Case: Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice

1:12-cv-01441 | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2012

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 30, 2012, Plaintiff Electronic Frontier Foundation filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff sought injunctive relief against Defendants Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy (OIP), and National Security Division (NSD) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation based in Massachusetts focused on informing policy makers and the general public about civil lib…

On July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff requested from OIP and NSD documents relating to the government’s collection of foreign intelligence pursuant to section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) as amended by the FISA Amendment Act (FAA) of 2008. This request was made shortly after Senator Ron Wyden of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence requested the public release of information concerning the government’s Section 702 collection under the FAA. Four statements concerning the Section 702 surveillance activities were declassified in response to the Senator’s request, revealing to the public for the first time that the implementation of Section 702 had sometimes “circumvented the spirit of the law”, at least once violating the fourth amendment.

The Plaintiff asked the Defendants to expedite their FOIA request as their business was “primarily engaged in disseminating information” and because the requests involved a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exists possible questions about the government’s integrity which affects public confidence.” There is a generally applicable twenty-day deadline for the processing of any FOIA request, and more than thirty days had passed since the original request was made by the time this action commenced. The Plaintiff sought injunctive relief ordering the documents to be processed and sent to them immediately, for all fees to be waived, and attorney’s fees covered.

The Defendants alleged that on August 13, 2012, NSD notified the Plaintiff that it refused to expedite the FOIA request because the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a “compelling need” for expedition. The Defendants established that it expected to complete processing of the FOIA request by December 5, 2012, at which time they would produce any responsive, non-exempt information to Plaintiff.

On January 3, 2013, NSD produced two partially redacted, responsive documents to the Plaintiff’s counsel. Three other responsive documents were withheld pursuant to two exceptions in the FOIA statute that prevent disclosure of information that would harm an interest of national defense or foreign policy, as well as information that is prohibited from disclosure by another statute.

The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on April 1, 2013, but in June (while the motion was still pending), Edward Snowden—a former government contractor—leaked to media outlets thousands of classified documents relating to the U.S. government’s intelligence surveillance program. The President subsequently ordered the Director of National Intelligence to review and declassify all the information that could be disclosed without harming national security in an effort to enhance transparency and regain the public’s trust. Some of this newly declassified information was contained in the five responsive documents that the Defendants had identified to the Plaintiff on January 3, 2013. In light of the new status of these documents, the Defendants withdrew their motion for summary judgment, reprocessed the five documents, and reproduced them to the Plaintiff with redactions. The Plaintiff disagreed with the redactions made to one of these documents: an October 2011 Foreign Sovereign Intelligence Court (FISC) Opinion.

On September 4, 2013, the Defendants moved for summary judgment, and on October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. The sole issue presented in the Motions was whether the Defendants were justified in withholding the redacted information in the October 11 FISC Opinion. The Court agreed to conduct an in camera review of the unredacted document and ordered the Defendants to explain certain redactions. In response, the Defendants lifted many of the redactions and disclosed the information that was the subject of the Court’s questions.

A brief stay was issued from October 3 until October 18, 2013 in response to the October 2013 federal government shutdown that prohibited the Defendants from working.

On July 18, 2014, District Judge Amy B. Jackson granted the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the Plaintiff’s cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 57 F.Supp.3d 54. She found that the Defendants met their burden to show that the redacted information could reasonably damage the country’s national security if released, and that therefore, the remaining redactions were properly withheld.

On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff moved for attorney’s fees. It argued that it was eligible for fees (1) because it obtained various judicial orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and FISC and (2) because its efforts were necessary to the release of the redacted 2011 FISC Opinion (the “catalyst theory”). The Plaintiff argued that its efforts caused the disclosure of all the information in the 2011 FISC opinion that could be revealed by a FOIA request.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff should not be awarded attorney’s fees because the government’s disclosure of the 2011 FISC Opinion was not caused by the litigation, but rather by Edward Snowden’s unauthorized leaks and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s subsequent declassification initiative. If this argument was accepted, it would cancel the Plaintiff’s eligibility for attorney’s fees as the Plaintiff must be the substantially prevailing party to be eligible.

