Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Finding that the Justice Department had failed to expedite EPIC's FOIA request for records pertaining to the agency's role in developing the NSA eavesdropping program after 9/11, Judge Henry Kennedy has ordered Justice to process the request within 20 days. In so doing, Kennedy has added some important interpretation on just what it means for an agency to expedite a request and what steps an agency must take after agreeing to expedited processing. Although expedition requests have become more common, there hasn't been much litigation over the expedited processing provisions from the 1996 EFOIA amendments. Most of it has been in the D.C. Circuit and EPIC has taken a lead role in trying to establish plaintiffs' rights to expedited processing. But its current case presents a factual situation that has not been before the courts previously. Whereas most litigation so far has focused on granting expedition â€" challenging an agency's denial to expedite a request â€" the current litigation involves EPIC's attempts to force Justice to actually expedite its request after four different agency components agreed that the request qualified for expedition. On December 16, the day the New York Times broke the story of the eavesdropping program, EPIC filed requests with the Justice Department's Office of the Attorney General, Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, Office of Legal Counsel, and Office of Legal Policy. On December 21, the Office of Information and Privacy responded on behalf of the Attorney General and Legal Policy indicating that the request would be expedited, but noting that "we will be unable to comply with the twenty-working-day time limit in this case." OIPR granted expedition on January 6 and OLC did the same on January 25. When none of the requests had been processed by January 19, EPIC filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking Kennedy to order the agency to process the requests expeditiously. Challenging EPIC's entitlement to an injunction, Justice argued such relief was unprecedented and was nothing more than a litigation tactic to "artificially accelerate proceedings in this case." Kennedy disagreed, noting that "DOJ's argument that EPIC acts improperly in seeking a preliminary injunction is unavailing. On numerous occasions, federal courts have entertained motions for a preliminary injunction in FOIA cases and, when appropriate, have granted such motions." He added: "Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has held that '[t]he FOIA imposes no limits on courts' equitable powers in enforcing its terms' and 'unreasonable delays in disclosing non-exempt documents violate the intent and purpose of the FOIA, and the courts have a duty to prevent [such] abuses.' Therefore, the court does not hesitate to consider the merits of EPIC's motion." The EFOIA's expedition provisions do not include a statutory time limit like the 20 working day limit for normal requests, but instead instruct agencies to expedite requests "as soon as practicable." Kennedy recognized that the case turned on the interpretation of this limitation and observed that "there is no dispute that EPIC's FOIA requests are entitled to expedited processing; all four of the DOJ components who received EPIC's requests have so conceded. Rather, the primary dispute between the parties in this matter is the meaning of the statutory language 'as soon as practicable.'" He then noted that "DOJ argues that the 'as soon as practicable' language in the expedited processing provisions should be interpreted to impose no concrete deadline. Rather, according to DOJ, the court should interpret expedition under FOIA to require merely that an agency move a request 'to the head of the line.' Moreover, DOJ insists that courts should defer to an agency's determination that it is giving priority to a request and processing it 'as soon as practicable.'" He indicated that "under DOJ's view of the expedited processing provisions of FOIA, the government would have carte blanche to determine the time line for processing expedited requests, with the courts playing no role whatsoever in the process." He pointed out that at the oral argument "DOJ's counsel suggested that the court and the requestor simply must take at face value an agency's determination that more time is necessary, regardless of the time that has elapsed since the request was filed." Rejecting that claim, Kennedy said that "such a reading runs counter to the language of the statute and relevant case law. FOIA, as amended, envisions the courts playing an important role in guaranteeing that agencies comply with its terms. . .Adopting the government's position â€" that an agency has unfettered discretion to determine how long is practicable for processing expedited requests â€" would require the court to abdicate its 'duty' to prevent 'unreasonable delays in disclosing non-exempt documents.'" He added that "furthermore, relevant case law establishes that courts have the authority to impose concrete deadlines on agencies that delay the processing of requests meriting expedition. These cases implicitly reject the notion that the decision of practicability is to be determined solely by the agency and support the contention that courts have the authority, and perhaps the obligation, to scrutinize closely agency delay." After rejecting DOJ's argument, Kennedy observed that "the court must next determine at what point processing becomes unreasonably delayed such that judicial intervention is appropriate. EPIC asserts that the twenty-day deadline that applies to standard FOIA requests should, at a minimum, also apply to requests meriting expedited processing. As EPIC argues, Congress could not have intended to create the absurd situation wherein standard FOIA requests must be processed within twenty days (unless the agency can show that exceptional circumstances exist for a delay), yet expedited requests empower an agency to unilaterally decide to exceed the standard twenty-day period." He pointed out that the EFOIA legislative history explained that the expedition provisions were intended to "give the request priority for processing more quickly than otherwise would occur." Kennedy indicated that "interpreting FOIA to allow the agency more time than that provided in situations involving standard FOIA requests neither hastens the release of information nor does it allow for processing 'more quickly than otherwise would occur.' For these reasons, this court is of the view that the phrase 'as soon as practicable' in the context of a provision of FOIA allowing for expedited processing, cannot be interpreted to impose a lower burden on the agency than would otherwise exist. . . Therefore, the court concludes that an agency that violates the twenty-day deadline applicable to standard FOIA requests presumptively also fails to process an expedited request 'as soon as practicable.' That is, a prima facie showing of agency delay exists when an agency fails to process an expedited FOIA request within the time limit applicable to standard FOIA requests." Kennedy then indicated that "the presumption of agency delay raised by failing to respond to an expedited request within twenty days is certainly rebuttable if the agency presents credible evidence that disclosure within such time period is truly impracticable. Here, however, DOJ has not attempted to present any evidence that processing EPIC's FOIA requests within twenty days of the receipt of EPIC's requests was impracticable or that processing the complaint within the time period requested by EPIC in its motion (twenty days from the date this memorandum opinion is filed and three months from the date DOJ received EPIC's FOIA request) is not practicable." DOJ also argued that EPIC would not be irreparably harmed if the preliminary injunction was granted because, by being granted expedition, it had already gotten everything to which it was entitled. But Kennedy noted that "this argument stretches the limits of plausibility. EPIC's right to expedition is certainly not satisfied by DOJ's decision to give priority to EPIC's requests. What matters to EPIC is not how the requests are labeled by the agency, but rather when the documents are actually released. . .Unless the requests are processed without delay, EPIC's right to expedition will be lost." Kennedy added that DOJ's initial determination to expedite the requests undercut its claim. "Given this concession, the court finds it hard to accept DOJ's current argument that disclosure is not urgent and that further delay will not harm EPIC." Finally, Kennedy dismissed the agency's claim that expedited processing of the request might lead to inadvertent disclosure of exempted documents. He noted that "Congress has already weighed the value of prompt disclosure against the risk of mistake by an agency and determined that twenty days is a reasonable time period, absent exceptional circumstances, for an agency to properly process standard FOIA requests. Here, DOJ has not yet made any specific showing that it will not be able to process the documents within the time period sought by EPIC. Vague suggestions that inadvertent release of exempted documents might occur are insufficient to outweigh the very tangible benefits the FOIA seeks to further â€" government openness and accountability."
Issues: Expedited processing - Time limit

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Henry Kennedy has ruled that the government has not yet substantiated its justifications for withholding records pertaining to its warrantless surveillance program. While finding that many of the records were protected by either Exemption 1 (national security), Exemption 3 (other statutes), or Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), Kennedy indicated that the Justice Department had failed to substantiate claims for other records, including any explanation of why documents were not segregable. Referring to records from the Office of Legal Counsel described as pertaining to targets of the surveillance program, Kennedy noted that "because the language used by OLC is both vague and expansive, the court is not in a position to determine segregability at all, for the simple reason that the court has no way of knowing what any of the records in this category actually are. Nor, therefore, is the court empowered to determine whether the records are protected by the deliberative process privilege. All the court can surmise is the nature of a portion of what these records contain, and that is simply not sufficient for purposes of summary judgment." Finding a claim of deliberative process privilege to be inadequately explained, Kennedy observed that "while the court is certainly sensitive to the government's need to protect classified information and its deliberative processes, essentially declaring 'because we say so' is an inadequate method for invoking Exemption 5." Kennedy rejected the agency's claim that the number of pages produced was protected. He pointed out that "the notion that the lawyers at OLC will be inhibited in the free exchange of recommendations, advice and analysis if they knew the number of pages they use to express themselves could be disclosed to the public is implausible, and DOJ's assertion that revealing the volume of final memoranda in OLC's possession related to TSP and similar activities will somehow reveal the actual scope and/or the workings of the government's classified surveillance activities has no foundation in the record." Kennedy found the affidavit submitted by the National Security Agency was no more descriptive. He observed that "the NSA declarations leave the court with no way to assess the appropriateness of the withholding decision as to records within this category."
Issues: Litigation - Segregability analysis, Litigation - Vaughn index, Exemption 5 - Privileges

FOIA Project Annotation: Exemption 5 (privileges) is perhaps the most opaque of all the FOIA exemptions as written. But after being endlessly interpreted by the courts, its coverage encompasses a handful of widely-recognized privileges�"deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, and attorney work product privilege. While other privileges have occasionally been found to fit under Exemption 5 as well, these three privileges are by far the most commonly claimed and litigated. Two recent decisions, however, indicate that the analysis for determining exactly why a record fits under one of the privileges is still more unsettled than one might expect. The cases involved two sophisticated litigators�"CREW and EPIC�"and while the subject matter of the requests was significantly different, both by their terms requested information that could be characterized as advice or recommendations. CREW asked the National Archives and Records Administration for records pertaining to the agency record status of the White House Workers and Visitors Entrance System records and EPIC requested information about the Justice Department's warrantless surveillance program. Judge Reggie Walton ultimately rejected most of CREW's Exemption 5 arguments, but he did decide to review two NARA memos concerning the retention of WAVES records in camera after concluding that NARA had failed to adequately explain how they were deliberative in nature. CREW argued that the memos reflected "legal views of NARA's general counsel on questions regarding the transfer and disposition of WAVES records" and that the memos "were [not] created by NARA to formulate policy, but rather represent NARA's discharge of its statutory duty to act on agency proposals regarding the disposition of its records." Finding the agency had not sufficiently described the memos, Walton pointed out that "it is not clear from the Vaughn Index what role the documents played in the administrative process. In addition, it is not clear from the filings whether the documents were prepared in contemplation of litigation." On the other hand, Walton found that several documents dealing with the disposition of WAVES records were protected as attorney work product. Although the threshold for protection under the attorney work product is that the records were created in anticipation of pending litigation, Walton pointed out that "here, the defendant could reasonably have anticipated litigation over the question of whether WAVES and related records were presidential or federal, considering that FOIA requests for these records had already been submitted. Further, the documents were written by one of the defendant's attorneys or sent to him as the defendant's General Counsel in response to specific questions counsel posed related to the legal status of WAVES records." He added that "they concern written communications between [NARA General Counsel Gary] Stern and NARA archivists or Amy Krupsky, a NARA attorney, (1) regarding what further actions should be taken by NARA staff with respect to WAVES records schedule and (2) the status of a possible meeting planned with White House, DOJ counsel, and Secret Service staff to discuss pending legal issues related to the transfer and disposition of WAVES records. Disclosure of such written communications would clearly disclose the mental impressions of NARA's General Counsel, including his plan and legal theories concerning the transfer and disposition of WAVE records." While Walton's description sounds like legal advice given by NARA attorneys, its connection to any litigation�"the key requirement for the privilege�"seems a bit of a stretch. Walton essentially accepts that litigation was inevitable because frequent litigators like CREW and Judicial Watch had made FOIA requests. A FOIA request does not litigation make and if agencies can invoke attorney work product protection for opinions that deal with an agency's response to a FOIA request then virtually anything can be characterized as being created in anticipation of litigation. EPIC tried to convince Judge Henry Kennedy that opinions from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel were not protected by the deliberative process privilege because they were final opinions binding on executive branch agencies. Kennedy rejected the claim, noting instead that "it is nonsensical to state that legal opinions can never be protected by the deliberative process privilege because of their authoritative nature. If legal opinions are disclosable simply because they are authoritative or conclusive, this 'would mean that virtually all legal advice OLC provides to the executive branch would be subject to disclosure.' This would significantly chill the ability of the executive branch to obtain legal advice. Rather, authoritative legal opinions promulgated as part of a larger decision-making process may well be protected by the deliberative process privilege." While Kennedy found that most of the OLC memos were probably protected by the deliberative process privilege, he agreed with EPIC that the agency's affidavits failed to describe the deliberative process involved and ordered the agency to make those memos available for in camera review. Kennedy rejected Justice's claim of attorney-client privilege. He noted that "it is not the case that just because the documents at issue contain classified information the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The attorney-client privilege protects confidential information that involves or is about that client. The [agency's] declarations do not indicate what agency or executive branch entity is the client for purposes of the attorney-client privilege. . .Simply because the documents contain legal advice does not necessarily mean that the attorney-client privilege applies to the documents." He added that "the court has no doubt that, to the extent DOJ became privy to classified information, there was an expectation that DOJ was to keep this information confidential. The attorney-client privilege is not necessarily the means for protecting this information." Kennedy ruled that three documents that had been sent to the president or his immediate advisors were protected by the presidential communications privilege. EPIC had argued that the president was required to invoke the privilege himself, a claim that had already been rejected by several courts, including the D.C. Circuit, in previous ruling focusing on the scope of the presidential communications privilege. He also rejected EPIC's claim that the presidential communications privilege was restricted to advisory or deliberative documents. He explained that "EPIC appears to confuse the presidential communications privilege with the deliberative process privilege�"they are two separate privileges. Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has noted that the presidential communications privilege applies to documents that may not be covered by the deliberative process privilege�"the D.C. Circuit has found that the privilege applies to 'final and post-decisional materials as well as pre-deliberative ones.'"
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege

FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that Office of Legal Counsel memoranda concerning the Bush-era warrantless wire-tapping program is protected by Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). After reviewing the ten documents withheld by the Justice Department in responses to requests by EPIC and the ACLU, Lamberth noted that the documents "are properly classified" and "each record contains confidential, pre-decisional legal advice protected by the deliberative-process and attorney-client communications privilege." He pointed out that the D.C. Circuit's recent decision in EFF v. Dept of Justice finding an OLC memo prepared for the FBI could be withheld entirely under Exemption 5 was dispositive. He observed that "this Court sees no principled way to distinguish the OLC opinion in the Electronic Frontier Foundation case from the ten OLC memoranda in this case."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges, Exemption 1 - Harm to national security

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2006-01-19	1	COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Filing fee $ 250) filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER.(lc, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2006-01-19	2	LCvR 7.1 - CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (lc, ) Modified on 1/20/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2006-01-19	3	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Hofman Declaration# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16# 18 Exhibit 17# 19 Exhibit 18# 20 Exhibit 19# 21 Text of Proposed Order)(lc, ) Modified on 1/20/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2006-01-19		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (lc, ) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2006-01-20	4	NOTICE of Appearance by Marcia Clare Hofmann on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Hofmann, Marcia) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
2006-01-26	5	Memorandum in opposition to re 3 Plaintiff's Motion For a Preliminary Injunction filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- OLC Letter# 2 Exhibit B -- EPIC v. DOJ, 03-2078# 3 Exhibit C -- Al Fayed, 2000 WL 34342564# 4 Exhibit D -- Judicial Watch, 00-1396# 5 Exhibit E -- Assassination Archives, 1988 LEXIS 18606# 6 Exhibit F -- Edmonds, 2002 WL 32539613# 7 Exhibit G -- Leadership Conf., 2005 WL 3360884)(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
2006-01-26	6	NOTICE of Appearance by Rupa Bhattacharyya on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
2006-01-30	7	REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 Plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 20# 2 Exhibit 21# 3 Exhibit 22)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
2006-01-31		Set Hearings: Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing set for 2/10/2006 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 27A before Judge Henry H. Kennedy. (rew, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
2006-02-09	8	Order to Consolidate. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on February 9, 2006. It is ORDERED that all further pleadings and other matters related to the consolidated cases be filed in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Dept of Justice, Civil Action 06-00096.( FL, ) Modified on 8/1/2007 (lc, ). (Entered: 02/09/2006)
2006-02-10		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Henry H. Kennedy : Motion Hearing held on 2/10/2006 re 3 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER,. Heard and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Annie Shaw.) Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(rew, ) (Entered: 02/10/2006)
2006-02-15	9	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer or Otherwise Respond to EPIC Plaintiff's Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
2006-02-16	10	Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on February 16, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 02/16/2006)
2006-02-27		Minute order granting 9 defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint. Defendant shall have up to and including March 9, 2006, within which to answer, move, or otherwise respond to plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on February 27, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
2006-02-27		Set/Reset Deadlines: Answer due by 3/9/2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(rew, ) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
2006-03-06	11	Unopposed MOTION to Stay (Partial) of the Court's February 16, 2006, Order Pending Resolution of the Defendant's Forthcoming Motion Seeking Relief from that Order by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
2006-03-07	12	Order granting 14 defendant's unopposed motion for a partial stay of the court's February 16, 2006, order. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on March 7, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) Modified on 3/7/2006 (FL, ). (Entered: 03/07/2006)
2006-03-07	13	MOTION Expedited Motion for Relief from Court's Order of February 16, 2006 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- J. Huvelle Order# 2 Exhibit B -- J. Kessler Order# 3 Exhibit C -- O'Connor Order# 4 Exhibit D -- ACLU Docket# 5 Exhibit E -- PFAW Order# 6 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
2006-03-09	14	ANSWER to Complaint of Electronic Privacy Information Center by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
2006-03-15	15	Memorandum in opposition to re 13 Expedited Motion for Relief from Court's Order of February 16, 2006 filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (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 Exhibit 10# 11 Exhibit 11# 12 Exhibit 12# 13 Exhibit 13# 14 Exhibit 14# 15 Exhibit 15# 16 Exhibit 16# 17 Exhibit 17# 18 Exhibit 18# 19 Exhibit 19-Part 1# 20 Exhibit 19-Part2# 21 Exhibit 20-Part 1# 22 Exhibit 20-Part 2# 23 Exhibit 21# 24 Exhibit 22# 25 Exhibit 23# 26 Exhibit 24# 27 Exhibit 25# 28 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(lc, ) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
2006-03-20	16	REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION Expedited Motion for Relief from Court's Order of February 16, 2006 filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Edmonds Docket)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
2006-03-23	17	NOTICE of Appearance by Meredith Fuchs on behalf of NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Fuchs, Meredith) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
2006-03-24	18	Order re 13 granting in part and denying in part defendant's expedited motion seeking relief from the court's February 16, 2006, order. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on March 24, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
2006-03-29		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/31/2006 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 27A before Judge Henry H. Kennedy. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(rew, ) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
2006-05-26	19	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Marc Rotenberg on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER Substituting for attorney David L. Sobel Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
2006-05-26	20	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. Attorney Marcia Clare Hofmann terminated. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Hofmann, Marcia) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
2006-05-26	21	Joint MOTION to Continue Status Conference by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 05/26/2006)
2006-05-28		MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Joint Motion to Continue May 31, 2006, status hearing. The clerk of the court will reschedule the status hearing to convene after July 7, 2006, when the business of the court permits. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Kennedy, Henry) (Entered: 05/28/2006)
2006-05-29	22	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. Attorney David L. Sobel terminated. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Sobel, David) (Entered: 05/29/2006)
2006-05-30		Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 5/31/2006 at 9:45 AM is OFF and reset for 7/26/2006 at 09:45 AM in Courtroom 27A before Judge Henry H. Kennedy. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(rew, ) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
2006-07-03	23	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Processing of Plaintiff's FOIA Request by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
2006-07-05		Minute order granting 23 defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to complete processing of plaintiff's Freedom Of Information Act Request. Defendant shall have up to and including July 21, 2006, in which to complete the processing of plaintiff's request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. ? 552. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on July 5, 2006. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
2006-07-26		Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Henry H. Kennedy: Status Conference held on 7/26/2006. An order will be issued by the Court. (Court Reporter Annie Shaw.) Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(tth, ) (Entered: 07/26/2006)
2006-07-27	24	Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on July 27, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
2006-07-28		Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 9/28/2006. Response to Cross Motions due by 10/18/2006. Reply to Cross Motions due by 11/2/2006. Summary Judgment motions due by 9/8/2006. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/28/2006. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/18/2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(adc) (Entered: 07/28/2006)
2006-09-07	25	ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) Modified on 9/8/2006 (td, ). (Entered: 09/07/2006)
2006-09-07	26	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment ---CORRECTED--- by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) Modified on 9/8/2006 (td, ). (Entered: 09/07/2006)
2006-09-07	27	MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 09/07/2006)
2006-09-07		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 25 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Summary Judgment was entered in error and refiled as document no. 27 Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(td, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
2006-09-08	28	NOTICE in Support of Motion for Extension of TIme to File Motion for Summary Judgment 26 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
2006-09-08		Minute order granting 26 defendant's motion for a one-week extension of time in which to file its motion for summary judgment. Defendant shall have up to and including September 15, 2006, in which to file a motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on September 8, 2006. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
2006-09-08		Minute order granting 27 defendant's motion for leave to exceed the page limits. Defendant shall have leave to exceed the page limits allowed by the local rules with respect to its forthcoming motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy on September 8, 2006. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 09/08/2006)
2006-09-15	29	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Redacted Bradbury Decl.# 2 Exhibit B -- Executive Order 12958, as amended# 3 Exhibit C -- Redacted Baker Decl.# 4 Exhibit D -- OIP 03.08.06 to EPIC# 5 Exhibit E -- McIntyre Decl.# 6 Exhibit F -- Civil 03.07.06 to EPIC# 7 Exhibit G -- Redacted Rowan Decl.# 8 Exhibit H -- Civil 03.07.06 to ACLU# 9 Exhibit I -- Civil 04.13.06 to ACLU# 10 Exhibit J -- Redacted Hardy Decl.# 11 Exhibit K -- EOUSA 03.16.06 to ACLU# 12 Exhibit L -- OIP 03.08.06 to NSAF# 13 Exhibit M -- Giles Decl.# 14 Exhibit N -- NSA Decl.# 15 Statement of Facts)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
2006-09-15	30	NOTICE of Lodging of Classified Exhibits by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
2006-09-26	31	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Oppose Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and to File Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 09/26/2006)
2006-09-27		Minute order granting 31 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for extension of time in which to file their opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and their cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including October 13, 2006, in which to file an opposition to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and cross-motion for summary judgment. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy on September 27, 2006. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
2006-10-13	32	Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
2006-10-13	33	Memorandum in opposition to re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
2006-10-13	34	MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 10/13/2006)
