New York Times Company v. Department of the Treasury

Background

The plaintiffs brought this Freedom of Information Act case against the Department of the Treasury. They sought records from January 23, 2017, through the date of the agency’s search, including communications, calendars, attendance records, meeting sign-in sheets, and recoverable deleted records involving specified Treasury personnel. The request covered communications stored on government or personal systems when used for government business.

Treasury’s stated position was that it did not have to process the request because it was so broad that it imposed an unreasonable burden. Treasury also stated that its actions or inactions did not violate the Freedom of Information Act or other statutory or regulatory provisions, that some requested materials might be exempt from disclosure, and that the court lacked jurisdiction over relief beyond what the statute authorizes.

Parties’ Discussions and Proposed Procedure

The parties reported that they were negotiating possible ways to narrow the request and believed further discussions could be productive. They stated that there were no contemplated motions at that time. If the plaintiffs later challenged Treasury’s searches or withholding of records, the parties anticipated resolving the case through summary-judgment motions, which are motions asking the court to rule based on the undisputed record without a trial.

The parties asked not to use the court’s standard case-management plan because, in their view, Freedom of Information Act cases are typically resolved through summary-judgment motions without discovery. They proposed submitting a joint letter on February 7, 2020, containing either a jointly proposed schedule or the parties’ separate scheduling positions.

Court’s Order

Judge Analisa Torres adjourned the initial pretrial conference, originally scheduled for January 8, 2020, to February 11, 2020. The court also required the parties to submit a letter by February 7, 2020, setting out either a jointly proposed schedule or their respective positions regarding a schedule. The text provided does not show a ruling on whether Treasury must disclose the requested records, whether any exemption applies, or whether either side is entitled to judgment on the Freedom of Information Act claims.