Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BOTHWELL v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, C 13-05439 JSC. (2015)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20150701c30 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 30, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 30, 2015
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Anthony P.X. Bothwell, and Defendant, the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA" or "Agency"), respectfully submit this joint status update as to how the case should proceed in light of the Court's Order of June 4, 2015, which granted in part and denied in part the CIA's renewed motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46). The parties report as follows: 1. In this case arising under the Freedom
More

JOINT STATUS REPORT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Plaintiff, Anthony P.X. Bothwell, and Defendant, the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA" or "Agency"), respectfully submit this joint status update as to how the case should proceed in light of the Court's Order of June 4, 2015, which granted in part and denied in part the CIA's renewed motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46). The parties report as follows:

1. In this case arising under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, Plaintiff challenges the CIA's responses to two FOIA requests that he submitted in 2009 seeking certain records pertaining to five individuals allegedly connected to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4.

2. On October 9, 2014, the Court issued an order granting in part and deferring in part the CIA's motion for summary judgment. The Court found that the CIA properly issued a Glomar response in response to Plaintiff's request for records concerning "Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a. Michel in response to Plaintiff's request for records concerning "Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a Michel Mertz" under FOIA Exemption 3, and granted summary judgment in favor on the CIA on this issue. Bothwell v. CIA, No. 13-cv-05439-JSC, 2014 WL 5077186, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2014). The Court otherwise deferred judgment on whether the CIA's search for responsive documents was adequate,

3. Following the parties' submission of supplemental briefing and evidence on the CIA's renewed motion for summary judgment, the Court issued an Order on June 4, 2015, granting in part and denying in part the CIA's renewed motion. ECF No. 46. The Court found that the CIA's search was adequate, except for its search for documents generated in July 1976 regarding Johnny Roselli. See id. at 16. The Court concluded that the Roselli documents fell within 50 U.S.C. § 3141(c), which required the CIA to search operational files. See id.

4. The parties have conferred as to how this case should proceed in light of the Court's Order of June 4, 2015. The parties agree that the CIA will, by July 27, 2015, complete a search of operational files that is reasonably calculated to uncover records responsive to Plaintiff's request for "[a]ll records within the possession, custody, or control of the CIA, generated in July 1976 that relate to Johnny ROSELLI, a.k.a. John ROSELLI, a.k.a. Filippo SACCO." By July 27, 2015, the CIA will file a declaration describing its search. Should any responsive records be located, the CIA will produce to Plaintiff all non-exempt responsive records and address through its declaration or a Vaughn index the basis for withholding in whole or in part any responsive records subject to a FOIA exemption.

5. By August 17, 2015, the parties will file a further joint status update advising the Court as to whether any further proceedings remain necessary in this case.

*I, Michelle Lo, attest that I have obtained concurrence in the filing of this document from Plaintiff Anthony P.X. Bothwell

Pursuant to the parties' joint status report, the parties' proposed schedule is approved. Defendant shall file by July 27, 2015, a declaration describing its search of operational files reasonably calculated to uncover records responsive to Plaintiff's request for July 1976 records pertaining to Roselli, and produce to Plaintiff any non-exempt responsive records and/or address through its declaration or a index the basis for withholding in whole or in part any responsive records subject to a FOIA exemption. By August 17, 2015, the parties are to file a further joint status update advising the Court as to whether any further proceedings remain necessary in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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