Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: The Supreme Court's decision in Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Association, 532 U.S. 1 (2001), in which the Court ruled that parties who had interests separate to those of the agency did not qualify for protection under the deliberative process privilege, has left the government's ability to claim the consultant's privilege�"when the agency uses third parties as de facto agency advisors�"unsettled. Part of the post-Klamath litigation on extending privileges to third parties has focused on the common interest doctrine. But in a recent ruling exploring the reach of the consultant's privilege, Judge Amit Mehta has found that the Office of Science and Technology Policy waived the deliberative process privilege when agency director John Holdren shared portions of a draft letter with University of Rutgers Professor Jennifer Francis. The case involved a complaint filed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute under the Information Quality Act challenging an agency video featuring Holdren in which he suggested that there was a growing body of evidence linking the weather phenomenon known as the "Polar Vortex" with global warming. A follow-up blog post by agency web editor Becky Fried featured the video and again made a link between recent cold weather and greenhouse-gas pollution. CEI challenged the accuracy of those statements and cited to a number of studies refuting and criticizing Holdren's claim. Nearly six months later, the agency sent CEI a letter denying its request to correct the information, explaining that under the guidelines for the Information Quality Act it did not apply to personal opinions. CEI appealed the agency's decision, arguing that Holdren's and Fried's statements were facts and not opinion and thus fell under the Information Quality Act. OSTP General Counsel Rachael Leonard affirmed the agency's decision not to correct the information, noting that the legal definition of "information" did not include expert judgment and personal opinions and that, as a result, the agency was not required to correct the information. CEI then made a FOIA request for records about production of the video and the agency's decision that the statements were personal opinions and did not represent agency policy. The agency initially found 11 pages, withholding portions under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). CEI appealed the adequacy of the agency's search and Leonard ordered a further search, which yielded another 47 pages of drafts of the letter, which she indicated were being withheld under Exemption 5. In response to CEI's subsequent suit, Leonard indicated that the 47 draft pages were the only drafts in existence and that they had been reviewed only by executive branch officials. But Mehta explained that "those [statements] were, in fact, incorrect. In truth, according to a supplemental declaration submitted by Leonard, OSTP staff consulted with Holdren after filing its summary judgment motion and learned that he 'had shared one version of the draft response letter with Dr. Jennifer Francis, a professor at Rutgers University. . ." The agency claimed the draft shared with Francis was protected by the consultant's privilege. Mehta first addressed whether the 47 pages of internal drafts of the letter were protected by the deliberative process privilege. He noted that both Russell v. Dept of Air Force, 682 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1982), and Dudman Communications v. Dept of Air Force, 815 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1987), dealing with requests for draft histories, supported the agency's claim. Finding that the 47 pages of drafts were protected by the deliberative process privilege, Mehta pointed out that "the drafts plainly were predecisional�"they preceded in time the final version of the OSTP Letter. And they were deliberative�"they reflect the opinions, reactions, and comments of OSTP employees to the OSTP Letter. Moreover, the same concerns over disclosure that animated Russell and Dudman�"stifling creative thinking, confusing the public, and 'disrobing the agency decision maker's judgment'�"apply equally here. Court-ordered disclosure of the 47 pages unquestionably would have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas and viewpoints that the deliberative process privilege is meant to encourage and protect." CEI argued that the drafts were not privileged because they did not deal with a policy matter. Mehta disagreed, noting that "the drafts at issue here are not 'merely peripheral' to a legal or policy matter. On the contrary, they relate directly to a legal matter. The OSTP Letter expresses OSTP's legal position on whether the Information Quality Act and implementing guidelines required it to correct statements made in the Polar Vortex video and in the related blog post." He added that "although the agency came to the conclusion that the views expressed by Holdren and Fried were expressions of their personal opinions rather than of agency policy, the process by which the agency arrived at that legal conclusion is protected." He also rejected CEI's claim that factual material could be disclosed. He pointed out that "the deliberative process privilege protects not only the content of drafts, but also the drafting process itself. . .Any effort to segregate the 'factual' portions of the drafts, as distinct from their 'deliberative' portions, would run the risk of revealing 'editorial judgments�"for example, decisions to insert or delete material or to change a draft's focus or emphasis.' Such differences easily could be discerned by comparing the final letter with an earlier version." Mehta found, however, that the draft shared with Francis, who CEI alleged was the primary academic champion of climate change, did not qualify under the consultant's privilege because of her own self-interest. He explained that "whether a person is self-interested in a particular situation is not a binary question. Rather, self-interest exists on a spectrum, with altruism at one end and greed or avarice on the other. The point at which selflessness passes into self-interest is not demarcated by a bright line. Here, OSTP offers little more than bald assertions to support Dr. Francis' purported lack of self-interest in commenting on the OSTP Letter." Mehta observed that the agency "offers [little] detail about the 'consultancy' that Dr. Francis provided to Holdren. [The agency] does not explain why Holdren needed to confer with Dr. Francis about the OSTP Letter; to what portions of the letter Dr. Francis contributed her 'technical science' expertise about the Polar Vortex; or to what extent Dr. Francis has conferred with Holdren and OSTP in the past about scientific or other issues." CEI, in contrast, portrayed Francis as the leading academic proponent of climate change. Reciting CEI's allegations, Mehta noted that "none of the foregoing should be interpreted as a criticism of Dr. Francis. Nor should it be interpreted as the court taking a position in the debate that her theory has provoked. That is not the court's purpose. Rather, the court recites the foregoing because it clearly shows that, at a minimum, Dr. Francis had a professional and reputational stake in OSTP's decision to reject Plaintiff's request to correct Holdren's and Fried's statements, which endorsed her climate theory. A government consultant, of course, is permitted to have a point of view. But here, Dr. Francis cannot be likened to a government employee whose 'only obligations are to truth and its sense of what good judgment calls for.' A decision by OSTP to correct Holdren's and Fried's statements would have been contrary to Dr. Francis' self-interest." Assessing the reasons why Holdren sought advice from Francis, Mehta observed that "Dr. Francis did not deliver her advice in this case to assist OSTP with forming a policy position in the claimed connection between the Polar Vortex and global warming. Instead, the letter Dr. Francis reviewed concerned OSTP's legal response to a demand for correction made under the Information Quality Act. Indeed, having carefully read the final OSTP letter, the court is left wondering what aspect of the draft letter required Dr. Francis' expertise either on climate science generally or the Polar Vortex in particular." The agency had also withheld emails about the agency's production of the video. Mehta pointed out that "the video, and the withheld communications about it, do not concern an OSTP policy position. Rather, when OSTP rejected Plaintiff's request for correction, it explained that the video's statements were 'an expression of Dr. Holdren's personal opinion.' If the video was an expression only of Holdren's personal opinion, then it follows that internal communications about the video cannot be part of a process of formulating agency policy."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege

FOIA Project Annotation: Noting that discovery is considered rare in FOIA cases, Judge Amit Mehta has granted limited discovery to the Competitive Enterprise Institute in its FOIA litigation against the Office of Science and Technology Policy because the agency's claims that it had found all draft copies of an OSTP letter denying CEI's request that the agency remove a blog post on its website supporting the existence of climate change under the Information Quality Act had already been proven incorrect on three occasions. The agency's denial letter was a legal analysis of the agency's obligations under the Information Quality Act. In responding to CEI's FOIA request, the agency located 47 draft pages, which it claimed represented all existing drafts, which it withheld under Exemption 5 (privileges). But after CEI filed suit, the agency discovered another draft that John Holdren, the head of OSTP, had sent to Jennifer Francis, a professor at Rutgers University, which was in the form of a literature review rather than a legal analysis. Mehta had previously ruled that the Francis draft was not privileged because it was shared with an outside party. In responding to Mehta's order to disclose the Francis draft, the agency discovered two more drafts Holdren had sent, one to another academic, and one to the Senior Science Analyst at the agency. Mehta learned from public sources that the agency had disclosed the two further drafts to CEI, at which time he ordered the agency to show cause why he should not reconsider granting discovery. After searching Holdren's email account and work computer documents, the agency found 10 drafts similar to those sent to Francis. By this time, Mehta apparently had had enough. He noted that "Defendant's representations that it conducted a reasonable search designed to locate all relevant documents has proven to be inaccurate time and again. Although Defendant has candidly acknowledged and apologized for the flaws in its search efforts, which the court appreciates, those expressions of regret come too late." The agency argued that FOIA searches were not required to be either perfect or exhaustive. Mehta observed that "the court does not take issue with those statements. But at some point the government's inconsistent representations about the scope and completeness of its searches must give way to the truth-seeking function of the adversarial process, including the tools available through discovery. This case has crossed that threshold."
Issues: Litigation - Discovery, Adequacy - Search

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2014-10-29	1	COMPLAINT by the only plaintiff against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3887170) filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons for US Attorney, # 3 Summons for the agency, OSTP, # 4 Summons for the Attorney General)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-29		Case Assigned to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. (rd) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-29	2	SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(rd) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-29	3	GENERAL ORDER AND GUIDELINES FOR CIVIL CASES BEFORE JUDGE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON. The Court will hold the parties and counsel responsible for following these directives; failure to conform to this Order may, when appropriate, result in the imposition of sanctions. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 10/29/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-31	4	ERRATA to Complaint regarding typo by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1 Complaint, filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
2014-10-31	5	Corporate Disclosure Statement by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
2014-11-12	6	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 11/4/2014. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/4/2014.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY served on 11/10/2014, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 11/03/2014. (Bader, Hans) Modified on 11/13/2014 to correct service/answer due date (jf, ). (Entered: 11/12/2014)
2014-12-04	7	ANSWER to Complaint by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-04		Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall promptly confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure, by 12/18/2014. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 12/4/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
2014-12-15	8	Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule proposed by both plaintiff and defendant in response to the Court's December 4 minute order; electronically filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
2014-12-17		MINUTE ORDER granting 8 Motion for Briefing Schedule and setting briefing schedule for dispositive motions: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 1/23/2015. Plaintiff's Consolidated Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 2/23/2015. Plaintiff's Consolidated Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 3/16/2015. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 3/30/2015. Signed by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on 12/17/2014. (lckbj1) (Entered: 12/17/2014)
2014-12-24		Case randomly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson no longer assigned to the case. (gt, ) (Entered: 12/24/2014)
2015-01-23	9	MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Statement of Material Facts by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Rachael Leonard, # 2 Exhibit to Declaration of Rachael Leonard, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 01/23/2015)
2015-02-23	10	Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and memorandum in support of plaintiff's cross-motion and in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts Undisputed Facts supporting plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts GENUINE ISSUES of material fact in opposition to defendant's earlier summary judgment motion, # 3 Text of Proposed Order granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying defendant's motion for summary judgment)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
2015-02-23	11	Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Statement of Material Facts filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (See Docket Entry 10 to view document). (znmw, ) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
2015-03-16	12	REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment , Memorandum of Points and Authorities, and Statement of Material Facts filed by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Rachael Leonard, # 2 Statement of Facts Defendant's Response to CEI's Statement of Facts in Support of CEI's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
2015-03-16	13	Memorandum in opposition to re 10 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and memorandum in support of plaintiff's cross-motion and in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment and Combined Reply Brief filed by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Supplemental Declaration of Rachael Leonard, # 2 Statement of Facts Defendant's Response to CEI's Statement of Facts in Support of CEI's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 03/16/2015)
2015-03-27	14	REPLY to opposition to motion re 10 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and memorandum in support of plaintiff's cross-motion and in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
2015-12-15		MINUTE ORDER: Defendant has filed as Exhibit F to the Declaration of Rachel Leonard, 11 pages of records released in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request with redactions made pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6 under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). See [9-2] at 45-59. The court has reviewed the declaration and the redacted version of the responsive records, and has determined that in camera review of the 11 pages would assist the court's de novo review of the issues in this case. In FOIA cases, district courts must determine de novo whether an agency has properly withheld requested information under the exemptions set forth in the statute. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). To assist in that determination, a court "may examine the contents of such agency records in camera." Id. This court is mindful that "[t]he in camera review provision is discretionary by its terms, and is designed to be invoked when the issue before the District Court could not be otherwise resolved." NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 224 (1978). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that no later than December 18, 2015, Defendant shall make available to the court for in camera inspection an unredacted version of the 11 pages released in response to Plaintiff's FOIA request. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 12/15/2015. (lcapm3) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
2015-12-15		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: In camera submission due by 12/18/2015. (cdw) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
2015-12-18	15	NOTICE of Submission of Documents for In Camera Inspection by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
2016-02-10	16	MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 9 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and 10 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/10/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
2016-02-10	17	ORDER. For the reasons stated in the accompanying 16 Memorandum Opinion, 9 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part, and 10 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/10/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
2016-02-18	18	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
2016-02-22		MINUTE ORDER granting 18 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall have until April 24, 2016, or 14 days after the conclusion of any appellate proceedings in this case, whichever is later, in which to file its motion for attorney's fees. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/22/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
2016-02-22		Set/Reset Deadlines: Motion for Attorney Fees due by 4/24/2016. (zmm) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
2016-03-23	19	ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why, the court should not reconsider its denial of discovery in this case and/or impose other appropriate sanctions. Defendant OSTP is directed to respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before April 6, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 03/23/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 03/23/2016)
2016-03-23		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: OSTP's response to Show Cause Order due by 4/6/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 03/24/2016)
2016-04-06	20	RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Declaration of Rachael Leonard, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits A-C to Second Supplemental Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits D-E to Second Supplemental Declaration)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
2016-04-07		MINUTE ORDER: Plaintiff Competitive Enterprise Institute shall file a response, if any, to 20 Defendant Office of Science and Technology Policy's Response to the Order to Show Cause on or before April 15, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/07/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
2016-04-15	21	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, to Show Cause, Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
2016-04-20	22	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File plaintiff's motion for attorney fees by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 04/20/2016)
2016-04-22	23	MOTION for Attorney Fees by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Hans Bader, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
2016-04-23	24	Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Corrected Memorandum in Support of the Motion by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Plaintiff's Corrected Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Attorneys Fees, # 2 Declaration of Hans Bader in Support of Motion for Attorneys Fees, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 04/23/2016)
2016-04-25		MIUNTE ORDER denying as moot 22 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorney's Fees. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 04/25/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 04/25/2016)
2016-04-26	25	ERRATA by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 24 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Corrected Memorandum in Support of the Motion filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
2016-05-05	26	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Corrected Memorandum in Support of the Motion by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
2016-05-05		MINUTE ORDER granting 26 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion of Competitive Enterprise Institute for Attorney's Fees. Defendant's Response shall be due on May 24, 2016, or 14 days after the Court's resolution of 19 the Order to Show Cause, whichever is later. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/05/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
2016-05-09	27	MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER modifying the court's 16 Memorandum Opinion, and granting Plaintiff's motion to take limited discovery. Within fourteen days, Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant and submit a proposed discovery plan to the court. See attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for further details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/09/2016. (lcapm1) (Entered: 05/09/2016)
2016-05-23	28	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 24 Amended MOTION for Attorney Fees and Corrected Memorandum in Support of the Motion by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
2016-05-23		MINUTE ORDER granting 28 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Motion of Competitive Enterprise Institute For Attorney's Fees. Defendant's response shall be due 14 days after the conclusion of all proceedings relating to 27 the courts recent Order granting Plaintiff's motion to take limited discovery. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/23/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
2016-05-23	29	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 27 Order, Memorandum & Opinion,, containing Plaintiff's Consent Proposed Discovery Plan filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
2016-05-24	30	ORDER regarding discovery. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/24/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
2016-08-30	31	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
2016-08-31		MINUTE ORDER granting 31 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Discovery in this case shall conclude on October 7, 2016. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/31/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
2016-08-31		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery concludes on 10/7/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
2016-09-06	32	MOTION to Compel Additional Search by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Hans Bader in support of motion to compel additional search, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Bader, Hans) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
2016-09-23	33	Memorandum in opposition to re 32 MOTION to Compel Additional Search filed by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 09/23/2016)
2016-09-27	34	REPLY to opposition to motion re 32 MOTION to Compel Additional Search filed by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 09/27/2016)
2016-10-06	35	NOTICE (Joint) by OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (Bernie, Andrew) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-06		MINUTE ORDER: In light of 35 the parties' Joint Notice, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before October 14, 2016, updating the court about the status of the proposed settlement. The parties need not file a Joint Status Report if they have filed a stipulated dismissal before then. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/06/2016. (lcapm3) (Entered: 10/06/2016)
2016-10-06		Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Joint Status Report due by 10/14/2016. (cdw) (Entered: 10/07/2016)
2016-10-11	36	STIPULATION of Dismissal with prejudice by COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE. (Bader, Hans) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
Hide Docket Events