| Date Filed | Doc # | Docket Text |
|
| 2022-06-30 | 1 | COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ADCDC-9343591) filed by AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Treasury Request, # 2 Exhibit B: Acknowledgment, # 3 Exhibit C: Status Update, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet, # 5 Summons)(Field, Brian) (Entered: 06/30/2022) |
| 2022-07-01 | 2 | LCvR 26.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION (Field, Brian) (Entered: 07/01/2022) |
| 2022-07-05 | | Case Assigned to Judge Tanya S. Chutkan. (zsb) (Entered: 07/05/2022) |
| 2022-07-07 | 3 | SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachment: # 1 Notice and Consent)(zsb) (Entered: 07/07/2022) |
| 2022-07-27 | 4 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 7/7/2022. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 8/6/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of K. Robinson w/Exhibits)(Field, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2022) |
| 2022-07-27 | 5 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY served on 7/18/2022 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of K. Robinson w/Exhibits)(Field, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2022) |
| 2022-07-27 | 6 | RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 07/18/2022. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of K. Robinson w/Exhibits)(Field, Brian) (Entered: 07/27/2022) |
| 2022-08-08 | 7 | NOTICE of Appearance by Hannah Solomon-Strauss on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (Solomon-Strauss, Hannah) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 2022-08-08 | 8 | NOTICE of Appearance by Giselle Barcia on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (Barcia, Giselle) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 2022-08-08 | 9 | ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY.(Barcia, Giselle) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 2022-08-08 | | MINUTE ORDER: Before the Court in this FOIA case are a complaint and an answer. The requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure appear to be inapplicable. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and propose a schedule for proceeding in this matter. The schedule shall address the status of Plaintiff's FOIA request, the anticipated number of documents responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA request, the anticipated date(s) for release of the documents requested by Plaintiff, whether a motion for an Open America stay is likely in this case, whether a Vaughn index will be required in this case, whether and when either party anticipates filing a dispositive motion, and any other pertinent issues. The parties shall file a joint status report that addresses these issues no later than 9/30/22. The joint status report shall be accompanied by a proposed order.. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/8/22. (DJS) (Entered: 08/08/2022) |
| 2022-08-10 | | Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 9/30/2022. (tb) (Entered: 08/10/2022) |
| 2022-08-25 | 10 | NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY. Case related to (Barcia, Giselle) (Main Document 10 replaced on 8/29/2022) (znmw). (Entered: 08/25/2022) |
| 2022-09-02 | | MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff has filed eleven FOIA cases in this court against eleven different federal government agencies, seeking from each records sufficient to identify 1) all employees who entered a position in the agency as a political appointee since January 20, 2021 or 2) all career employees who were detailed to a position eligible to be filled by a political appointee or to a new position through coordination or consultation with either the White House Liaison or Presidential Personnel Office since January 20, 2021. See Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 1:22-cv-01884-ABJ; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 1:22-cv-01888-RDM; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Services, 1:22-cv-01895-TSC; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 1:22-cv-01896-CJN; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 1:22-cv-01897-CJN; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Transportation, 1:22-cv-01898-ABJ; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, 1:22-cv-01899-TSC; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 1:22-cv-01900-ABJ; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Education, 1:22-cv-01901-DLF; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 1:22-cv-01903-BAH; Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 1:22-cv-01905-CKK. Plaintiff has filed a notice of related case in each case, asserting that all of the cases are related under Local Civil Rule 40.5. Plaintiff maintains that they raise common issues of fact and law because they involve identical FOIA requests, and will, plaintiff predicts, result in similar document productions and involve similar FOIA exemptions. If the cases were related, Rule 40.5(c)(1) would direct that they be reassigned to the judge with the oldest pending case, which is America First Legal Foundation v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1:22-cv-01884-ABJ. Upon review of plaintiff's notice of related case, though, the Court concludes that the eleven cases are not related under Local Rule 40.5. While the requests themselves called for the same types of records, that does not mean that litigation involving the agencies' responses will present common issues to be resolved. Summary judgment motions often test the adequacy of the search, and here, the requests were transmitted to eleven different agencies, with their own hiring processes, record keeping systems, and custodians. Each agency's effort to identify and produce documents responsive to plaintiff's request will involve searching the files of different custodians in different locations and on different systems, using terms appropriate to the agency, and the questions presented when each agency announces that the search has been completed will be different. Even the early stages of the litigation, when production schedules are established, will vary from agency to agency depending upon the volume of responsive material and the agency's FOIA resources. Moreover, the legitimacy of any claimed exemptions, another issue that can be litigated on summary judgment, may vary depending upon the mission of the agency, including whether it has a law enforcement function and the volume of classified material essential to its work. In sum, despite the similarity of the requests, it is not apparent now that the facts and law to be considered in determining whether each agency has complied with FOIA will be the same, and the cases will not be reassigned pursuant to Local Rule 40.5. This order does not rule out the possibility that cases could be consolidated in the future for the consideration of a common question of law. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 09/02/2022. (DMK) (Entered: 09/02/2022) |
 Hide Docket Events |
|
