Case: James Madison Project v. U.S. Department of Justice

1:17-cv-00597 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: April 4, 2017

Closed Date: Oct. 31, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case is part of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse's coverage of the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. For more information on litigation to disclose the warrants that inspired this case, please see this link. For a summary of the warrants and information on ongoing efforts by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to protect the confidential information in them, see this link.The FISA requires the government to obtain a warrant from the …

This case is part of the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse's coverage of the Carter Page Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants. For more information on litigation to disclose the warrants that inspired this case, please see this link. For a summary of the warrants and information on ongoing efforts by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to protect the confidential information in them, see this link.


The FISA requires the government to obtain a warrant from the FISC before it may conduct any domestic electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information. The warrant applications are made ex parte and must include a sworn statement by a federal officer of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the government's belief that the target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Once a FISC judge receives a warrant application, the judge can order approval of the surveillance only if the judge finds that there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Because the orders only authorize surveillance up to 90 days, the government must file an application for an extension that meets the same requirements as the initial warrant application and obtain a renewal order from the FISC for continued surveillance. For the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse collection of FISA matters, see our special collection.

On April 4, 2017, the James Madison Project (a Washington, DC-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting public transparency in the intelligence community) and a USA Today national security reporter filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552), requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) release documents from the FISC relating to surveillance on the Trump 2016 campaign and any minimization procedures related to them. The case was assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. In a separate case, the FISC released an opinion (available in this Clearinghouse under caseNS-DC-0127) emphasizing this case as one that could lead to lawful release of information in the Carter Page FISA warrants.

The plaintiffs, in their complaint in this case, said that the initial FOIA request and ensuing lawsuit were based on a tweet from President Trump's Twitter account on March 4, 2017 accusing the Obama administration of illegally monitoring his campaign. They argued that subsequent statements from President Trump and Press Secretary Sean Spicer constituted prior official disclosure of the surveillance, and the documents should be released. The initial FOIA request sent to the DOJ on March 6, 2017 asked for copies of the orders authorizing surveillance on the Trump campaign, any applications for those orders, and any minimization procedures applied to the orders. The plaintiffs alleged that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had not provided any responsive documents at the time of filing the complaint.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 15, 2017, saying that six hours after they filed the initial complaint, the FBI filed a response (known as a Glomar response) to their initial FOIA request saying it could not confirm or deny the existence of the FISC documents. The plaintiffs noted that since this response was received after they filed the complaint in District Court, they were exempt from exhausting administrative remedies and could proceed with the litigation. The new complaint added an extra count against the DOJ National Security Division, alleging that the plaintiffs had exhausted all administrative avenues to get the requested documents through the DOJ without success and therefore could add the DOJ National Security Division to this complaint as a defendant.

The DOJ filed a motion for summary judgment on July 14, 2017. The government alleged that the Glomar response was proper under the following exceptions to FOIA: the national security exception (1), the exception to protect sources in an ongoing intelligence investigation as required by the National Security Act (3), the exception to information collected as part of an ongoing investigation (7a), and the exception for information that would reveal law enforcement techniques (7e). The DOJ added that it had properly filed national security disclosures describing why the requested information had to be protected in line with exception 1's requirements. The DOJ also argued that the President's broad statements related to some form of surveillance were not an official acknowledgement of the requested records, since the tweets and press statements were broad and did not acknowledge a specific investigation.

The plaintiffs filed a cross motion for summary judgment in response to the DOJ's motion on August 18, 2017 contesting the DOJ's characterization of the administration's conduct as not an acknowledgement of an investigation. They provided quotations from the President and Spicer repeating that Trump himself was not the target of surveillance in the 2016 campaign. In addition, they cited a lengthy press statement from Spicer responding to news reports about specific FISA warrants against the campaign; they argued that the response to specific investigations was enough to acknowledge their existence. The plaintiffs also highlighted denials of investigations into President Trump directly from FBI Director James Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as proof that there was some sort of investigation going on.

The DOJ responded to this motion on September 17, saying that no amount of media speculation or response to media speculation could amount to official disclosure of an investigation. Instead, they alleged that disclosure of an investigation must be officially done. The plaintiffs contested this in a September 29, 2017 response, saying that, if the court applied the DOJ's logic, an intelligence agency could simply protect information about an intelligence by saying it is responding to a media request.

The case was reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly on September 18, 2017. It was randomly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta on November 2.

Judge Mehta allowed the parties to provide supplemental briefs distinguishing or analogizing this case from separate James Madison Project FOIA litigation (James Madison Project v. Dep't of Justice, No. 17-cv-144) decided on January 4, 2018, which said that "political statements" were not official acknowledgements of FISA investigations. In their response brief dated January 17, the DOJ reiterated previous arguments about the breadth of the contested government statements, saying they did not amount to disclosure. The James Madison Project, in its January 22 response, stressed that the White House statements responded to news reports of specific FISA investigations, and the specificity present here made them not like the "political statements" in the previous case.

On February 14, after the release of new information from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) officially acknowledging FISA investigations into the Trump campaign in January 2018, the DOJ provided a proposed schedule for settlement negotiations, which the plaintiffs accepted two days later. The plaintiffs filed a status report on July 24 asking for renewed briefing, in light of new tweets from the President contesting the legitimacy of redactions of the Carter Page FISA applications released as part of this litigation. Judge Mehta did not grant the request immediately, referring the parties to new rounds of negotiation on August 8. These negotiations fell apart, and Judge Mehta set a new briefing schedule on August 22.

The DOJ's motion for summary judgment, filed on October 19, 2018, recited the same FOIA exceptions as the first motion for summary judgment and added in a 7d exception, saying that disclosing certain information would reveal the identity of confidential sources. The plaintiffs responded on November 9 requesting partial summary judgment. They focused on a September 17, 2018 White House press release that said the President "directed . . . immediate declassification" of the Page FISA warrants and subsequent tweets from the President that read:

I met with the DOJ concerning the declassification of various UNREDACTED documents. They agreed to release them but stated that so doing may have a perceived negative impact on the Russia probe. Also, key Allies’ [sic] called to ask not to release. Therefore, the Inspector General . . . has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. I believe he will move quickly on this (and hopefully other things which he is looking at). In the end, I can always declassify if it proves necessary. Speed is very important to me – and everyone!
The plaintiffs argued that this warranted discovery into 21 pages of the Page warrants, since the DOJ apparently promised to release unredacted versions of them in response to a Presidential "order." Even if such a promise did not exist, the plaintiffs argued that discovery was warranted to know if it did exist or not. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that the President's statement should still impact review of the redactions, and summary judgment in favor of the defense was not warranted.

The DOJ replied to the plaintiffs on November 30, 2018, contesting the plaintiffs' characterization of the tweet and prior press releases as an "order" to disclose the Page FISA warrants, saying that it instead was a statement from the Press Secretary. The defendants denied the existence of any such order and argued that there was no issue of material fact that justified more discovery. The plaintiffs responded on December 20 that this statement from the Twitter account could not be a Press Secretary statement, the tweet was specific enough to allow discovery into this particular FISA warrant, and that the current record was not enough to show that there was no issue of material fact regarding the existence of an order or not.

Judge Mehta released an opinion denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment on July 30, 2019. He stated that, under FOIA, the agency protecting the information has the responsibility to show that the information is protected by a national security exemption (exemption 1) and not disclosed by the government, and that enough ambiguity remains surrounding the President's supposed order to disclose the Page FISA warrants to allow more discovery into the matter. He added that there remains a dispute over whether exemptions 7d and 7e covered this content, since the President's order to declassify the documents might impact the sources and methods in the contested section. 2019 WL 3430728.

The government filed another motion for summary judgment on August 30, 2019, including a statement from DOJ officials saying that they never received a declassification order for the information at issue. They argued that this settled the issue as to whether the press releases and tweets amounted to a declassification order. The plaintiffs submitted a response contesting this claim on September 13.

The release of the FBI Inspector General's "Crossfire Hurricane" report into surveillance of the Trump campaign impacted this case; some of the confidential information requested in this case was released in that report. However, some information still remained classified, and litigation continued. For more information on the Crossfire Hurricane report, see NS-DC-0138 in this Clearinghouse.

Judge Mehta granted the defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment on March 3, 2020. Upon reviewing the declaration from DOJ officials, he found that the lack of direction to declassify the documents at issue meant that the press release and tweets were not official orders, and summary judgment was warranted. 2020 WL 1033301.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider on March 13, 2020, arguing that, while the issue on the classification of the 21 pages was decided by the new statements from DOJ officials, outstanding questions remained as to the remaining classified pages in the Page FISA warrants, focusing on two other tweets from the President that cast doubt on the redactions in the warrants overall. The plaintiffs did admit that they failed to contest this issue in later motions, and in their response brief on March 26, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs' lack of action on this issue meant they had abandoned it.

Judge Mehta did allow reconsideration of the issue and released an opinion on May 4, 2020. However, he granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the issue, because the tweets the plaintiffs highlighted did not reveal any personal knowledge of a declassification order and were just "bad faith assertions" that were not enough to stand up to a motion for summary judgment.

With all contested issues decided, the plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal on July 31, 2020. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Ellen Aldin (12/20/2020)

Related Cases

In re Carter W. Page: A U.S. Person [FISA dockets 16-1182, 17-52, 17-375, 17-679], Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (2016)

FISA Court Matters relating to disclosure of Carter Page surveillance records: Four FISC cases [FISC Misc. 18-01, Misc. 18-02, Misc. 18-03, and Misc. 19-01], Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (2018)

N.Y. Times Co. v. United States DOJ, Southern District of New York (2018)

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States DOJ, District of Columbia (2018)

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, District of Columbia (2018)

Page v. U.S. Department of Justice, District of Columbia (2019)

In re Accuracy Concerns Regarding FBI Matters Submitted to the FISC, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (2019)

Page v. Comey, District of Columbia (2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4685386/parties/james-madison-project-v-department-of-justice/


Judge(s)

Mehta, Amit Priyavadan (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Moss, Bradley Prescott (District of Columbia)

Zaid, Mark S. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Powell, Amy E. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Mehta, Amit Priyavadan (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Moss, Bradley Prescott (District of Columbia)

Zaid, Mark S. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Powell, Amy E. (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

James Madison Project v. DOJ

Dec. 21, 2020 Docket
1

Complaint

The James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

April 4, 2017 Complaint
5

Complaint

The James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

April 15, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
13

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

James Madison Project v. United States Department of Justice

July 14, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
18-1

Motion for Summary Judgment

Aug. 18, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
22

Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

James Madison Project v. United States Department of Justice

Sept. 15, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
23

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

The James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

Sept. 29, 2017 Pleading / Motion / Brief
40

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

James Madison Project v. United States Department of Justice

Oct. 19, 2018 Pleading / Motion / Brief
41

Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

The James Madison Project v. Department of Justice

Nov. 9, 2018 Pleading / Motion / Brief
44 (& 44-1)

Defendant's Combined Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment

James Madison Project v. United States Department of Justice

Nov. 30, 2018 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4685386/james-madison-project-v-department-of-justice/

Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4899620) filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, BRAD HEATH. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Rule 7.1 certification, # 3 Summons DOJ, # 4 Summons USADC, # 5 Summons USAG)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Rule 7.1 certification

View on PACER

3 Summons DOJ

View on PACER

4 Summons USADC

View on PACER

5 Summons USAG

View on PACER

April 4, 2017 RECAP

Case Assigned/Reassigned

April 4, 2017 PACER

Case Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. (md)

April 4, 2017 PACER
2

LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JAMES MADISON PROJECT (md) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

April 6, 2017 PACER
3

SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Consent) (md) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

April 6, 2017 PACER
4

ORDER Establishing Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on April 6, 2017. (NS) (Entered: 04/06/2017)

April 6, 2017 PACER
5

AMENDED COMPLAINT against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE filed by JAMES MADISON PROJECT, BRAD HEATH.(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/15/2017)

April 15, 2017 RECAP
6

NOTICE of Appearance by Amy E. Powell on behalf of All Defendants (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 04/19/2017)

April 19, 2017 PACER
7

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE served on 4/10/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOJ receipt)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

April 24, 2017 PACER
8

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 4-10-2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USAG receipt)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

April 24, 2017 PACER
9

RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 4/10/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 5/10/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit USADC receipt)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

April 24, 2017 PACER
10

ANSWER to 5 Amended Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. Related document: 5 Amended Complaint filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT.(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

May 10, 2017 RECAP
11

ORDER. The parties shall MEET AND CONFER and file a Joint Status Report proposing a schedule for proceeding in this matter by no later than MAY 24, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5/10/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 05/10/2017)

May 10, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 5/24/2017. (kt)

May 11, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

May 11, 2017 PACER
12

Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/23/2017)

May 23, 2017 PACER

Order

May 23, 2017 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of the parties' 12 Joint Status Report, wherein the parties propose a briefing schedule for this matter. The parties shall adhere to the following schedule: Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment no later than JULY 14, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file their opposition to Defendant's motion, and their own cross-motion for summary judgment, no later than AUGUST 14, 2017. Defendant shall file its reply and its opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion no later than AUGUST 31, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file their reply no later than SEPTEMBER 14, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 5/23/2017. (lcckk3)

May 23, 2017 PACER
13

MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of G. Bradley Weinsheimer, # 2 Exhibits to Weinsheimer Declaration, # 3 Declaration of David Hardy, # 4 Exhibits to Hardy Declaration, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

1 Declaration of G. Bradley Weinsheimer

View on PACER

2 Exhibits to Weinsheimer Declaration

View on PACER

3 Declaration of David Hardy

View on PACER

4 Exhibits to Hardy Declaration

View on PACER

5 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

July 14, 2017 RECAP
14

ERRATA to Document 13-4 - Exhibits to the Hardy Declaration by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 07/14/2017)

July 14, 2017 PACER
15

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

Aug. 9, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

Aug. 9, 2017 PACER
16

ORDER GRANTING 15 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 8/9/2017. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

Aug. 9, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs' Response to 13 due by 8/18/2017. Defendant's Reply due by 9/12/2017. Plaintiffs' Reply due by 9/28/17. (dot)

Aug. 9, 2017 PACER
17

Memorandum in opposition to re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts (Response), # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

Aug. 18, 2017 PACER
18

Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 08/18/2017)

1 Memorandum in Support

View on RECAP

2 Statement of Facts

View on PACER

3 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Aug. 18, 2017 PACER
19

NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy E. Powell (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

Sept. 7, 2017 PACER
20

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/08/2017)

Sept. 8, 2017 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. The Court is in receipt of Defendant's 20 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Summary Judgment Opposition and Reply. Defendant requests an additional three days to file its pleading because defense counsel is busy with other matters. This is Defendant's first request to extend this particular deadline and Plaintiff does not oppose. Defendant acknowledges that its motion is untimely, but represents that any future motions for extensions will be filed on time. Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Defendant shall file its Summary Judgment Opposition and Reply by no later than SEPTEMBER 15, 2017. Plaintiff shall file its Reply by no later than SEPTEMBER 29, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 9/11/2017. (lcckk3)

Sept. 11, 2017 PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Sept. 11, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Response to 18 Cross Motions due by 9/15/2017. Defendant's Reply to 13 Motion for Summary Judgment due by 9/15/2017. Plaintiffs' Reply to 18 Cross Motions due by 9/29/2017. (dot)

Sept. 11, 2017 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

Sept. 11, 2017 PACER
21

REPLY to opposition to motion re 13 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

Sept. 15, 2017 PACER
22

Memorandum in opposition to re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Pls Statement of Facts, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/15/2017)

1 Response to Pls Statement of Facts

View on PACER

2 Text of Proposed Order

View on PACER

Sept. 15, 2017 RECAP

Case directly reassigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr)

Sept. 18, 2017 PACER

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
23

REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 09/29/2017)

Sept. 29, 2017 RECAP
24

Case randomly reassigned to Judge Amit P. Mehta. Judge Timothy J. Kelly is no longer assigned to the case. (ztnr) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

Nov. 2, 2017 PACER
25

NOTICE of Supplemental Information by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/03/2017)

