The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-00833
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Judge Engelmayer granted a stay until December 6, 2020, in the FOIA case.
The New York Times Company and the Federal Bureau of Prisons were affected by the pause in the case and the new reporting deadline. The order also concerned the processing of records held by the Office of the Inspector General.
What happened
The New York Times Company sued the Federal Bureau of Prisons under the Freedom of Information Act for records related to Jeffrey Epstein. The Times had made four records requests, and the parties were litigating whether the Bureau’s search was adequate.
The Bureau asked for a two-month pause so the Office of the Inspector General could provide electronic copies of records previously given to it. The Bureau would review and process any responsive records that had not already been handled under the records law. The Times agreed to the pause.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the stay until December 6, 2020. He also ordered the Bureau to file a status report by November 6, 2020, about whether it could complete its briefing on the pending summary-judgment motions without further delay. The order did not decide whether the records had to be released.
The detailed version
- The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · No. 1:20-cv-00833
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 7, 2020
Background
The New York Times Company brought this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) action against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), seeking records related to Jeffrey Epstein. The Times submitted four FOIA requests. Two requests, sent by email on August 13, 2019, sought 20 categories of documents.
In connection with an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), BOP had provided OIG a substantial volume of records on or about August 22, 2019. In pending summary-judgment briefing, the Times challenged the adequacy of BOP’s search, arguing that FOIA requires an agency to produce records under its control when the request is made.
Request for a Stay
BOP asked the court to pause the case for two months and adjust the remaining briefing deadlines. The parties agreed that OIG would provide BOP electronic copies of the records BOP had previously provided to OIG. BOP would then determine which records were responsive, identify records already processed under FOIA, and process any responsive records that had not already been processed. BOP proposed filing supplemental declarations concerning any additional withholdings in its reply and opposition papers.
The parties’ proposed approach was intended to address the search issue without additional litigation and to allow the parties to brief the withholding issues in one round rather than piecemeal. The Times consented to the stay request.
Court’s Ruling
The court applied the factors generally used to decide whether to stay a case, including the parties’ interests, the burden on the defendant, judicial efficiency, the interests of nonparties, and the public interest. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer found that those interests favored a stay because BOP needed time to review and process the records, and a stay could conserve judicial resources by allowing the withholding issues to be addressed together.
The court granted a stay until December 6, 2020. It ordered BOP to file a status report by November 6, 2020, stating whether it would be prepared to complete its briefing on the pending summary-judgment motions without further delay. The order addressed scheduling and case management; it did not decide the adequacy of BOP’s search, the lawfulness of any withholding, or whether the requested records had to be released.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.