MacDougal v. U.S. Department of Justice
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-01574
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In MacDougal v. U.S. Department of Justice, Judge Liman granted the parties’ scheduling request in this Freedom of Information Act case.
Ian MacDougall and the U.S. Department of Justice; the order changed the case schedule and pretrial requirements but did not decide the Freedom of Information Act dispute.
What happened
MacDougal v. U.S. Department of Justice concerns Ian MacDougall’s request for records about real property subject to forfeiture in the Justice Management Division’s tracking system.
The Department of Justice was determining how long it would need to process the request, and the parties proposed submitting a status letter instead of a case management plan. They also anticipated that any legal dispute could be resolved through written motions without discovery.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the request, required a joint letter by April 10, 2020, adjourned the conference to April 14, 2020, and excused the parties from submitting a case management plan.
The detailed version
- MacDougal v. U.S. Department of Justice · No. 1:20-cv-01574
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 10, 2020
Background
Ian MacDougall filed this Freedom of Information Act case seeking records from the Department of Justice’s Justice Management Division about real property subject to forfeiture in the Consolidated Asset Tracking System.
The parties told the court that the agency was determining how much time it would need to process the request and expected to propose a response schedule by April 10, 2020. They asked to adjourn the initial pretrial conference, submit a joint status letter instead of the proposed case management plan and scheduling order, and address any necessary legal issues through cross-motions for summary judgment without discovery.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the request. The parties were ordered to submit a joint letter by April 10, 2020. The conference scheduled for March 17, 2020, was adjourned until April 14, 2020, at 3:30 p.m., and the parties were not required to submit a case management plan. The opinion does not decide whether the requested records must be disclosed or resolve any other merits issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.