Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleCITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2011cv01021
Date Filed2011-06-02
Date Closed2014-06-12
JudgeJudge James E. Boasberg
PlaintiffCITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON
DefendantU.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Opinion/Order [17]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has become the second district court judge in recent weeks to rule that the Justice Department improperly declined to identify and process records pertaining to the investigation of a congressional member. In January Judge Gladys Kessler ruled the agency could not decline to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records concerning its investigation of Rep. Don Young (R-AK) because the investigation was already a matter of public record and, more importantly, issues of legislative integrity were clearly a matter of public interest. Now Boasberg has reached the same conclusion concerning an investigation of Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) on charges of corruption. Boasberg first noted that "although his is not the only privacy interest allegedly implicated here, the existence and extent of Rep. Lewis's interest in these documents remaining undisclosed is the primary focus of both parties. Before addressing his privacy interest in the materials at issue, it is worth noting that Lewis's status as a public official operates to reduce his cognizable interest in privacy as a general matter." CREW argued that the fact that Lewis himself had publicly acknowledged the investigation's existence diminished his privacy interest. Boasberg agreed, noting that "when the fact of an investigation 'is already a matter of public record,' the target's privacy interest in that information has 'far less force.'" But he pointed out "while CREW may well be correct that by virtue of its public disclosure Lewis does not retain a significant privacy interest in the fact of an investigation, he nevertheless retains a privacy interest in the substance of that investigation. Despite the fact that it is a matter of public record that an investigation took place, the details of that investigation have not been publicly disclosed." Boasberg found that any third parties mentioned in the investigatory files retained a significant privacy interest in non-disclosure. Turning to the public interest in disclosure, Boasberg noted that the fact records pertained to an individual's activities did not necessarily suggest that there was no public interest in disclosure. He indicated that "CREW maintains that disclosure of the files in question 'would shed light on the conduct of DOJ and the FBI in conducting the investigation or Rep. Lewis, and DOJ's decision to close the investigation without bringing charges against him." Boasberg pointed out that "against the backdrop of broader public concerns about the agency's handling of allegations of corruption leveled against high-ranking public officials, the public has a clear interest in documents concerning DOJ's handling of Lewis's investigation." DOJ argued there was no evidence of agency misconduct. But Boasberg observed that "because CREW has not attempted to justify its request on the ground of agency misconduct (indeed, the decision not to prosecute is a discretionary one), it need not produce the compelling evidence of illegal activity that would be required if it had done so." Balancing the interests, Boasberg noted that "in light of the strong public interest at stake in the requested records, the Court is not persuaded that the balance will favor privacy with respect to each document that concerns the Lewis investigation." He added that "the weights of those interests, furthermore, may vary with respect to each document within the responsive file. Determining whether withholding is justified, therefore, requires a more nuanced analysis than can be undertaken without an account of the records in the Government's possession." Boasberg pointed out CREW's limited success. "The Court does not decide whether the Government need turn over anything at all in response to CREW's request. It may well turn out that it need not. . .[However], the court at this juncture simply finds that it cannot resolve this dispute at the altitude DOJ desires."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response
Opinion/Order [39]
FOIA Project Annotation: Readily acknowledging how expensive it will be to process CREW's request for records concerning the Justice Department's closed investigation into allegations of bribery and conflict of interest involving former Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), including its decision not to prosecute him, Judge James Boasberg has concluded that EOUSA and the Criminal Division have both failed to adequately explain their exemption claims for more than 25,000 pages. Boasberg observed that "as the D.C. Circuit has noted, FOIA's evidentiary burden is likely to create significant costs for government agencies as they respond to requests, but 'the costs must be borne. . .if the congressional policy embodied in FOIA is to be well served.'" But the sheer volume of documents gave him pause. "The Court must follow this Circuit's law on FOIA, although this is the type of case that Congress might wish to bear in mind when debating whether to further extend that statute. Here, the government has spent nearly 2,000 personnel hours�"and will spend another significant amount of time responding to this opinion�"because one public-advocacy group was interested in a closed criminal investigation. At a time of sequestration and further budget cuts, it may be worth considering how much of the government's time should be spent in chasing down thousands of documents and then formulating detailed justifications about their withholding. The Court is loath to pile additional responsibility on DOJ, but finds its hands are tied: despite the Department's extensive and laudable efforts, it has yet to comply with FOIA's statutory requirements." Noting that the Vaughn index�"an explanation of the documents withheld and the reasons for withholding them providing sufficient detail so that the plaintiff can understand the agency's decisions and challenge them in court�"was the touchstone of the agency's ability to carry its burden of proof, Boasberg indicated that "the Vaughn Index requirement, however, is not as rigid as it might seem at first blush." He pointed out that there was some flexibility in the presentation of a Vaughn Index, noting that "this flexibility, however, is layered on a background presumption going back several decades that document-by-document explanations of withheld information are required." But he explained that "this Circuit's cases seem to hint at the idea of a sliding scale inversely correlating the number of withheld documents and the level of detail required to justify their withholding. That said, they also make clear that an agency is only permitted to provide an alternative to the document-by-document Vaughn Index where doing so would provide the Court and the requester with an equally strong basis for evaluating the agency's exemption claims in detail." He indicated that a short Vaughn Index could contain abbreviated descriptions, but noted that "while the government need not furnish repetitive descriptions of the same type of document and may describe commonalities among its withholdings, it must avoid resorting to explanation in generalities." He observed that a representative sampling of documents was another way to control the volume of documents required to be described. Turning to the Vaughn indices at hand, he pointed out that "whatever the form, however, the substance of the government's submission must meet a consistent standard." He observed that "the Vaughn Index and declaration submitted by EOUSA falls well short of this standard, often because of the vast quantities of documents for which Defendant offers only one short paragraph of justification." Indeed, he noted, "the Vaughn Index filed by EOUSA does not offer a useable point of reference to negotiate these thousands of pages of withholdings. . ." Many of the records had been withheld on the basis of Exemption 5 (privileges) and Boasberg readily agreed that many of the records pertaining to the decision whether or not to prosecute were quite likely to qualify as privileged. But he observed that "this Court, however, is not at liberty to draw such conclusions based on mere inferences and guesswork." For records claimed under the deliberative process privilege, he noted that "the declaration makes no reference whatsoever to required elements of the deliberative-process privilege, including the dates the documents were created, the relative positions in the chain of command of the author and recipient, the deliberative process involved, the role played by the documents in that process, and the nature of the author's decisionmaking authority. Without at least some of this information, the Court is simply unable to pass on EOUSA's deliberative-process claims at this juncture." The same problems were present with claims made under the attorney work-product privilege. He noted that "EOUSA seeks to withhold nearly 4,000 documents under this privilege, but fails to provide any information regarding the dates of creation or the authors or recipients of any of the documents." Although Boasberg had previously ruled that the agency could not categorically withhold personal information, he explained that its current argument that the inherent privacy interests in withholding clearly outweighed the minimal public interst in disclosure was "an almost identical position to that which it argued earlier in this case." While CREW argued that the agency should be bound by Boasberg's earlier decision concerning the scope of the privacy exemptions, Boasberg dismissed the government's current argument by noting that while "the documents and portions of documents withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) may well be exempt from disclosure, . . .the government has yet to provide Plaintiff and this Court with sufficient information to come to such a conclusion." He added that "as Plaintiff does not challenge the government's withholding of the names and identifying information of law-enforcement officials and other government attorneys, or third parties other than Rep. Lewis, Defendant need only provide such supporting documentation where it seeks to withhold information concerning Rep. Lewis himself." The agency also withheld nearly 4,000 documents under Exemption 3 (other statutes), citing Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy. Boasberg observed that "while, once again, it is entirely possible that all the documents at issue here can be withheld under Exemption 3, the Court is unable to make such a determination on the record currently before it. . .Because the Court in unable to resolve this issue at the altitude Defendant seems to desire, it will again deny Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiff's Cross-Motion with respect to the Exemption 3 withholdings."
Issues: Litigation - Vaughn index
Opinion/Order [56]
FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Justice Department has finally satisfied its disclosure obligations in a case brought by CREW for records concerning the investigation of former Rep. Jerry Lewis and the agency's decision not to prosecute him. The agency initially claimed that any information was protected by Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records) and refused to either confirm or deny the existence of records. After Boasberg rejected the agency's use of a Glomar response, the agency was ordered to produce a representative sampling of documents for purposes of assessing the application of exemptions. In a previous opinion, Boasberg had found the agency's claims were still insufficiently supported, but this time around the remaining claims focused on documents the agency claimed were protected by Exemption 5 (privileges) and documents pertaining to Lewis that were withheld under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C). CREW focused its challenges to privilege claims to records that were referred to by the agency as "administrative documents." But Boasberg noted that "those records, however, are also the type of material that could compromise Government attorneys' preparation for litigation. Releasing 'emails concerning the scheduling of phone calls and meetings,' for example, could allow the public to infer when and how attorneys reacted to events during the investigation. . .Internal emails 'concerning media reports or articles, inquiries or third-party commentary,' likewise could reveal the timing of and strategy behind case-related decisions, not to mention that they could provide a direct window onto how those attorneys perceived the public's reaction to the potential case, which could be a factor in pre-litigation strategy. In short, an attorney's mental impressions and strategies can be revealed even by documents that may, at first glance, be characterized as 'administrative' rather than 'substantive.'" He added that "CREW cites a litany of other documents whose contents are supposedly merely administrative, but a glance at the records themselves belies that notion." He observed that "where a FOIA request 'focuses specifically on documents and communications related to a particular course of litigation,' it is reasonable for the Court to infer that the work-product privilege will likely apply." Turning to the privacy exemptions, he pointed out that "while Defendant seeks to withhold information in more than three thousand documents under the personal-privacy exemptions, all but a few of those records are immune from disclosure under the attorney-work-product privilege. The remaining records, moreover, do not contain information regarding Rep. Lewis�"they instead address other officials and third parties�"and, as a result, CREW has conceded the propriety of those withholdings." Boasberg found there was no segregable material, noting that "factual material is itself privileged when it appears within documents that are attorney work product, so if a document is protected as work product, then a segregability analysis is not required. As a result, the entire contents of the large majority of the documents at issue in this case�"that is, the facts, law, opinions, and analysis that make up EOUSA's work product�"are completely exempt from disclosure under FOIA." CREW argued that because two documents had been found to be improperly withheld in the sample of 168 documents the agency should be required to re-review all withheld documents for similar errors. But Boasberg observed that "the D.C. Circuit has held repeatedly that even if an agency's withholdings 'do not survive inspection,' other documents must be released only if the 'error rate' is 'unacceptably high.' Two mistakes out of 168 documents, however�"an error rate of just over one percent�"does not come close to the kind of error rate that has prompted courts to require further disclosure."
Issues: Exemption 7(C) - Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemption 5
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2011-06-021COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616039289) filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(dr) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-02SUMMONS (3) Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dr) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-06-022LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON identifying Corporate Parent NONE for CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (dr) (Entered: 06/03/2011)
2011-07-053ANSWER to 1 Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Nelson, James) (Entered: 07/05/2011)
2011-07-064ORDER directing parties to file a joint proposed briefing schedule on or before August 5, 2011. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 07/06/2011. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 07/06/2011)
2011-07-07Set/Reset Deadlines: Parties shall file a joint proposed briefing schedule on or before 8/05/2011. (ad) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
2011-08-035NOTICE Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Nelson, James) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-03MINUTE ORDER: As set forth in Parties' Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule, Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment by September 16,2011; Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by October 11, 2011; Defendant shall file its Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion forSummary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by October 28, 2011; and Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by November 14, 2011. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 08/03/2011. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
2011-08-04Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment by 09/16/2011; Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment by 10/11/2011; Defendant shall file its Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by 10/28/2011; Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment by 11/14/2011. (ad) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
2011-09-166MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Declaration David M. Hardy, # 4 Declaration Vinay J. Jolly, # 5 Declaration E. Thomas Roberts, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Nelson, James) (Entered: 09/16/2011)
2011-10-117Memorandum in opposition to re 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
2011-10-118Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) Modified on 10/12/2011 (td, ). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
2011-10-289REPLY to opposition to motion re 6 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts)(Nelson, James) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2011-10-2810Memorandum in opposition to re 8 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Material Facts)(Nelson, James) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
2011-11-1411REPLY to opposition to motion re 8 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 11/14/2011)
2011-11-1812NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Graff v. FBI Opinion)(Nelson, James) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
2011-11-2113RESPONSE re 12 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 11/21/2011)
2012-01-1014NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
2012-03-0215ORDER denying 6 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The parties shall jointly submit a proposed scheduling order to govern further proceedings by March 16, 2012. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/2/2012. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-0216ENTERED IN ERROR.....MEMORANDUM OPINION to 15 Order. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/2/2012. (lcjeb2) Modified on 3/2/2012 (ad). (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-0217MEMORANDUM OPINION to 15 Order. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/2/2012. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-02Set/Reset Deadline: The parties shall jointly submit a proposed scheduling order to govern further proceedings by 3/16/2012. (ad) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-02NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: 16 Memorandum & Opinion was entered in error and the corrected Memorandum Opinion was filed. Please see document 17 Memorandum Opinion. (ad) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
2012-03-1618STATUS REPORT Joint Proposed Scheduling Order by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Nelson, James) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
2012-03-19MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that 1) The FBI and CRM complete processing of responsive records and release non-exempt portions of those records within 60 days of this Order; 2) The FBI and CRM produce a Vaughn index describing the information that has been withheld within 60 days of that release; 3) EOUSA shall complete processing of responsive records and release non-exempt portions of those records within 90 days of this Order; and 2) EOUSA shall produce a Vaughn index describing the information that has been withheld within 90 days of that release. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/19/2012. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
2012-05-2219NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Bradley P. Humphreys on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney James D. Nelson (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-05-2220STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 05/22/2012)
2012-06-1821First MOTION for Extension of Time to complete processing of potentially responsive documents and to produce a Vaughn index by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
2012-06-1822Memorandum in opposition to re 21 First MOTION for Extension of Time to complete processing of potentially responsive documents and to produce a Vaughn index filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Weismann, Anne) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
2012-06-1823REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 First MOTION for Extension of Time to complete processing of potentially responsive documents and to produce a Vaughn index filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 06/18/2012)
2012-06-20MINUTE ORDER: As discussed in today's conference call from chambers with the parties, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendant's 21 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED IN PART; 2) Full processing and a Vaughn Index shall be submitted by EOUSA by Oct. 31, 2012; and 3) By July 11, 2012, EOUSA shall file a status report providing more specific information regarding its document database, including Defendant's ability to provide rolling production and information about specific categories of documents. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/20/2012. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
2012-06-20Set/Reset Deadline: Full processing and a Vaughn Index shall be submitted by EOUSA by 10/31/2012; and by 7/11/2012, EOUSA shall file a status report providing more specific information regarding its document database, including Defendant's ability to provide rolling production and information about specific categories of documents. (ad) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
2012-07-1124STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 07/11/2012)
2012-07-1125RESPONSE re 24 to Status Report filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Weismann, Anne) Modified to add link on 7/12/2012 (nmw, ). (Entered: 07/11/2012)
2012-07-13MINUTE ORDER: Having received the parties' pleadings regarding a rolling production, the Court adopts Defendant's proposal and ORDERS that by September 1, EOUSA shall process the first 45,000 potentially responsive documents and release any relevant, non-exempt portions thereof; by October 1, EOUSA shall process the next 25,000 potentially responsive documents and release any relevant, non-exempt portions thereof; and, by October 31, EOUSA shall process the remaining documents and release any relevant, non-exempt portions thereof, as well as the required Vaughn index. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/13/12. (lcjeb4) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
2012-11-27MINUTE ORDER: Given that the dates noted in the Court's Minute Order of July 13, 2012, have now passed, the Court ORDERS that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report by December 7, 2012, proposing a timetable for the next phases of the case. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/27/2012. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
2012-11-27Set/Reset Deadline: Parties shall file a Joint Status Report by 12/07/2012. (ad) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
2012-12-0626NOTICE of Appearance by Scott Allan Hodes on behalf of CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Hodes, Scott) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
2012-12-0727STATUS REPORT by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
2012-12-10MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' 27 Status Report, the Court hereby ORDERS that the parties shall file a joint proposal for a briefing schedule on or before December 14, 2012. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 12/10/2012. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2012-12-10Set/Reset Deadline: Parties shall file a joint proposal for a briefing schedule on or before 12/14/2012. (ad) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
2012-12-1428NOTICE of Joint Proposed Briefing Schedule by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
2012-12-17MINUTE ORDER: In accordance with the parties' proposed briefing schedule, the Court hereby ORDERS that further proceedings will be governed by the following schedule: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before January 25, 2013. Plaintiff shall file its combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before February 22, 2013. Defendant shall file its combined Reply and Opposition on or before March 8, 2013, and Plaintiff shall file its reply on or before March 22, 2013. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 12/17/2012. (lcjeb3, ) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
2012-12-17Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 1/25/2013; Plaintiff shall file its combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 2/22/2013; Defendant shall file its combined Reply and Opposition on or before 3/08/2013; and Plaintiff shall file its reply on or before 3/22/2013. (ad) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
2013-01-2529Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
2013-01-28MINUTE ORDER granting 29 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant shall file supplementary Vaughn indices on or before February 25, 2013, and shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before March 25, 2013. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/28/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
2013-01-28Set/Reset Deadlines: t Defendant shall file supplementary Vaughn indices on or before 2/25/2013, and shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 3/25/2013. (ad) (Entered: 01/28/2013)
2013-03-2530Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/25/2013)
2013-03-26MINUTE ORDER granting 30 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court hereby ORDERS that the following schedule shall govern further proceedings in this matter: (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before April 15, 2013; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before May 13, 2013; (3) Defendant shall file its Opposition and Reply on or before May 27, 2013; and (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply on or before June 10, 2013. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/26/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
2013-03-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 4/15/2013; Plaintiff shall file its Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 5/13/2013; Defendant shall file its Opposition and Reply on or before 5/27/2013; and Plaintiff shall file its Reply on or before 6/10/2013. (ad) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
2013-04-1531Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of John E. Cunningham III and Exhibits, # 3 Declaration of Vinay J. Jolly and Exhibits A-I, # 4 Exhibit J to Jolly Declaration, # 5 Declaration of Elisa Fernandez and Exhibit, # 6 Statement of Facts, # 7 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/15/2013)
2013-05-1032Memorandum in opposition to re 31 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Statement of Facts, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hodes, Scott) . (Entered: 05/10/2013)
2013-05-1033Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Statement of Facts, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Hodes, Scott) . (Entered: 05/10/2013)
2013-05-2034Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-05-20MINUTE ORDER: Defendant's 34 Consent Motion for Extension of Time is hereby GRANTED. (1) Defendant shall file its Combined Opposition and Reply on or before June 4, 2013; and (2) Plaintiff shall file its Reply on or before June 17, 2013. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/20/13. (lcjeb4) (Entered: 05/20/2013)
2013-05-21Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Combined Opposition and Reply on or before 6/04/2013; and Plaintiff shall file its Reply on or before 6/17/2013. (ad) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
2013-06-0435REPLY to opposition to motion re 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment , 31 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Response to Plaintiff's Statement of Additional Material Facts)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 06/04/2013)
2013-06-0436MEMORANDUM in support re 31 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; (See docket entry no. 35 to view document) (td, ) (Entered: 06/05/2013)
2013-06-1737REPLY to opposition to motion re 33 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Hodes, Scott) (Entered: 06/17/2013)
2013-07-2538ORDER denying Defendant's 31 Motion for Summary Judgment, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 33 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and setting the case for a Status Hearing on August 27, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom #19. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/25/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
2013-07-2539MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 38 ORDER. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 7/25/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
2013-07-25Set/Reset Hearing: A Status Conference is set for 8/27/2013 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 19 before Judge James E. Boasberg. (ad) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
2013-08-27MINUTE ORDER: As discussed in today's status conference, the Court ORDERS that: 1) The Government may present a Vaughn Index that samples 4% of the non-public-source documents; 2) The parties shall confer and agree on a method for selecting the 4%; 3) The Government shall deliver to Plaintiff by October 18, 2013, the sample Vaughn Index; and 4) By November 1, 2013, the parties shall file a joint status report, which may include a proposed briefing schedule for the resolution of any disputed issues. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 08/27/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
2013-08-27Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James E. Boasberg: Status Conference held on 8/27/2013. (The Government shall deliver to Plaintiff by 10/18/2013, the sample Vaughn Index; By 11/01/2013, the parties shall file a joint status report, which may include a proposed briefing schedule for the resolution of any disputed issues). (Court Reporter Lisa Griffith) (ad) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
2013-10-0140Unopposed MOTION to Stay All Deadlines in Light of Lapse in Appropriation by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-02MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 40 Motion to Stay All Deadlines in Light of Lapse in Appropriation. All deadlines in this case are STAYED. Upon the restoration of appropriations, all current deadlines for the parties shall be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/2/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
2013-10-18MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the Stay is LIFTED. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/18/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 10/18/2013)
2013-10-18ENTERED IN ERROR.....MINUTE ORDER: The Court ORDERS that the Stay is LIFTED. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/18/13. (lcjeb1) Modified on 10/21/2013 (ad). (Entered: 10/18/2013)
2013-10-21NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re Minute Order filed on 10/18/2013 was entered in error because this is a duplicated entry. (ad) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
2013-11-1541Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
2013-11-18MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Parties' Joint 41 Motion for Extension of Time to File Joint Status Report. The Court ORDERS that the parties shall file their joint status report on or before November 25, 2013. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/18/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
2013-11-18Set/Reset Deadline: The parties shall file their joint status report on or before 11/25/2013.(dr) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
2013-11-2542STATUS REPORT Filed on Behalf of the Parties by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
2013-11-26MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the parties' agreement in their 42 joint status report, the following schedule shall govern further proceedings in this case: (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than January 17, 2014; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than February 14, 2014; (3) Defendant shall file its Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than February 28, 2014; (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 14, 2014. The Court may request in camera review of Defendant's withholdings, if it determines that such review would be helpful. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/26/2013. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
2013-11-26Set/Reset Deadlines: Summary Judgment motion due by 1/17/2014; Cross-Motion and Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/14/2014; Opposition to Cross-Motion and Reply to Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/28/2014; Reply to Opposition to Cross-Motion due by 3/14/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
2014-01-1743Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/17/2014)
2014-01-22MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 43 Motion for Extension of Time. The Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than January 31, 2014; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 5, 2014; (3) Defendant shall file its Combined Reply and Opposition no later than March 19, 2014; (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply no later than April 2, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/22/2014. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
2014-01-22Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 1/31/2014; Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 3/05/2014; Defendant shall file its Combined Reply and Opposition no later than 3/19/2014; Plaintiff shall file its Reply no later than 4/02/2014. (ad) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
2014-01-3144Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment and to Amend Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
2014-02-03MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ORDERS that (1) Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than February 7, 2014; (2) Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 12, 2014; (3) Defendant shall file its Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than March 26, 2014; (4) Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than April 9, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 2/3/2014. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file its Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 2/7/2014; Plaintiff shall file its Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 3/12/2014; Defendant shall file its Combined Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 3/26/2014; Plaintiff shall file its Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment no later than 4/9/2014. (dr) (Entered: 02/03/2014)
2014-02-0745Third MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Third Declaration of Vinay J. Jolly, # 3 Exhibit EOUSA Representative Sample Vaughn Index, # 4 Statement of Facts, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
2014-02-0746ERRATA Correcting Formatting Error in Exhibit 2 to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 45 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EOUSA Sample Vaughn Index)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 02/07/2014)
2014-03-1247Memorandum in opposition to re 45 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment and Cross-motion for summary judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Hodes, Scott) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2014-03-1248Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Hodes, Scott) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
2014-03-2649REPLY to opposition to motion re 45 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
2014-03-2650Memorandum in opposition to re 48 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
2014-04-0851REPLY to opposition to motion re 48 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON. (Hodes, Scott) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
2014-04-1452Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Sur Reply by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Defendant's Sur Reply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
2014-04-14MINUTE ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Unopposed 52 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply. The Sur-Reply is DEEMED FILED. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 4/14/2014. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
2014-04-1453SURREPLY to re 48 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Third Motion for Summary Judgment , 45 Third MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (td, ) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
2014-05-30MINUTE ORDER: The Court believes that an in camera review of the contested documents will assist in its analysis. As a result, the Court ORDERS that by June 2, 2014, Defendant shall produce to the Court copies of the 168 documents in the Sample Vaughn Index. For documents withheld in part, Defendant shall produce both redacted and unredacted versions. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 5/30/14. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
2014-05-30Set/Reset Deadlines: Production to the Court of copies of the 168 documents in the Sample Vaughn Index due by 6/2/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
2014-06-0254NOTICE of Filing of Documents for In Camera Inspection by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
2014-06-1155ORDER: As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court ORDERS that: (1) Defendant's 45 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; (2) Plaintiff's 48 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; and (3) Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/11/14. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
2014-06-1156MEMORANDUM OPINION re 55 Order. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/11/14. (lcjeb1) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar