Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

SHAH v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 2:14-cv-00624-GMN-NJK. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20140714a78 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2014
Summary: JOINT MOTION TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge. Pursuant to Local Rule 16-1(c)(1), Plaintiff Mane Shah and Defendant Department of Justice, jointly move for entry of the following order establishing a Briefing Schedule. This action is filed pursuant to and is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701-706, therefore: 1. Within fourteen (14) days after entry of this order Defendant shall file with the Court in nonelectronic form, one copy of th
More

JOINT MOTION TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE

NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Local Rule 16-1(c)(1), Plaintiff Mane Shah and Defendant Department of Justice, jointly move for entry of the following order establishing a Briefing Schedule. This action is filed pursuant to and is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, therefore:

1. Within fourteen (14) days after entry of this order Defendant shall file with the Court in nonelectronic form, one copy of the administrative record of the decision at issue in this matter. Defendant will also provide one copy of the administrative record to Plaintiff. principal brief in the form of a motion for summary judgment.

3. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of Plaintiff's brief, Defendant shall file a brief in opposition which will be deemed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

4. Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant's opposition no later thirty (30) days after the filing of Defendant's opposition.

In support of the motion, Plaintiff and Defendant submit the following:

1. This action seeks judicial review of the Department of Justice's denial of a request for information pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 et seq. Plaintiff is the defendant in a state court criminal proceeding in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, Case No. C-13-292772-1, before the Honorable Judge Jerome Tao. Plaintiff, a physician, faces criminal charges related to allegations made by an elderly patient, including one count of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, and two counts of open or gross lewdness.

2. On January 10, 2013, Plaintiff took a polygraph test administered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"), which is part of the Department of Justice. The State of Nevada provided Plaintiff with a copy of a report from the FBI's polygraph examination. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a request pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.22 for the raw polygraph data, charts, and graphs underlying the report from the FBI. On March 28, 2014, the United States Attorney for the District of Nevada informed Plaintiff that the Department of Justice would not produce the raw polygraph data because it is privileged information pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 16.26(b)(5), and requested that Plaintiff withdraw his request. Instead, Plaintiff filed this action on April 23, 2014, challenging the United States Attorney's decision.

3. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that the scope of the Court's review of that decision is governed by 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, that no discovery is required in this action, and that it may proceed on a review of the administrative record for the Department of Justice's March 28, 2014 decision to deny Plaintiff's March 10, 2014 request.

ORDER

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