Microsoft Corporation v. Internal Revenue Service, 2:15-cv-00369 RSM (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20200319c65
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 18, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 18, 2020
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . The above-captioned actions are for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The parties jointly request that these actions remain open. The parties agree to adopt the following procedures to resolve their outstanding disputes in these actions: 1. The parties agree
Summary: JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . The above-captioned actions are for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. The parties jointly request that these actions remain open. The parties agree to adopt the following procedures to resolve their outstanding disputes in these actions: 1. The parties agree t..
More
JOINT STATUS REPORT AND ORDER REGARDING CASE SCHEDULE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
The above-captioned actions are for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. The parties jointly request that these actions remain open. The parties agree to adopt the following procedures to resolve their outstanding disputes in these actions:
1. The parties agree that the Defendant shall complete a Vaughn index for all records that had been withheld in full based on the 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) exemption. See Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). To the extent that the Defendant previously asserted an alternative basis (other than the 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) exemption) for withholding the record in full, the Defendant need not include the record on the Vaughn index. To the extent that the Defendant takes the position that the record is exempt from disclosure based on an exemption (other than the 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) exemption) that the Defendant did not previously assert, the Defendant will include an entry in the Vaughn index for such record.
2. The parties propose adoption of the following schedule for both FOIA cases:
SCHEDULE
Event Date
Defendant to provide declaration(s)
concerning the adequacy of its search to the Plaintiff August 31, 2020
by:
Defendant to complete Vaughn index and
provide to the Plaintiff by: November 30, 2020
Plaintiff to complete list of challenges to
Defendant's exemption claims on records November 30, 2020
withheld in part and provide to Defendant by:
Plaintiff to identify any remaining outstanding
issues requiring briefing to Defendant by: February 14, 2021
Defendant's motions for summary judgment
(or stipulated dismissals) filed with the Court March 31, 2021
by:
3. Without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to raise additional issues pursuant to the schedule set forth in paragraph 2, the parties presently anticipate that any dispute requiring briefing may be limited to the following issues:
a. Whether records created and/or assembled by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pursuant to its contract with the Defendant for the provision of services, constitute agency records under FOIA.
b. Whether the Defendant conducted an adequate search of the hard drive of Samuel Maruca, Defendant's former Director of Transfer Pricing Operations.
c. Whether the Defendant's handling of Mr. Maruca's hard drive rendered Defendant's search of that hard drive "unreasonable" as to Mr. Maruca's records.
d. Whether the Defendant properly withheld records (in whole or in part) based on a claim that such records were exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).
The parties jointly request that these actions remain open and that the Court enter an order adopting the case schedule proposed in paragraph 2.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of March, 2020.
BAKER & McKENZIE LLP CALFO EAKES & OSTROVSKY LLP
By: Daniel A. Rosen By: Patricia A. Eakes
Daniel A. Rosen, NYBA #2790442 By: Andrea D. Ostrovsky
Pro Hac Vice Patricia A. Eakes, WSBA #18888
452 Fifth Avenue Andrea D. Ostrovsky WSBA #37749
New York, NY 10018 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Tel: (212) 626-4272 Seattle, WA 98101
Fax: (212) 310-1600 Tel: (206) 407-2200
Email: daniel.rosen@bakermckenzie.com Fax: (206) 407-2224
Email: pattye@calfoeakes.com
andreao@calfoeakes.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
By: Richard J. Hagerman
Richard J. Hagerman
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 616-9832
Fax: (202) 514-6866
Email: richard.j.hagerman@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant Internal Revenue Service
ORDER
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
