This lawsuit is a result of a consolidation of two separate cases.
On January 19, 2006, Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EIPC) first filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5. U.S.C § 552 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On February 7, 2006, American Civil Liberties Union and American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “the ACLU”) and the National Security Archive Fund filed a complaint against DOJ under FOIA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. All plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, seeking the immediate release of records requested by the plaintiffs from DOJ, which dealt with the
NSA’s secret surveillance program to intercept, without prior judicial authorization, the telephone and Internet communications of people inside the United States.
The two cases were consolidated on February 9, 2016. See
this Order.
On February 16, 2006, the district court (Judge H. Kennedy, Jr.) granted EPIC’s motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered the defendant to complete the processing of EPIC’s December 16, 2005 FOIA requests and produce or identify all responsive records within 20 days of the date of this order.
416 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2006).
The defendant filed a motion to stay the district court’s order, which was granted on March 7, 2006.
On September 15, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On October 13, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion.
On September 5, 2007, Judge Kennedy ordered that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denied in part, and held in abeyance in part, and that the plaintiffs’ motion for in camera review must be denied without prejudice. For the documents that must be released, the defendant must submit to the court a detailed, document-by-document Vaughn index and declarations justifying the various departments’ withholding decisions.
511 F.Supp.2d 56 (D.D.C. 2007) .
On October 19, 2007, the defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment. In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition to the second motion.
On October 31, 2008, Judge Kennedy concluded that the defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment must be granted in part and denied in part, and that plaintiffs' renewed motion for in camera review must be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Kennedy ordered the defendant to submit ten memoranda of the Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) to the court for in camera review to determine the propriety of the DOJ’s withholding of those documents. See
584 F.Supp.2d 65 (D.D.C. 2008).
Litigation continued and on January 14, 2011, the parties jointly stipulated that the defendant would review the OLC memoranda as ordered by the court and disclose any segregable portions. On March 24, 2011, the defendant submitted to the court the portions of two OLC documents.
This case was reassigned to Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
On March 31, 2014, Judge Lamberth granted the defendant’s second motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the defendant properly decided to withhold ten records under Exemptions One, Three and Five, as each record contains confidential, legal advice protected by attorney-client communications privilege. 2014 WL 1279280.
This case was dismissed with prejudice.
Susie Choi - 04/01/2017
compress summary