On September 30, 2015, Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs. The Court sided with the Plaintiff’s argument and found that the Plaintiff was eligible for an award of fees. The Court also found that the Plaintiff met the four criteria for entitlement to attorney’s fees. First, the result of this case added to the public benefit as the disclosure of the 2011 FISC Opinion had a significant impact on the public discussion of the NSA’s surveillance programs and was still ongoing. Second and Third, the Plaintiff organization’s objectives and status as a non-profit make it clear that they sought the documents in question primarily for public dissemination on an issue of public importance, rather than for commercial purposes (therefore passing the “Commercial Benefit” and “Plaintiff’s Interest” requirements). Fourth, the Court did not find the Defendants’ assertion of a FISC rule as a bar to disclosure compelling.

The Court reduced the total amount of fees awarded to the Plaintiff because of hourly calculations that it found questionable. The Plaintiff was awarded total fees in the amount of $49,124.50 and total administrative costs of $350.

On November 16, 2015, the Defendant notified the Court that it would not challenge the Magistrate Judge’s decision on the award of attorneys’ fees. The case is closed.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Robert Carnes (10/4/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5103242/parties/electronic-frontier-foundation-v-department-of-justice/

Judge(s)

Harvey, G. Michael (District of Columbia)

Jackson, Amy Berman (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lynch, Jennifer (California)

Rumold, Mark Thomas (California)

Attorney for Defendant

Bressler, Steven Y. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Harvey, G. Michael (District of Columbia)

Jackson, Amy Berman (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Lynch, Jennifer (California)

Rumold, Mark Thomas (California)

Sobel, David L. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Bressler, Steven Y. (District of Columbia)

Snead, Jacqueline E. Coleman (District of Columbia)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

	Document
1:12-cv-01441	Docket [PACER]	Nov. 16, 2015	Nov. 16, 2015 Docket
1 1:12-cv-01441	Complaint for Injunctive Relief	Aug. 29, 2012	Aug. 29, 2012 Complaint
12 1:12-cv-01441	Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Stay Proceedings	April 24, 2013	April 24, 2013 Pleading / Motion / Brief
31 1:12-cv-01441	Memorandum Opinion	July 18, 2014	July 18, 2014 Order/Opinion 57 F.Supp.3d 57
47 1:12-cv-01441	Memorandum Opinion	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 Order/Opinion

show / hide documents

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5103242/electronic-frontier-foundation-v-department-of-justice/

Last updated April 13, 2024, 3:16 a.m.

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT for Injunctive Relief against DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0090−3053407) filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons Attorney General, # 3 Summons Dept. of Justice, # 4 Summons US Attorneys Office)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 08/30/2012)	Aug. 30, 2012	Aug. 30, 2012
2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Sobel, David) (Entered: 08/30/2012)	Aug. 30, 2012	Aug. 30, 2012
	Case Assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. (mmh) (Entered: 08/30/2012)	Aug. 30, 2012	Aug. 30, 2012
3	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS Issued (3) as to DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Summons, # 3 Consent Notice)(mmh) (Entered: 08/30/2012)	Aug. 30, 2012	Aug. 30, 2012
4	ANSWER to Complaint by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.(Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/01/2012)	Oct. 1, 2012	Oct. 1, 2012
5	ORDER that defendant file on or before 10/31/12 a dispositive motion or, in the alternative, a report setting forth the schedule for document production to plaintiff. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/2/12. (DMK) (Entered: 10/02/2012)	Oct. 2, 2012	Oct. 2, 2012
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant to file a dispositive motion or, in the alternative, a report setting forth the schedule for the production of documents to plaintiff by 10/31/2012. (jth) (Entered: 10/08/2012)	Oct. 8, 2012	Oct. 8, 2012
6	STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/31/2012)	Oct. 31, 2012	Oct. 31, 2012
	MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that on December 14, 2012, the parties file a joint status report that addresses: (1) the status of production, and (2) whether plaintiff is challenging any withholdings, and if so, a proposed briefing schedule for dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/1/12. (lcabj1) (Entered: 11/01/2012)	Nov. 1, 2012	Nov. 1, 2012
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 12/14/2012. (jth) (Entered: 11/01/2012)	Nov. 1, 2012	Nov. 1, 2012
7	STATUS REPORT by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/05/2012)	Dec. 5, 2012	Dec. 5, 2012
	MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that on or before January 4, 2013, defendant is to file a status report that addresses the status of production, and it is further ORDERED that on or before January 18, 2013, the parties are to file a joint status report indicating whether plaintiff is challenging any withholdings and if so, a proposed briefing schedule for dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/6/12. (DMK) (Entered: 12/06/2012)	Dec. 6, 2012	Dec. 6, 2012
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant to file a status report by 1/4/2013 that addresses the status of production. The parties are directed to file a joint status report by 1/18/2013 indicating whether plaintiff is challenging any withholdings and if so, a proposed briefing schedule for the filing of dispositive motions. (jth) (Entered: 12/06/2012)	Dec. 6, 2012	Dec. 6, 2012
9	STATUS REPORT and Proposed Briefing Schedule by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Sobel, David) (Entered: 01/18/2013)	Jan. 18, 2013	Jan. 18, 2013
10	SCHEDULING ORDER:Defendant's motion for summary judgment will be due on or before April 1, 2013; Plaintiff's combined opposition to the motion for summary judgment and cross−motion for summary judgment, if any, will be due on or before May 3, 2013; Defendant's combined reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before May 24, 2013; Plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before June 7, 2013. (SEE ORDER FOR COMPLETE DETAILS). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 1/22/13. (lcabj1) (Entered: 01/22/2013)	Jan. 22, 2013	Jan. 22, 2013
11	WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE FILED 09/05/13.....MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, # 2 Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute, # 3 Bradley Declaration, # 4 Janosek Declaration)(Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) Modified on 9/6/2013 (jth). (Entered: 04/01/2013)	April 1, 2013	April 1, 2013
12	Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 04/24/2013)	April 24, 2013	April 24, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay. It is ORDERED that the parties file a joint status report on June 5, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 4/24/13. (lcabj1) (Entered: 04/24/2013)	April 24, 2013	April 24, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadline: Joint Status Report due on 6/5/2013. (jth) (Entered: 04/25/2013)	April 25, 2013	April 25, 2013
13	STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Sobel, David) (Entered: 06/05/2013)	June 5, 2013	June 5, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER. In light of the joint status report filed on June 5, 2013, it is ORDERED that the parties file another joint status report on July 1, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/10/13. (lcabj1) (Entered: 06/10/2013)	June 10, 2013	June 10, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 7/1/2013. (jth) (Entered: 06/10/2013)	June 10, 2013	June 10, 2013
14	STATUS REPORT of the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 07/01/2013)	July 1, 2013	July 1, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER LIFTING STAY. In light of the status report filed by the parties on July 1, 2013 [Dkt. # 14], it is ORDERED that the stay on this action is lifted. It is FURTHER ORDERED that by August 12, 2013, defendant must assess its position and make any additional disclosures it intends to make in light of the developments described in the July 1 status report. It is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall file a notice with the Court on August 12, 2013, indicating whether any other materials were provided to the plaintiff in whole or in part, and stating whether it intends to rely upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on April 1, 2013 [Dkt. # 11], or if it intends to withdraw that motion and substitute a new motion for summary judgment. If the defendant intends to file a new motion, it will be due on or before August 26, 2013; plaintiff's opposition and