2006-10-17		Minute order granting 32 plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to exceed the page limit. Plaintiffs' forty-eight page opposiiton to defendant's motion for summary judgment is deemed filed. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on October 17, 2006. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
2006-10-18	35	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 34 MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment ; Motion to Modify Scheduling Order by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
2006-10-20		Minute order granting 35 defendant's unopposed motion to modify the briefing schedule. Defendant shall have through and including November 9, 2006, in which to file an opposition to plaintiffs' cross motion, and a reply in support of the pending motion for summary judgment in Civil Action 06-0096, and Civil Action 06-00214. Plaintiffs shall have through and including November 28, 2006, in which to file a cross-reply. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on October 20, 2006. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) Modified on 10/23/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 10/20/2006)
2006-11-09	36	Memorandum in opposition to re 34 MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of 29 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
2006-11-21	37	NOTIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 11/21/2006)
2006-11-27	38	REPLY to opposition to motion re 34 MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK,1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
2007-05-23	39	MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Supplementary Memorandum# 2 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 05/23/2007)
2007-05-24	40	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jameel Jaffer, :Firm- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, :Address- 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004. Phone No. - 212-519-7814. Fax No. - 212-549-2651 by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jameel Jaffer# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-05-24		Minute order granting (40) motion for admission, pro hac vice, of Jameel Jaffer as additional counsel for plaintiffs in case 1:06-cv-00096-HHK. Jameel Jaffer is permitted to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiffs, American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, and The National Security Archive, to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on May 24, 2007. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
2007-06-04	41	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 39 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
2007-06-07		Minute order granting 41 defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum. Defendant shall have up to and including June 13, 2007, within which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on June 7, 2007. Official paperless order (FL, ) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
2007-06-07		Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall have up to and including June 13, 2007, within which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(ztj, ) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
2007-06-12	42	MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
2007-06-12	43	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 39 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
2007-06-13		Minute order granting 43 defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum and to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file exhibits to plaintiff's supplemental memorandum. Defendant shall have up to and including June 15, 2007, within which to file a response to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum and to plaintiffs' motion for leave to file exhibits to plaintiff's supplemental memorandum. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on June 13, 2007. Official paperless order(FL, ) (Entered: 06/13/2007)
2007-06-15	44	Memorandum in opposition to re 39 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Memorandum , 42 MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
2007-07-11	45	NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 NYT Memorandum Opinion)(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 07/11/2007)
2007-07-16	46	REPLY re 45 NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
2007-07-31		Minute order granting (39) motion for leave to file supplemental memorandum and (42) motion for leave to file exhibits to plaintiffs supplemental memorandum in case 1:06-cv-00096-HHK and the associated case: 1:06-cv-00214-HHK. The proposed submissions are deemed filed. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on July 31, 2007. Official paperless order (FL, ) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
2007-07-31	47	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 34 MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment MOTION In Camera Review of Withheld Records re 33 Memorandum in Opposition,, 29 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (lc, ) (Entered: 08/01/2007)
2007-09-05	48	Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on September 5, 2007. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
2007-10-09	49	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 10/09/2007)
2007-10-11		Minute order granting 49 defendant's unopposed motion for an extension of time in which to file its renewed motion for summary judgment. Defendant shall have up to and including October 18, 2007, in which to file a renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to all components except for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and up to and including November 20, 2007, in which to file its renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to the FBI, in the above-captioned consolidated cases. 1:06-cv-00096-HHK Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on October 11, 2007. Official paperless order Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(FL, ) Modified to edit link on 10/12/2007 (nmw, ). (Entered: 10/11/2007)
2007-10-17		Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall have up to and including October 18, 2007, in which to file a renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to all components except for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and up to and including November 20, 2007, in which to file its renewed motion for summary judgment with respect to the FBI, (tj ) (Entered: 10/17/2007)
2007-10-19	50	Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Redacted Bradbury Declaration# 2 Exhibit B - Redacted Rowan Declaration# 3 Errata C - NSA Declaration)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
2007-10-19	51	NOTICE of Lodging Classified Exhibits in Support of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
2007-11-20	52	ENTERED IN ERROR.....Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment on Behalf of FBI by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Redacted Hardy Declaration# 2 Ex. A to Hardy Decl. (Index))(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) Modified on 11/21/2007 (lc, ). (Entered: 11/20/2007)
2007-11-20	53	NOTICE (Second) of Lodging Classified Exhibit by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 52 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment on Behalf of FBI , 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment (Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
2007-11-21	54	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re (35 in 1:06-cv-00214-HHK, 50 in 1:06-cv-00096-HHK) MOTION for Summary Judgment Supplemental Submission on Behalf of the FBI filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A -- Second Hardy Declaration# 2 Ex. A to Hardy Decl.# 3 Ex. B to Hardy Decl. pt.1# 4 Ex. B to Hardy Decl. pt.2# 5 Ex. B to Hardy Decl. pt.3)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) Modified on 11/21/2007 (lc, ). (Entered: 11/21/2007)
2007-11-21		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 52 Supplemental MOTION for Summary Judgment on Behalf of FBI was entered in error and has been refiled correctly by counsel in docket entry 54 . (lc, ) (Entered: 11/21/2007)
2007-11-27	55	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
2007-11-28		Minute order granting 55 plaintiffs' consent motion for extension of time to file memorandum in opposition to defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment and in support of plaintiffs' cross-motion for in camera review. Plaintiffs shall have up to and including December 18, 2007, in which to file an opposition to defendants renewed motion for summary judgment and in support of cross-motion for in camera review. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on November 28, 2007. Official paperless order (FL, ) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
2007-12-11		Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs shall have up to and including December 18, 2007, in which to file an opposition to defendants renewed motion for summary judgment and in support of cross-motion for in camera review (tj ) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
2007-12-16	56	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Nasrina Bargzie, :Firm- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, :Address- 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004. Phone No. - 212-549-2517. Fax No. - 212-549-2651 by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nasrina Bargzie)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 12/16/2007)
2007-12-18	57	MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
2007-12-18	58	Memorandum in opposition to re 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
2007-12-20		Minute order granting 56 motion for admission, pro hac vice, of Nasrina Bargzie as additional counsel for plaintiff. Nasrina Bargzie is permitted to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plainitff, Electronic Privacy Information Center, to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., on December 20, 2007. Official paperless order (FL, ) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
2008-01-02	59	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 57 in 1:06-cv-00096-HHK) MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records and to Reply in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Bhattacharyya, Rupa) Modified on 1/3/2008 (lc, ). (Entered: 01/02/2008)
2008-01-15		ORDER granting 59 Defendant's Motion for an Extension of Time in which to File its Opposition to Plainitffs' Renewed Motion for In Camera Review and its Reply Brief in Support of its Pending Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, defendant's opposition and reply brief are due by January 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy on January 15, 2008. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK (NP) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
2008-01-31	60	Memorandum in opposition to re 57 MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records and Reply in Support of 50 , 54 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and Supplemental Submission filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Bhattacharyya, Rupa) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
2008-01-31	61	REPLY to opposition to motion re 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (See Docket Entry 60 to view document). (nmw, ) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
2008-02-06	62	REPLY to opposition to motion re 57 MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 02/06/2008)
2008-04-03	63	NOTICE of Filing (new authority) by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. re 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment, 57 MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records (Attachments: # 1 OLC Interrogation memorandum)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
2008-05-22	64	NOTICE Second Notice of Filing by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. re 57 MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOJ Letter to Senators)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
2008-09-08	65	MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Nasrina Bargzie by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
2008-09-08		ORDER granting (65) Motion of Nasrina Bargzie to Withdraw as Counsel. Attorney Nasrina Bargzie is terminated in case 1:06-cv-00096-HHK. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on September 8, 2008. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK (NP) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
2008-09-09	66	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL by Caroline Lewis Wolverton on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney Rupa Bhattacharyya Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Wolverton, Caroline) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
2008-10-31	67	MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting in part and denying in part 50 , 54 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting in part and denying in part 57 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for In Camera Review. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on October 31, 2008. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK (NP) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
2009-03-06	68	NOTICE of Filing New Authority by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
2009-03-17	69	RESPONSE re (44 in 1:06-cv-00214-HHK) Notice (Other), Notice (Other) of Filing filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Wolverton, Caroline) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
2009-09-15	70	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 57 MOTION Renewed, for In Camera Review of Withheld Records filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit-IG Report)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 09/15/2009)
2009-10-28	71	NOTICE of Intent to Respond by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re (70 in 1:06-cv-00096-HHK) Supplemental Memorandum, Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Wolverton, Caroline) (Entered: 10/28/2009)
2009-12-17	72	MEMORANDUM re (35 in 1:06-cv-00214-HHK, 50 in 1:06-cv-00096-HHK) MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Wolverton, Caroline) (Entered: 12/17/2009)
2010-03-17	73	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE as to NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. Attorney Meredith Fuchs terminated. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Fuchs, Meredith) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
2010-05-11	74	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Melissa Goodman, :Firm- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, :Address- 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004. Phone No. - 212-549-2622. Fax No. - 212-549-2651 by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Melissa Goodman, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
2010-11-29	75	MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Alexander A. Abdo, :Firm- American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, :Address- 125 Broad Street, New York, NY 10004. Phone No. - 212-549-2517. Fax No. - 212-549-2651 by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Alexander A. Abdo, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
2010-11-29		MINUTE ORDER granting Motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of 74 Melissa Goodman and 75 Alexander Abdo. Accordingly, Ms. Goodman and Ms. Abdo are admitted pro hac vice to appear in this matter on behalf of plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on November 29, 2010. (NP) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
2010-12-22	76	ENTERED IN ERROR.....NOTICE of Appearance by Marcia Berman on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Berman, Marcia) Modified on 12/23/2010 (dr). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
2010-12-23	77	NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL - by Marcia Berman on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Substituting for attorney Caroline Lewis Wolverton (dr) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2010-12-23		NOTICE OF CORRECTED DOCKET ENTRY: re 76 Notice of Appearance was entered in error because it does not reflect the document filed. A Notice of Substitution of Counsel has been filed as DE# 77 (dr) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
2011-01-14	78	STIPULATION (Joint Proposed Stipulation) by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC., AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Abdo, Alexander) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
2011-01-18	79	ORDER accepting 78 the parties' Joint Proposed Stipulation Regarding Processing of Office of Legal Counsel Memoranda. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on January 18, 2011. (lchhk3) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
2011-01-25	80	MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Melissa Goodman, by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC. (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
2011-02-16		MINUTE ORDER granting 80 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel. Accordingly, attorney Melissa Goodman is hereby terminated from case 1:06-cv-00096-HHK and 1:06-cv-00214-HHK. Signed by Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr. on February 16, 2011. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK (NP) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
2011-03-21	81	NOTICE of Filing by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re (53 in 1:06-cv-00214-HHK) Order (Attachments: # 1 cover letter, # 2 portions of OLC 54, # 3 portions of OLC 131)Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Berman, Marcia) (Entered: 03/21/2011)
2011-04-08	82	RESPONSE re 81 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) filed by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Abdo, Alexander) (Entered: 04/08/2011)
2011-04-15	83	RESPONSE re 82 Def.'s Response to Plaintiffs' Response to Def.'s Notice of Filing by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-HHK, 1:06-cv-00214-HHK(Berman, Marcia) Modified to add link on 4/18/2011 (znmw, ). (Entered: 04/15/2011)
2011-12-15	84	Case reassigned to Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Judge Henry H. Kennedy no longer assigned to the case. (ds) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2012-02-24	85	STATUS REPORT of Plaintiffs by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Abdo, Alexander) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
2012-03-01	86	STATUS REPORT Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' 85 Status Report by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Associated Cases: 1:06-cv-00096-RCL, 1:06-cv-00214-RCL(Berman, Marcia) Modified on 3/2/2012 to add linkage(rdj). (Entered: 03/01/2012)
2012-12-17	87	STATUS REPORT , marking anniversary of reassignment, by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Spitzer, Arthur) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
2014-02-24	88	STATUS REPORT (Joint Status Report) by AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE FUND, INC.. (Abdo, Alexander) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
2014-03-31	89	ENTERED IN ERROR..... MEMORANDUM re: Order on 52 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on March 31, 2014. (lcrcl5) Modified on 4/1/2014 (zmpt, ). (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-03-31	90	ORDER granting 50 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on March 31, 2014. (lcrcl5) (Entered: 03/31/2014)
2014-04-01	91	MEMORANDUM re: ORDER on 50 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Royce C. Lamberth on April 1, 2014. (lcrcl5) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
Hide Docket Events