The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-00562
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Woods granted in part a joint request to stay proceedings until April 30, 2025.
The New York Times Company, Charlie Savage, and the United States Department of Justice; the order pauses their case, sets a status-report deadline, and postpones the initial pretrial conference.
What happened
The New York Times Company and reporter Charlie Savage sued the United States Department of Justice under the Freedom of Information Act over access to the second volume of the Smith Report. The Times had requested expedited processing, and the Department later denied access, citing a Florida federal court injunction and a statutory exemption.
The parties jointly asked to pause the case while The Times pursued an administrative appeal of that denial. They did not ask the court to decide whether The Times could challenge the denial before completing that appeal.
In The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Woods granted in part the stay request and stayed the case until April 30, 2025. He ordered a joint status letter by April 14, 2025, adjourned the February 18 initial conference without setting a new date, and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice · No. 1:25-cv-00562
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 12, 2025
Background
The New York Times Company and its reporter, Charlie Savage, brought this Freedom of Information Act case against the United States Department of Justice. The case concerns the second volume of a report prepared by former Special Counsel Jack Smith, titled “Report on Mishandling of Classified Documents.” The first volume had been publicly released, but the second volume had not.
The Times submitted a records request on January 8, 2025, and resubmitted it two days later seeking expedited processing. It filed the complaint on January 21, alleging that the Department had not acted on the expedited-processing request within the required time. The Department later granted expedited processing on January 24. On February 5, it denied access to the second volume, citing an injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and Freedom of Information Act Exemption 7(A).
The Parties’ Request
The Times planned to submit an administrative appeal challenging the denial. The parties jointly asked the court to stay, or pause, the case while that appeal was resolved. They did not ask the court to decide whether The Times could challenge the denial in this proceeding before exhausting its administrative remedies. The parties proposed deadlines for the appeal, a possible amended complaint, an answer, and a joint status report.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application granted in part.” It granted the parties’ February 11, 2025 request to stay the case and stayed the case until April 30, 2025. The parties were directed to file a joint status letter by April 14, 2025 addressing the status of the administrative appeal and proposed next steps.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also adjourned the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 18, 2025 without setting a new date and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at Docket Number 11. The order did not resolve the administrative-exhaustion issue or the merits of The Times’s request for the report.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.