Nov. 3, 2017 PACER
26

NOTICE of Supplemental Information by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/29/2017)

Nov. 29, 2017 PACER
27

NOTICE of Supplemental Information by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Gizmodo litigation declaration), # 2 Exhibit 2 (American Oversight litigation declaration))(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 12/18/2017)

Dec. 18, 2017 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. On January 4, 2018, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 36, in James Madison Project v. Dep't of Justice, 17-cv-144 (APM), which directly addresses many of the issues raised in this case concerning the official acknowledgment doctrine. In light of the court's decision in James Madison, 17-cv-144, the court invites the parties, if they wish, to supplement their briefing in this case to take account of the court's decision in James Madison, 17-cv-144, and apply it to the facts of this case. The parties' supplemental briefs shall be due no later than January 17, 2018, and shall be limited to five pages. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 01/05/2018. (lcapm3)

Jan. 5, 2018 PACER

Order

Jan. 5, 2018 PACER
28

RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order,, filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

Jan. 17, 2018 RECAP
29

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to Respond to Order of the Court filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 01/17/2018)

Jan. 17, 2018 RECAP
30

NOTICE of Supplemental Information by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 01/22/2018)

Jan. 22, 2018 RECAP
31

NOTICE of Supplemental Information by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Nunes Memo)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 02/02/2018)

1 Exhibit 1 - Nunes Memo

View on RECAP

Feb. 2, 2018 RECAP

Order

Feb. 2, 2018 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. No later than February 14, 2018, Defendant shall notify the court whether the release of the "Nunes Memo" referenced in Plaintiffs' 31 Notice of Supplemental Information affects Defendant's blanket Glomar response to Plaintiffs' FOIA request. If Defendant maintains that the Nunes Memo's release does not in any way change the agency's Glomar response, it shall set forth its justification for that position. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/02/2018. (lcapm3)

Feb. 2, 2018 PACER
32

RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Response to Court Order by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Powell, Amy) Modified event title on 2/20/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 02/14/2018)

Feb. 14, 2018 RECAP

Order

Feb. 14, 2018 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. In light of Defendant's 32 Notice, Plaintiffs shall file, no later than Friday, February 16, 2018, their response to Defendant's proposal for further proceedings in this matter. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/14/2018. (lcapm3)

Feb. 14, 2018 PACER
33

RESPONSE re 32 to Defendant's Response to Order filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) Modified to add link on 2/20/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 02/16/2018)

Feb. 16, 2018 RECAP

Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Feb. 16, 2018 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. In light of the parties' 32 33 recent submissions, Defendant's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment are denied without prejudice as moot. The parties shall appear for a status conference on March 19, 2018, at 10:00 am in Courtroom 10. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 02/16/2018. (lcapm3)

Feb. 16, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings

Feb. 16, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/19/2018 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 before Judge Amit P. Mehta. (zcdw)

Feb. 16, 2018 PACER
34

Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David M. Hardy)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 03/16/2018)

March 16, 2018 RECAP

Minute Entry: Status Conference held on 3/19/2018 before Judge Amit P. Mehta: Discovery due by 7/20/2018. Status Report due by 5/18/2018. (Court Reporter Jan Dickman) (tb)

March 19, 2018 PACER

Status Conference

March 19, 2018 PACER
35

STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/18/2018)

May 18, 2018 RECAP

MINUTE ORDER. The parties shall file a Joint Status Report on or before July 24, 2018, updating the court on the status of processing and production and, if necessary, proposing a summary judgment briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/21/2018. (lcapm3)

May 21, 2018 PACER

Order

May 21, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/24/2018. (zjd)

May 21, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

May 21, 2018 PACER
36

Joint STATUS REPORT by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 07/24/2018)

July 24, 2018 RECAP

MINUTE ORDER. The court has considered the parties' respective positions set forth in the July 24, 2018 36 Joint Status Report, and does not agree with Plaintiff that separate briefing is required to determine the relevance of the President's tweets concerning the redactions made to the Carter Page FISA applications. The parties shall meet and confer about the exemptions claimed to support the redactions and, no later than August 17, 2018, file an additional status report with the court that sets forth how the parties wish to proceed and, if necessary, proposes a summary judgment briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/08/2018. (lcapm3)

Aug. 8, 2018 PACER

Order

Aug. 8, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/17/2018. (zjd)

Aug. 8, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

Aug. 8, 2018 PACER
37

Joint STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

Aug. 15, 2018 RECAP
38

ORDER entering the briefing schedule proposed in the parties' 37 Joint Status Report. The schedule for further proceedings in this matter is as follows: (1) Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before October 19, 2018; (2) Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before November 9, 2018; (3) Defendant's Reply and Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before November 30, 2018; and (4) Plaintiffs' Reply shall be filed on or before December 21, 2018. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 08/22/2018. (lcapm3) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

Aug. 22, 2018 RECAP

Set/Reset Deadlines

Aug. 22, 2018 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment due by 10/19/2018. Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition due by 11/9/2018. Defendant's Reply and Opposition due by 11/30/2018. Plaintiff's Reply due by 12/21/2018. (zjd)

Aug. 22, 2018 PACER
39

NOTICE of Lodging Classified Material by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

Oct. 19, 2018 RECAP
40

MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of David Hardy (3rd) (Redacted), # 2 Combined Exhibits to 3rd Hardy Declaration, # 3 Declaration of Patrick Findlay and Exhibits)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 10/19/2018)

Oct. 19, 2018 RECAP
41

Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment ) by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Moss Declaration, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

Nov. 9, 2018 RECAP
42

Memorandum in opposition to re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Moss Declaration, # 2 Statement of Facts Response, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 11/09/2018)

Nov. 9, 2018 RECAP
43

Memorandum in opposition to re 41 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts, # 2 Declaration of Michael G. Seidel)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

Nov. 30, 2018 RECAP
44

REPLY to opposition to motion re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Michael G. Seidel)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 11/30/2018)

Nov. 30, 2018 RECAP
45

REPLY to opposition to motion re 41 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

Dec. 20, 2018 RECAP
46

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 04/17/2019)

April 17, 2019 RECAP
47

NOTICE of Clarification by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT (Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 04/29/2019)

April 29, 2019 RECAP
48

STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 05/17/2019)

May 17, 2019 RECAP

.Order

May 17, 2019 PACER

Order

May 17, 2019 PACER

MINUTE ORDER. The Defendant shall file any necessary supplement to Defendant's summary judgment record on or before June 28, 2019. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 05/17/2019. (lcapm1)

May 17, 2019 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

May 17, 2019 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Supplemental Memorandum due by 6/28/2019. (zjd)

May 17, 2019 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

May 20, 2019 PACER
49

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 40 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David M. Hardy (4th))(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 06/28/2019)

June 28, 2019 RECAP
50

NOTICE of Change of Address by Amy E. Powell (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 07/03/2019)

July 3, 2019 RECAP
51

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the parties' 40 and 41 Motions for Summary Judgment. See the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 07/30/2019. (lcapm3) (Entered: 07/30/2019)

July 30, 2019 RECAP

Set/Reset Deadlines

July 30, 2019 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Supplemental Declaration and Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/30/2019. (zjd)

July 30, 2019 PACER

Set/Reset Deadlines

July 31, 2019 PACER
52

MOTION for Summary Judgment, Renewed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of G. Bradley Weinsheimer, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Powell, Amy) (Entered: 08/30/2019)

1

View on RECAP

Aug. 30, 2019 RECAP
53

Memorandum in opposition to re 52 MOTION for Summary Judgment, Renewed filed by BRAD HEATH, JAMES MADISON PROJECT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Moss Declaration, # 2 Statement of Facts Response, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Moss, Bradley) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

Sept. 13, 2019 RECAP
54

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Powell, Amy) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

Sept. 16, 2019 RECAP

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Sept. 17, 2019 PACER

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 4, 2017

Closing Date: Oct. 31, 2020

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The James Madison Project (a Washington, DC-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting public transparency in the intelligence community) and a <i>USA Today</i> national security reporter.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Document/information produced

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Confidentiality

Courts

Record-keeping

Records Disclosure

Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues