Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice, 16-cv-02041-HSG. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20161205919 Visitors: 10
Filed: Dec. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, Jr. , District Judge . The parties the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate and respectfully request the Court enter an order reflecting the following: 1. The parties have reached an agreement concerning the processing of EFF's March 7, 2016 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for "significant" opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FIS
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER

The parties the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), by and through undersigned counsel, stipulate and respectfully request the Court enter an order reflecting the following:

1. The parties have reached an agreement concerning the processing of EFF's March 7, 2016 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for "significant" opinions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC"). EFF has agreed to narrow the scope of its initial request, and DOJ has agreed to process and respond to the narrowed request.

2. Specifically, EFF has agreed to narrow the scope of part one of its initial request from any decision, order, or opinion issued by the FISC or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISC-R") issued from 1978 to June 1, 2015, that includes a significant construction or interpretation of any provision of law, including any novel or significant construction or interpretation of the term "specific selection term," to all decisions, orders, or opinions of the FISC or the FISC-R submitted to Congress by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 6002 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (50 U.S.C. section 1871(a)(5)); 50 U.S.C. sections 1871(c)(1) & (2); and 50 U.S.C. section 1881f(b)(1)(D) between July 1, 2003 and June 1, 2015, which have not been previously declassified and made public (to include those decisions, orders, or opinions previously identified by the Department of Justice to the Brennan Center,https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/The_New_Era_of_Secret_Law.pdf), that remain classified. DOJ has agreed to process and respond to the narrowed request.

3. The parties are currently in the midst of briefing cross-motions for partial summary judgment. See ECF Nos. 29, 32. One issue in dispute was the propriety of EFF's March 7 FOIA request and DOJ's determination that it would not process the request. The parties' agreement on the narrowed request effectively resolves that dispute.

4. Two deadlines related to the parties' cross-motions currently remain on the Court's upcoming calendar. EFF's reply brief in support of its motion for partial summary judgment is currently due December 1, 2016. The hearing on the parties' cross-motions is currently scheduled for December 15, 2016.1

5. In light of the agreement concerning the narrowed request, the parties accordingly agree that further briefing in this matter should be stayed, and the current hearing date on the parties' cross-motions vacated, to allow DOJ time to begin to process the narrowed request and for the parties to continue to discuss the progress and timing of the litigation.

6. Despite agreement on the narrowed request, the parties still anticipate that further motions practice will likely be necessary on some issues in order to resolve the case. The parties do not know which issues those are at this stage, however. In the meantime, the parties agree to continue to work in good faith to resolve outstanding issues in the litigation, including issues related to the timing, production, and processing of responsive records, and the scope and timing of future motions practice.

7. The parties further propose to file a joint status report on December 15, 2016, and another joint status report on January 30, 2017, to apprise the Court of the progress of the parties' discussions; the processing of responsive FISC opinions; and the parties' need, if any, to set future briefing schedules, hearing dates, or to request other assistance from the Court.

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 5-1(I)(3)

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), I, Mark Rumold, declare that I obtained the concurrence of Rodney Patton, counsel for Defendant, United States Department of Justice, in the filing of this document.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 1st day of December, 2016 in San Francisco, CA.

Upon consideration of the parties' stipulation, it is:

ORDERED that further briefing on the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, including the filing of Plaintiff's Reply, is STAYED; and it is

ORDERED that the hearing on the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment on December 15, 2016 is VACATED; and it is

ORDERED that the parties submit a joint status report on December 15, 2016, and another joint status report on January 30, 2017, describing the progress of the parties' discussions; the processing of responsive FISC opinions; and the parties' need, if any, to set future briefing schedules, hearing dates, or to request other assistance from the Court.

FootNotes


1. Additionally, the parties' anticipated filing a Joint Status Report on December 7, 2016, concerning a separate FOIA request at issue in the case that was not subject to the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment. See Joint Status Report, ¶ 5 (ECF No. 34). The parties believe they have already reached substantial agreement on that request and report that additional briefing related to that request will be unnecessary.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer