all of the other Defendant agencies' efforts to process Plaintiffs' requests is due. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report regarding ODNI's progress processing Plaintiffs' FOIA requests by no later than OCTOBER 5, 2018. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/6/2018. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
2018-03-06		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/5/2018. (dot) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
2018-10-05	18	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
2018-10-05		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 18 Joint Status Report. The parties represent that the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Central Intelligence Agency have completed processing of Plaintiffs' FOIA requests. But, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("ODNI") is continuing to make rolling productions in accordance with the Court's scheduling orders. ODNI expects to complete processing and production by November 5, 2018. The parties agree that ODNI should complete production and the parties should continue discussing ways to narrow or clarify any issues concerning Plaintiffs' FOIA requests. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report regarding Defendants' progress processing Plaintiffs' FOIA requests by no later than NOVEMBER 30, 2018. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 10-5-2018.(lcckk3) (Entered: 10/05/2018)
2018-10-05		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 11/30/2018. (dot) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
2018-11-30	19	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
2018-11-30		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 19 Joint Status Report. The parties represent all Defendants have now completed processing and production of Plaintiffs' FOIA requests. Plaintiffs require additional time to review the produced material and the parties both require additional time to narrow or clarify issues which may require judicial resolution. The Court ORDERS the parties to file another Joint Status Report by JANUARY 15, 2019, proposing next steps for the resolution of this case. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 11/30/2018. (lcckk3) (Entered: 11/30/2018)
2018-11-30		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 1/15/2019, proposing next steps for the resolution of this case. (dot) (Entered: 12/03/2018)
2019-01-04	20	Unopposed MOTION to Stay Joint Status Report Deadline by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
2019-01-04		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendants' 20 Unopposed Motion for a Stay of Joint Status Report Deadline in Light of Lapse of Appropriations. As of December 21, 2018, the appropriations act that had been funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations lapsed. The same is true for some of the federal Defendants. Absent appropriations, Department of Justice attorneys are prohibited from working except in circumstances which do not apply to this case. The parties' Joint Status Report is due January 15, 2019, and Defendants request a stay of this deadline until Congress has restored appropriations. Defendants' Motion is GRANTED. Defendants are ORDERED to file a status report within seven days of the restoration of appropriations, requesting any necessary extensions of deadlines. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 01/4/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
2019-01-07		Case STAYED. (kt) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
2019-01-30	21	STATUS REPORT of Restoration of Appropriations by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
2019-01-31		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Defendant's 21 Status Report. On January 4, 2019, the Court stayed this case due to a lapse in appropriations to the Department of Justice. Defendant reports that appropriations have now been restored. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the stay be lifted. The Court further ORDERS the parties to file a Joint Status Report by FEBRUARY 14, 2019, proposing next steps for the resolution of this case. The parties should continue to confer in the attempt to narrow or clarify the issues appropriate for judicial resolution. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1/31/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
2019-02-14	22	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
2019-02-15		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 22 Joint Status Report. The parties report that they have been meeting and conferring to narrow or clarify the issues appropriate for judicial resolution. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report by MARCH 7, 2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2-15-2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
2019-02-15		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/7/2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. (dot) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
2019-03-07	23	Joint STATUS REPORT by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
2019-03-07		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 23 Joint Status Report. The parties report that they have been meeting and conferring to narrow or clarify the issues appropriate for judicial resolution. The parties request additional time to continue these negotiations. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report by MARCH 28, 2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/7/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/07/2019)
2019-03-07		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 3/28/2019. (dot) (Entered: 03/08/2019)
2019-03-28	24	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
2019-03-28		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 24 Joint Status Report. The parties report that they have been meeting and conferring to narrow or clarify the issues appropriate for judicial resolution. Defendant has nearly completed the agreed-upon supplemental searches and expects to complete processing documents subject to FOIA on or before May 3, 2019. The parties request additional time to continue these negotiations. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report by MAY 17, 2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3/28/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
2019-03-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/17/2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. (dot) (Entered: 03/29/2019)
2019-05-17	25	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/17/2019)
2019-05-20		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 25 Joint Status Report. The parties report that they have been meeting and conferring to narrow or clarify the issues appropriate for judicial resolution. The parties request additional time to continue these negotiations. The parties are ORDERED to file another Joint Status Report by JUNE 14, 2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5/20/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/20/2019)
2019-05-20		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 6/14/2019, updating the Court on the status of the parties' talks. (dot) (Entered: 05/21/2019)
2019-06-14	26	Joint STATUS REPORT by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
2019-06-17		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 26 Joint Status Report. The parties report that Plaintiffs intend to challenge the withhholdings under FOIA Exemptions 5 and/or 7(A), both the redactions, the withheld-in-full material, and possibly any information already in the public domain. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file their Motion for Summary Judgment on SEPTEMBER 4, 2019; Plaintiffs to file their Opposition (and Cross-Motion, if any) on OCTOBER 23, 2019; Defendants to file their Reply (and Opposition, if any) on NOVEMBER 13, 2019; and Plaintiffs to file their Reply (if any) on DECEMBER 4, 2019. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 6/17/2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
2019-06-17		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 10/23/2019. Response to Cross Motion due by 11/13/2019. Reply to Cross Motion due by 12/4/2019. Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion due by 9/4/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/23/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/13/2019. (dot) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
2019-07-03	27	NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy E. Powell (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
2019-08-28	28	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
2019-08-28		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Defendants' 28 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to File Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is currently due September 4, 2019. Defendants seek an extension to September 10, 2019 due to intervening litigation deadlines and the need to complete re-processing of some additional pages. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion. The Court ORDERS Defendants to file their Motion for Summary Judgment on SEPTEMBER 10, 2019; Plaintiffs to file their Opposition (and Cross-Motion, if any) on OCTOBER 30, 2019; Defendants to file their Reply (and Opposition, if any) on NOVEMBER 20, 2019; and Plaintiffs to file their Reply (if any) on DECEMBER 11, 2019. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8-28-2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
2019-08-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Cross Motion due by 10/30/2019. Response to Cross Motion due by 11/20/2019. Reply to Cross Motion due by 2/11/2019. Defendants' Summary Judgment Motion due by 9/10/2019. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/30/2019. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/20/2019. (dot) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
2019-09-10	29	MOTION for Summary Judgment by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Patricia Gaviria (ODNI) with exhibits and index, # 2 Declaration of Antoinette B. Shiner (CIA) with exhibits, # 3 Declaration of Brendan L. Henry (DHS I&A) with exhibits, # 4 Declaration of Eric F. Stein (State) with exhibits, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
2019-10-30	30	Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
2019-10-30	31	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/30/2019)
2019-11-20	32	Memorandum in opposition to re 31 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Facts)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
2019-11-20	33	REPLY to opposition to motion re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
2019-12-11	34	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 31 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
2019-12-11		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Plaintiffs' 34 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Currently, Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due December 11, 2019. Plaintiffs request an extension due to the fact that their counsel has been out of the office due to illness. Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Reply is due DECEMBER 18, 2019. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 12-11-2019. (lcckk3) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
2019-12-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Reply to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment due by 12/18/2019. (dot) (Entered: 12/13/2019)
2019-12-18	35	REPLY to opposition to motion re 31 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO. (Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/18/2019)
2020-01-30		MINUTE ORDER: The Court finds that in camera review of some the documents relating to Plaintiff's FOIA request is necessary to make a responsible de novo determination on the claims of exemption. See Larson v. Dep't of State, 565 F.3d 857, 869-70 (D.C. Cir. 2009). The Court ORDERS Defendant ODNI to present unredacted documents 000048, 000049-50, 000051, and 000045-46 from Plaintiff's FOIA request to the Court for in camera review. Defendant ODNI may furnish to the Court the documents ex parte and under seal for in camera review, or Defendant may contact the Court suggesting another method of delivering the documents for the Court's in camera review. Defendant ODNI is ORDERED to provide the Court with the requested documents for in camera review by FEBRUARY 7, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 1-30-2020. (lcckk3) Modified on 1/31/2020 to add "Minute Order" in front of the entry (kt). (Entered: 01/30/2020)
2020-01-31		Set/Reset Deadlines: In-Camera Submission due by 2/7/2020. (kt) (Entered: 01/31/2020)
2020-02-07	36	NOTICE of Ex Parte Submission by OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
2020-02-18	37	ORDER granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2-18-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
2020-02-18	38	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 2-18-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
2020-03-02	39	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Petition for Attorney Fees and Costs by JASON LEOPOLD, RYAN NOAH SHAPIRO (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Light, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
2020-03-02		MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the Plaintiffs' 39 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Currently, Plaintiffs' petition for costs and attorney fees is due March 3, 2020. Plaintiffs have not yet determined whether they will appeal this Court's Order granting summary judgment to Defendants. Plaintiffs state that their deadline for a Notice of Appeal is April 20, 2020. Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' petition for costs and attorney fees is due APRIL 27, 2020. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 3-2-2020. (lcckk3) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
Hide Docket Events