The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:21-cv-10534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Judge Caproni postponed the February 11 conference, excused the case plan, and ordered a March 4 status report.
The plaintiffs, the FBI, and the court’s schedule were affected: the February 11, 2022 initial pretrial conference was postponed without a new date, the case-management-plan requirement was deferred, and a joint status update was required by March 4, 2022.
What happened
The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation is a Freedom of Information Act case about the New York Times plaintiffs’ request for FBI records from 1968 through 1972 concerning the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program.
The parties reported that they were discussing practical ways to search largely paper records and asked to avoid a case-management plan and initial pretrial conference because the case was expected to proceed through agreement or summary-judgment motions rather than ordinary discovery. The court granted the application, postponed the February 11 conference without setting a new date, relieved the parties of the case-management-plan requirement for now, and required a joint status update of no more than five pages by March 4, 2022.
Judge Valerie E. Caproni’s order addressed scheduling only. It did not decide whether the FBI’s searches were adequate or whether the withheld information was protected by a Freedom of Information Act exemption.
The detailed version
- The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau of Investigation · No. 1:21-cv-10534
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 26, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs brought an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a federal law that generally provides access to agency records. They requested FBI records dating from 1968 to 1972 concerning the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program. The parties identified two central issues: whether the FBI had conducted adequate searches for responsive records and whether any withheld information qualified for one or more FOIA exemptions.
The FBI reported that records from the relevant period were generally stored on paper rather than electronically and therefore could not ordinarily be searched by text. The FBI had limited electronic indexes for those paper records. The parties were discussing feasible searches, including searches connected to specific individuals.
Requests and ruling
The parties jointly asked the court to relieve them of the obligation to file a civil case-management plan and to postpone the initial pretrial conference. They explained that FOIA cases generally do not involve ordinary civil discovery and are commonly resolved through agreement or cross-motions for summary judgment based on agency declarations.
The court granted the application. It postponed the initial pretrial conference scheduled for February 11, 2022, without setting a new date. It also relieved the parties of the obligation to submit a case-management plan at that time and ordered them to submit a joint status update of no more than five pages by March 4, 2022.
What the order did not decide
The order did not decide whether the FBI’s searches were adequate, whether any records were improperly withheld, or whether any FOIA exemption applied. It was a scheduling and case-management order rather than a ruling on the FOIA claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.