Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel v. United States Department of…
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, LLP v. United States Department of Justice
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:20-cv-09917
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Emery Celli v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Hellerstein found a stay unnecessary and ordered joint updates and a conference.
The plaintiff and the Department of Justice defendants must jointly report the case status by June 1, 2021, and appear for the court conference on June 18, 2021. The order did not resolve the underlying records-disclosure dispute.
What happened
Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel, LLP v. United States Department of Justice is a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law requiring disclosure of government records. The Government said it had located 279 potentially responsive pages and had produced most of them.
The parties asked the court to pause the case because additional records might relate to an ongoing investigation. The Government said it had produced 240 pages in full, 31 pages in part, and withheld 8 pages under specified Freedom of Information Act exemptions.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein found a stay unnecessary because the parties agreed to postpone production. He ordered the parties to file a joint status report by June 1, 2021, and set a conference for June 18, 2021.
The detailed version
- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel v. United States Department of… · No. 1:20-cv-09917
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Apr. 2, 2021
Background
This Freedom of Information Act case was pending in the Southern District of New York. The Government answered the complaint on January 15, 2021. In a joint request submitted on behalf of both parties, the Government reported that it had searched for and located 279 pages that might respond to the request.
The Government stated that it had produced 240 pages in full and 31 pages in part. It withheld 8 pages in full under Freedom of Information Act Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E). The Government also said that additional responsive, non-exempt records might exist, but that those records could involve an ongoing investigation.
Requested Stay
The parties asked the court to stay, or pause, the litigation until the investigation ended. They stated that a stay could allow the Government to determine whether additional records were responsive and whether those records could be released or withheld under applicable exemptions. They also said the pause could narrow the issues and clarify whether motion practice would be needed.
Ruling
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein did not impose the requested stay. The order states that, because the plaintiff and defendant agreed to postpone production, a stay was unnecessary. The court ordered the parties to jointly report the status of the proceedings by June 1, 2021, and directed them to appear for a conference on June 18, 2021, at 10:00 a.m. The order did not decide whether any additional records had to be disclosed or whether the Government properly relied on the cited exemptions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.