combined cross−motion for summary judgment, if any, will be due on or before September 23, 2013; defendant's reply in support of its motion and combined opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before October 14, 2013; and plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before October 28, 2013. If defendant states on August 12 that the original Motion for Summary Judgment is still the operative document, plaintiff's opposition and combined cross−motion for summary judgment, if any, will be due on or before September 9, 2013; defendant's reply in support of its motion and combined opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before September 30, 2013; and plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion, if any, will be due on or before October 14, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/9/13. (lcabj1) (Entered: 07/09/2013)	July 9, 2013	July 9, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadlines: If defendant's notice of 8/12/2013 states its intention to withdraw the Motion for Summary Judgment filed 4/1/2013 [Dkt. #11], and substitute a new Motion for Summary Judgment − reset the remaining briefing schedule deadlines established in the minute order issued 7/9/2013. (jth) (Entered: 07/10/2013)	July 10, 2013	July 10, 2013
15	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Release Documents to Plaintiff; Status Report by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bressler, Steven) (Entered: 08/09/2013)	Aug. 9, 2013	Aug. 9, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. In light of defendant's consolidated statute report and motion for extension of time filed on this day, it is ORDERED that defendant shall produce further information to plaintiff by August 21, 2013. It is further ORDERED that defendant's renewed motion for summary judgment, if any, is due by September 4, 2013, plaintiff's opposition and combined cross−motion for summary judgment, if any, is due by October 2, 2013, defendant's reply in support of its motion and combined opposition to plaintiff's cross−motion, if any, is due by October 23, 2013, and plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion, if any, is due by November 6, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 8/9/13. (DMK) (Entered: 08/09/2013)	Aug. 9, 2013	Aug. 9, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall produce additional information to Plaintiff by 8/21/2013. Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 9/4/2013, Plaintiff's Opposition and Cross−Motion is due by 10/2/2013. Defendant's Reply and Opposition to the Cross−Motion is due by 10/23/2013. Plaintiff's reply in support of the Cross−Motion is due by 11/6/2013. (jth) (Entered: 08/12/2013)	Aug. 12, 2013	Aug. 12, 2013
16	MOTION for Summary Judgment by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Hudson Declaration, # 3 Sherman Declaration, # 4 Statement of Material Facts not in Dispute)(Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/04/2013)	Sept. 4, 2013	Sept. 4, 2013
17	NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re 11 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/05/2013)	Sept. 5, 2013	Sept. 5, 2013
18	Memorandum in opposition to re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Statement of Facts (Response), # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 10/02/2013)	Oct. 2, 2013	Oct. 2, 2013
19	MOTION for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Statement of Facts, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 10/02/2013)	Oct. 2, 2013	Oct. 2, 2013
20	Unopposed MOTION to Stay Litigation in Light of Lapse in Federal Government Appropriations by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/03/2013)	Oct. 3, 2013	Oct. 3, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER granting 20 Motion to Stay. It is ORDERED that the current briefing schedule for dispositive motions is vacated. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report with a proposed revised dispositive motions briefing schedule within two business days of the resumption of operations at the Department of Justice. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/3/2013. (lcabj1) (Entered: 10/03/2013)	Oct. 3, 2013	Oct. 3, 2013
21	STATUS REPORT of the Parties by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/18/2013)	Oct. 18, 2013	Oct. 18, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER. It is ORDERED that the stay in this case is lifted in light of the resumption of government activities. Pursuant to the parties' joint status report, it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment/Reply in Support of Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment is now due on or before November 7, 2013, and Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Plaintiff's Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment is now due on or before November 21, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/18/2013. (lcabj1) (Entered: 10/18/2013)	Oct. 18, 2013	Oct. 18, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment is due by 11/7/2013, Plaintiff's Reply in Support of it's Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment is now due by 11/21/2013. (jth) (Entered: 10/21/2013)	Oct. 21, 2013	Oct. 21, 2013
22	REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/07/2013)	Nov. 7, 2013	Nov. 7, 2013
23	Memorandum in opposition to re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Counterstatement of Material Facts)(Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 11/07/2013)	Nov. 7, 2013	Nov. 7, 2013
24	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 11/20/2013)	Nov. 20, 2013	Nov. 20, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER granting 24 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's reply in support of its cross−motion for summary judgment is now due on or before December 6, 2013. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 11/20/2013. (lcabj1) (Entered: 11/20/2013)	Nov. 20, 2013	Nov. 20, 2013
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Reply in support of its Cross−Motion for Summary Judgment is now due by 12/6/2013. (jth) (Entered: 11/21/2013)	Nov. 21, 2013	Nov. 21, 2013
25	REPLY to opposition to motion re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 12/06/2013)	Dec. 6, 2013	Dec. 6, 2013
	MINUTE ORDER. Defendant is directed to deliver the October 3, 2011 FISC Opinion and Order withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) and (b)(3) to chambers by Friday, April 4, 2014, for in camera inspection to assist the Court in making a responsible de novo determination. Ray v. Turner, 587 F.2d 1187, 1195 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 3/25/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 03/25/2014)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadline: Defendant's In−Camera Submission is due by 4/4/2014. (jth) (Entered: 03/25/2014)	March 25, 2014	March 25, 2014
26	NOTICE of Complance with Minute Order by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re Order, (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/04/2014)	April 4, 2014	April 4, 2014
27	NOTICE to the Court by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/28/2014)	May 28, 2014	May 28, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER. On March 25, 2014, the Court ordered defendant to provide the October 2011 FISC Opinion for in camera review. The Court has completed that review but needs further information from defendant regarding certain redactions. First, with respect to the many redactions of docket information, the Court notes that paragraph 30 of the Declaration of Jennifer L. Hudson [Dkt. # 16−2] states that the redactions contain dates and targets, and therefore disclosure would threaten national security. But many of the redactions are of docket numbers or dates only, so it is ORDERED that defendant shall provide further explanation as to why that sort of purely numerical information cannot be disclosed as long as any reference to particular targets remain classified. Second, it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant shall notify the Court: (1) why, in light of the unredacted paragraph that begins on page three, any reference to the number of previous acquisitions in the opinion needs to be withheld; (2) why the material in the 10th line of the first paragraph in section I.A on page 3 is classified, taking into consideration the rest of the sentence that has already been disclosed and what is disclosed in footnote 17 on page 18; (3) the reason why the end of footnote 9 is redacted; (4) the reason for the redaction of the reference that is not a docket number within lines 2−4 at the top of page 16; (5) the reason for the redactions other than docket numbers on page 23; (6) the reason for the redaction on page 24; (7) the reason for the redaction on page 25; (8) the reason for the redaction in paragraph under section B; (10) the reason for the redacted lines at the bottom of page 21 and onto page 22; (11) the reason for the redactions, other than the docket numbers, in the first full paragraph on page 22 beginning with "Furthermore;" and (12) the reason for the reactions on page 73. This information shall be provided on or before July 2, 2014. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/11/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 06/11/2014)	June 11, 2014	June 11, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Information pursuant to the Court's Minute Order issued 6/11/2014 shall be provided by 7/2/2014. (jth) (Entered: 06/12/2014)	June 12, 2014	June 12, 2014
28	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Minute Order of June 11, 2014 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 06/20/2014)	June 20, 2014	June 20, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER granting 28 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response. It is ORDERED that defendant's response to the Court's Minute Order of June 11, 2014 is due by July 11, 2014. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 6/23/14. (DMK) (Entered: 06/23/2014)	June 23, 2014	June 23, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's Response to the Court's Minute Order of 6/11/2014 is now due by 7/11/2014. (jth) (Entered: 06/24/2014)	June 24, 2014	June 24, 2014
29	NOTICE re Minute Order of June 11, 2014 by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE re Order,,,,,,,, (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 07/11/2014)	July 11, 2014	July 11, 2014
31	MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/18/2014. (lcabj1)	July 18, 2014	July 18, 2014 RECAP
30	ORDER granting 16 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAIL). Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/18/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 07/18/2014)	July 18, 2014	July 18, 2014
32	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 07/25/2014)	July 25, 2014	July 25, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER granting 32 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File a Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs. It is ORDERED that plaintiff's time in which to file a motion for an award ofattorney's fees and costs is extended until September 5, 2014. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 7/25/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 07/25/2014)	July 25, 2014	July 25, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines: The time in which plaintiff may file a Motion for an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs is extended until 9/5/2014. (jth) (Entered: 07/25/2014)	July 25, 2014	July 25, 2014
33	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order, Redacted Supplemental Hudson Declaration filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 08/01/2014)	Aug. 1, 2014	Aug. 1, 2014
34	Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 09/04/2014)	Sept. 4, 2014	Sept. 4, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER granting 34 Consent Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In light of the consent motion, it is ORDERED that any motion for attorneys' fees and costs is now due on or before September 26, 2104. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/4/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 09/04/2014)	Sept. 4, 2014	Sept. 4, 2014
35	NOTICE of Change of Address by David L. Sobel (Sobel, David) (Entered: 09/10/2014)	Sept. 10, 2014	Sept. 10, 2014
36	Consent MOTION to Stay re Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File, by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 09/23/2014)	Sept. 23, 2014	Sept. 23, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER granting 36 Consent Motion to Stay the Court's September 4 Order on the Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs. In light of the consent motion, it is ORDERED that the deadline to file a petition for an award of attorneys' fees and costs is stayed. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint status report or proposed briefing schedule on or before October 10, 2014, if the issue has not been resolved by that date. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 9/24/2014. (lcabj1) (Entered: 09/24/2014)	Sept. 24, 2014	Sept. 24, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines: If the issue has not been resolved by that date, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report or Proposed Briefing Schedule by 10/10/2014. (jth) (Entered: 09/24/2014)	Sept. 24, 2014	Sept. 24, 2014
37	RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order on Motion to Stay,, filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 10/10/2014)	Oct. 10, 2014	Oct. 10, 2014
	MINUTE ORDER. In light of the jointly proposed schedule submitted by the parties pursuant to the Court's September 24, 2014 Minute Order, it is ORDERED that: Plaintiff's motion for fees is due on or before November 7, 2014. Defendant's opposition is due on or before December 8, 2014. Plaintiff's reply is due on or before December 24, 2014. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 10/10/2014. (lcabj2) (Entered: 10/10/2014)	Oct. 10, 2014	Oct. 10, 2014
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Motion for Fees is due by 11/7/2014; Defendant's Opposition is due by 12/8/2014; Plaintiff's reply is due by 12/24/2014. (jth) (Entered: 10/10/2014)	Oct. 10, 2014	Oct. 10, 2014
38	MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 11/07/2014)	Nov. 7, 2014	Nov. 7, 2014
39	Memorandum in opposition to re 38 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Attachments: # 1 Second Supplemental Hudson Declaration, # 2 Kim Declaration, # 3 Malowane Declaration)(Coleman Snead, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/08/2014)	Dec. 8, 2014	Dec. 8, 2014
40	REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Declaration of David L. Sobel (supplemental), # 5 Declaration of Mark Rumold (supplemental))(Sobel, David) (Entered: 12/22/2014)	Dec. 22, 2014	Dec. 22, 2014
	CASE REFERRED directly to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey for a motion for attorney's fees and costs. (gt, ) (Entered: 02/23/2015)	Feb. 23, 2015	Feb. 23, 2015
41	NOTICE of Appearance by Rodney Patton on behalf of DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 08/21/2015)	Aug. 21, 2015	Aug. 21, 2015
	MINUTE ORDER: It is ORDERED that the parties will provide supplemental briefing regarding the impact, if any, of Eley v. District of Columbia, 793 F.3d 97 (D.C. Cir. 2015), on plaintiffs request for attorneys fees in this case. Plaintiffs brief is due on or before September 10, 2015; defendants response is due on or before September 17, 2015; and plaintiffs reply, if any, is due on or before September 22, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on 09/03/2015. (lcgmh1) (Entered: 09/03/2015)	Sept. 3, 2015	Sept. 3, 2015
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiffs Brief due by 9/10/2015. Defendants Responses due by 9/17/2015. Plaintiffs Replies due by 9/22/2015. (ldc) (Entered: 09/04/2015)	Sept. 4, 2015	Sept. 4, 2015
42	MEMORANDUM re 38 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Colapinto Declaration), # 2 Exhibit B (Davidson Declaration), # 3 Exhibit C (Real Rates Report excerpts))(Sobel, David)	Sept. 10, 2015	Sept. 10, 2015
44	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 38 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Kishore, Deepthy) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015
	MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 44 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Upon consideration of defendant's motion for an extension of time, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant's response to plaintiff's supplemental brief is due on or before September 18, 2015. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due on or before September 23, 2015. No further extensions of time will be granted to either party to submit the supplemental briefing ordered on September 3, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on 09/17/2015. (lcgmh1) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015
	Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's response to plaintiff's supplemental brief is due 09/18/15. Plaintiff's reply due 09/23/15. (ldc) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015
45	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to filed by DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. (Kishore, Deepthy) (Entered: 09/18/2015)	Sept. 18, 2015	Sept. 18, 2015
46	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM to re 38 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Reply) filed by ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Sobel, David) (Entered: 09/23/2015)	Sept. 23, 2015	Sept. 23, 2015
47	MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on 09/30/2015. (lcgmh1)	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 RECAP
48	.Order	Sept. 30, 2015	Sept. 30, 2015 PACER
49	Extension of Time to	Oct. 8, 2015	Oct. 8, 2015 PACER
	Order on Motion for Extension of Time to	Oct. 9, 2015	Oct. 9, 2015 PACER
	Set/Reset Deadlines	Oct. 13, 2015	Oct. 13, 2015 PACER
50	Notice (Other)	Nov. 16, 2015	Nov. 16, 2015 PACER

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory: District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—Foreign Targeting (702, 703, 704)

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 30, 2012

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation based in Massachusetts focused on informing policy makers and the general public about civil liberties issues related to technology and to act as a defender of those liberties.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Non-profit NON-religious organization

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Department of Justice, Federal

Case Details

Causes of Action:

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

Available Documents: