Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02590/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-02590-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL

RIGHTS OF THE SAN FRANCISCO 

BAY AREA,

Plaintiff(s), No. C 07-2590 PJH

v. ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT

AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY,

Defendant(s).

_______________________________/

The judgment entered on February 14, 2008, is hereby VACATED and the case

reopened. Pursuant to this court’s February 14, 2008 order on defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, defendant disclosed certain documents and withheld others under

claim of various exemptions. As the posture of this case did not permit defendant to

advance the exemptions previously, the court will permit defendant to do so now. The

court determines, and the parties agree, that no administrative exhaustion or appeal is

necessary. Instead the claim will be resolved as follows.

The parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve plaintiff’s objections to the

redaction of certain documents (numbering fewer than 100) and the validity of defendant’s

claimed exemptions for the de-listing petitions (numbering 346). With respect to the

former, the court expects that personal identifying information may be properly redacted,

but that purely anecdotal or narrative information may not. If the parties are unable to

resolve this part of the dispute, the court will review a small number or a representative

sampling fo the disputed documents in camera. With respect to the de-listing petitions, if

defendant is unable to convince plaintiff as to the validity of the claimed exemptions,

Case 4:07-cv-02590-PJH Document 40 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

defendant will file a motion for summary judgment.

The meet and confer will take place over the next sixty days, until May 28, 2008. if

the dispute regarding the redactions has not been resolved, the parties shall contact the

courtroom clerk of the undersigned to arrange a conference call for the morning of May 30,

2008. If a motion for summary judgment becomes necessary, defendant must file the

motion no later than June 18, 2008, noticed for hearing on July 23, 2008, although the

court is likely to decide it on the papers. Plaintiff’s opposition and defendant’s reply shall be

filed in accordance with the local rules.

With the reopening of the case, the deadline for plaintiff’s motion for an award of

attorneys fees is extended.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2008

______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-02590-PJH Document 40 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 2