The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:24-cv-07370
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
The New York Times Company v. FBI asked Judge Hellerstein to postpone a conference and excuse standard case-planning requirements; no ruling appears.
The New York Times Company, Adam Goldman, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the requests concerned the timing of the initial conference and the parties' case-management and discovery obligations.
What happened
In The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, FBI counsel asked to postpone the initial conference because the lawyer would be traveling, and the plaintiffs agreed to the postponement.
The parties also asked to be excused from initial disclosures, a case-planning conference, a written case-management plan, and a mandatory scheduling order. They said the Freedom of Information Act case would likely be resolved by agreement or by motions for summary judgment without discovery.
The filing does not show that Judge Hellerstein granted or denied any request. It is a request to the court, not an order resolving a motion.
The detailed version
- The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation · No. 1:24-cv-07370
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Jan. 13, 2025
Document and background
The available text is a letter from counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. It states that The New York Times Company and Adam Goldman brought the action under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law governing access to agency records. The letter is dated January 9, 2025, and the filing metadata supplied for this summary gives a filing date of January 13, 2025.
Requests made
FBI counsel asked the court to move the initial conference, then scheduled for January 17, 2025, to a date during the week of January 27 or later because the lawyer would be traveling internationally. The letter states that the plaintiffs consented to that request.
The parties also asked to be excused from several ordinary case-management requirements. They asserted that the action was exempt from initial disclosures and the conference used to prepare a discovery plan under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. They also stated that the action was exempt from a mandatory scheduling order under the Southern District of New York's local rules. Based on those assertions, they asked to be relieved of the requirement in the court's January 7, 2025 order to submit a case-management plan.
The parties further stated that a scheduling order was unnecessary because they expected the case to be resolved either by agreement or through motions for summary judgment, which ask the court to decide a case without a trial when there is no material factual dispute, and without discovery.
Disposition
The available text does not include an order or any ruling by Judge Hellerstein. It therefore does not establish whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise acted on the requests.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.