Case Name: The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Charlie Savage, Scott Shane, American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, United States Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-10
Citations: 756 F.3d 96
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 13-422 (L), 13-445 (Con.)
Parties: The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Charlie Savage, Scott Shane, American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, United States Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 756
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
The NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Charlie Savage, Scott Shane, American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, United States Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, Defendants-Appellees.
Docket Nos. 13-422 (L), 13-445 (Con.).
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
June 10, 2014.
David Edward McCraw, Esq., The New York Times, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Sarah Sheive Normand, United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, Matthew M. Collette, Sharon Swingle, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Opinion:
PRESENT: JON 0. NEWMAN, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, ROSEMARY S. POOLER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
On June 9, 2014, in connection with the Appellees' petition for rehearing, filed June 5, 2014, the Court submitted to the Appellees ex parte and in camera a proposed opinion with respect to the rehearing petition and a proposed revised version of the Court's April 21 public opinion. The proposed opinion on the rehearing petition (1) bifurcated the issues concerning disclosure of the OLC-DOD Memorandum and the petition's request for relief with respect to the Vaughn index, (2) granted the petition for rehearing to the extent that it requested further deletions from the OLC-DOD Memorandum, (3) advised that a revision of the Court's April 21 public opinion with a redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum would be filed the same day as the opinion with respect to the rehearing petition was filed, and (4) deferred decision with respect to the Ap-pellees' request for relief with respect to the Vaughn index.
On May 28, 2014, the Court issued an order stating, among other things, that the parties would be notified by 5 p.m. Friday, June 6, 2014, whether oral argument on the Government's petition for rehearing would be scheduled on Monday, June 9, 2014. On June 6, 2014, we further advised (in a corrected order) that the parties will be notified by 5 p.m. Friday, June 13, 2014, whether oral argument on the Government's petition for rehearing will be scheduled for Monday, June 23, 2014.
We now direct the Appellees to notify the Court by noon on Friday, June 20, 2014, whether it has any objection to the filing of the proposed opinion on the rehearing petition and the proposed revision of the Court's April 21 public opinion including the redacted OLC-DOD Memorandum. If no objection is received, the Court will file the proposed opinion on the rehearing petition and the proposed revision of the Court's April 21 public opinion including the redacted OLC-DOD Memorandum on Monday, June 23. If timely objection is received, it must be set forth with specificity, and oral argument on the petition for rehearing will be scheduled at 2 p.m. Monday, June 23, limited to issues concerning filing of the proposed opinion on the rehearing petition and filing of the proposed revision of the Court's April 21 public opinion with the redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum.