On November 18, 2014, plaintiffs, the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic, which provides no-cost civil legal services, and ABLE, a non-profit legal assistance firm, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the Freedom of Information ...
read more >
On November 18, 2014, plaintiffs, the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law Civil Clinic, which provides no-cost civil legal services, and ABLE, a non-profit legal assistance firm, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. §552, against U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant had failed to deliver records regarding the "Sandusky Bay Border Patrol's practices and procedures related to racial profiling" within statutory deadlines imposed under FOIA.
On January 29, 2015, defendant moved to change venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on the grounds that defendant had been litigating the Muñiz-Muñiz case in the Northern District of Ohio, and information related to the plaintiff's FOIA request was filed under seal subject to a protective order for that case. Judge Gregory L. Frost found in favor of the defendant, and ordered the venue change on April 28, 2015. 2015 WL 1928736.
Over the following months, the parties discussed and outlined a plan for phased production of documents responsive to the plaintiffs' FOIA request. Judge Jack Zouhary ordered implementation of the plan on July 24, 2015. The plan narrowed the original request of the plaintiffs, separated document production into three phrases, and required that the government provide status reports to the Court at the end of each phase.
On February 24, 2016, the parties jointly moved to have the court determine whether the defendants were able to redact various information including dates, entry landmarks, arrest landmarks, and codes used to decipher landmarks under FOIA exemption 7(E), which exempts disclosure of techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations. On June 1, 2016, the court ordered that the defendant was required to disclose date information but found the landmark information properly redacted.
Production was completed on July 22, 2016, and the parties jointly moved for dismissal with parties bearing their own costs on July 27, 2016. The case was dismissed on July 28, 2016.
Cade Boland - 02/10/2018
compress summary
