Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03240/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03240-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Defendant
Seth Rosenfeld
Plaintiff
United States Department of Justice
Defendant

Document Text:

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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP

DAVID A. GREENE (CSBN 160107)

First Amendment Project

California Building

1736 Franklin Street, Ninth Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Telephone: (510) 208-7744

Facsimile: (510) 208-4562

E-mail: dgreene@thefirstamendment.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO (CSBN 44332)

United States Attorney

JOANN M. SWANSON (CSBN 88143)

Chief, Civil Division

ELLEN M. FITZGERALD (NY 2408805)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7314

Facsimile: (415) 436-6748

E-mail: ellen.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SETH ROSENFELD, 

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE, and UNITED STATES

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-3240 MHP

(Related: Nos. C 90-3576 MHP, C 85-1709

MHP, and C 85-2247 MHP)

JOINT MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL

PRETRIAL MINUTES AND

STIPULATION TO MODIFY

BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

[AND PROPOSED ORDER]

Plaintiff, Seth Rosenfeld, and defendants, the United States Department of Justice and the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel,

hereby jointly move pursuant to Rules 6-2 and 7-12 of the Civil Local Rules for the United

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 1 of 6
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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP 2

States District Court for the Northern District of California for clarification of the Civil Pretrial

Minutes, filed on February 26, 2008 (“Civil Pretrial Minutes”), and stipulate and jointly move

for a modification of the schedule for the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment.

This is an action arising under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552

(“FOIA”). By his complaint, plaintiff, Seth Rosenfeld, alleges that defendants have improperly

withheld records responsive to certain specified FOIA requests. The FOIA requests, dated from

July 2004 to October 2006, seek the production of any and all records concerning the following

subjects: former President Ronald Reagan, Herbert Ellingwood, Alex Sherriffs, Roy M. Brewer,

Neil Reagan, the “80" Files, the Motion Picture Industry Council, the Labor League of

Hollywood Voters, and the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals.

I. Clarification of the Contents of the Civil Pretrial Minutes

At the case management conference on February 25, 2008, the Court directed defendants

to complete the processing of all records responsive to plaintiff’s requests and release the records

on or before April 11, 2008. 

The Civil Pretrial Minutes filed after the Case Management Conference provide, in

pertinent part, as follows:

Underlying claims discussed; Plaintiff to provide rule 26 disclosures not later than

4/11/2008; Vaughn index to be provided not later than 4/28/2008; . . .

The parties agree that the Minutes erroneously indicate “Plaintiff” instead of

“Defendant.” The parties also agree that at the hearing, the Court ordered Defendants to

complete the processing of all records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests and release the records

on or before April 11, 2008, and to release the Vaughn index by April 28, 2008.

However, the parties disagree as to what the Court meant by “rule 26 disclosures.” 

Plaintiff’s counsel stated at the Conference that plaintiff’s summary judgment motion

was likely to focus on the adequacy of defendant’s searches for responsive records; the search

slips produced by defendants during the course of the searches thus would be a required

disclosure pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff maintains that the

Court agreed with this assertion and directed Defendants to produce the search slips. Plaintiff

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 2 of 6
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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP 3

thus maintains that the Civil Trial Minutes should read: “Defendants to provide rule 26

disclosures (i.e., the search slips) and all records responsive to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests by April

11, 2008.” 

Defendants state that they objected to the production of the search slips because they

were created after the date defendants’ search for records began, and thus they are not responsive

to plaintiff’s requests. See 28 C.F.R. § 16.4(a) (providing notice of the “date-of-search cut-off”

that the Justice Department uses).

Defendants further state that discovery in this action should take place, if at all, only after

defendants have moved for summary judgment and submitted affidavits and a memorandum of

law, which will contain evidentiary proof. See, e.g., Miscavige v. IRS, 2 F.3d 366, 369 (11th

Cir. 1993)(discovery inappropriate until government has had chance to provide court with

information necessary to make decision); Simmons v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 766 F.2d 709, 711-

12 (4th Cir. 1986)(approving district court’s decision denying discovery because agency

affidavit filed with summary judgment motion made need for discovery “moot”). Discovery is

the exception in FOIA actions. Wheeler v. CIA, 271 F.Supp.2d 132, 139 (D.D.C.

3003)(“Discovery is generally unavailable in FOIA actions.”).

Plaintiff responds that he is only seeking the disclosures required by Rule 26(a), not, at

this time, the discovery pursuant to Rule 26(b). Nor does Plaintiff maintain, for the purposes of

this proceeding, that the search slips are themselves responsive to his FOIA requests, although

Plaintiff does not waive his right to have that issue adjudicated, if necessary, in a future

proceeding. The search slips are, however, as stated at the Case Management Conference,

required disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a).

The parties jointly seek clarification from the Court of the contents of the Civil Pretrial

Minutes. 

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 3 of 6
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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP 4

II. Stipulation to Modify the Schedule for Filing of Cross-Motions for 

Summary Judgment 

Because of the amount of responsive records (approximately 4,449 pages), the

requirements of the Ninth Circuit’s detailed narrative Vaughn index (which make preparation of

the index an exceedingly time-consuming task), and defendants’ current resource constraints

(defendants have, at most,13 employees who are sufficiently trained and skilled to be able to

prepare the Vaughn index while also addressing over 100 other active FOIA or Privacy Act

actions nationwide), it is physically impossible for defendants to prepare a complete narrative

Vaughn index on or before the Court’s April 28, 2008 deadline. 

As an alternative, the parties jointly propose the following: they will file cross-motions

for summary judgment on all issues except the issue of the applicability of the asserted FOIA

exemptions on or before June 2, 2008, in accordance with the Court’s order. The provision of the

Vaughn index and summary adjudication of the exemption issues would thus be preserved for

later dates to be determined after the Court issues its ruling on the initial cross-motions for

summary judgment. This proposed arrangement will ensure a more complete Vaughn index: an

index prepared after the Court issues its decision on the cross-motions might include records

produced as a result of the Court’s ruling.

The parties therefore stipulate and jointly request that the deadline by which defendants

will provide a narrative Vaughn index be re-set after the parties have filed their cross-motions

for summary judgment on all disputed issues except exemption issues, and the Court has issued

its decision with respect to the cross-motions. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 4 of 6
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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP 5

For the foregoing reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court clarify the

content of the Civil Pretrial Minutes and grant the parties stipulation and joint motion to modify

the schedule for filing of summary judgment motions. 

Dated: April 7, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT

By: /s/ DAVID A. GREENE

Attorney for Plaintiff

JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO

United States Attorney

By: /s/ 

ELLEN M. FITZGERALD

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendants

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 5 of 6
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

JOINT MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CIVIL PRETRIAL MINUTES AND STIPULATION 

TO MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE [AND PROPOSED ORDER]

No. C 07-03240 MHP 6

[PROPOSED] ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties will serve crossmotions for summary judgment on all issues except for the issue of the applicability of asserted

exemptions to FOIA on or before June 2, 2008.

The Civil Pretrial Minutes, filed on February 26, 2008, are hereby changed to reflect the

following order of this Court:

Dated: April ___, 2008 ___________________________

HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

 United States District Judge

All Rule 26(a) disclosures shall be made pursuant to this court's standing order and other orders including all search slips up to and including the date upon which Rule 26(a) disclosures are made. May 6

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:07-cv-03240-EMC Document 26 Filed 05/06/08 Page 6 of 6