Rolling Stone, LLC v. Department of Justice
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-10741
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rolling Stone v. Department of Justice, Judge Liman denied as moot Rolling Stone’s request to require an FBI stay motion because DOJ said it sought no briefing delay.
Rolling Stone, LLC and the Department of Justice, including the FBI as the agency whose filing was at issue.
What happened
Rolling Stone, LLC asked the court to require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to formally request a stay if it wanted to delay the start of summary-judgment briefing beyond December 2024.
Rolling Stone said it was not asking the court to set a processing speed for records or to reject a possible request to process 500 pages per month. The Department of Justice opposed the request and said it was not seeking to delay summary-judgment briefing.
Because the Department of Justice said it was not seeking that delay, the court denied Rolling Stone’s motion as moot. Judge Lewis Liman also asked the Clerk of Court to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Rolling Stone, LLC v. Department of Justice · No. 1:23-cv-10741
- Lewis Liman
- May 31, 2024
Background
Rolling Stone moved by letter brief for an order requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to file a formal motion requesting a stay under Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution Force. A stay would postpone proceedings. Rolling Stone’s request concerned a possible delay in beginning summary-judgment briefing beyond December 2024.
The Parties’ Positions
Rolling Stone said it was not asking the court to order the FBI to process responsive records at a particular rate. It also said it was not asking the court to deny an FBI request to proceed at a rate of 500 pages per month. The Department of Justice opposed the motion and stated that it was not seeking to delay any summary-judgment briefing.
Ruling
The court denied the motion as moot because the Department of Justice said it was not seeking the delay that prompted Rolling Stone’s request. The court also asked the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket Number 25. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute about the responsive records or summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.