Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. U.S. Department of…
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. U.S. Department of State
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-03003
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Knight v. U.S. Department of State, Judge Failla adjourned the initial conference and excused the parties from submitting a case-management plan.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence were affected by the postponed conference and the removal of the case-management-plan requirement.
What happened
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. U.S. Department of State is a Freedom of Information Act case involving records sought from three federal agencies. The agencies were still searching for and reviewing potentially responsive records, and the parties were discussing the scope and timing of that process.
The parties jointly asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and to be excused from submitting a proposed case-management plan. They also said that initial disclosures, a scheduling order, and a discovery order were unnecessary at that stage.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the request by adjourning the conference to September 28, 2022, at noon, and relieving the parties of the obligation to submit a proposed case-management plan before the conference. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 20.
The detailed version
- Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. U.S. Department of… · No. 1:22-cv-03003
- Katherine Failla
- Aug. 4, 2022
Background
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University brought this Freedom of Information Act case against the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The plaintiff seeks agency records, including a report concerning President Biden’s proclamation ending discriminatory bans on entry to the United States and other records identified in its request.
The agencies’ searches and reviews were ongoing. The parties reported that State and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence expected to provide initial responses by August 15, 2022, including non-exempt portions of responsive records and, where records were withheld, the Freedom of Information Act exemptions on which the agencies intended to rely. The parties also expected to discuss narrowing the agencies’ further review and setting a schedule after receiving those responses.
The Parties’ Request
The parties jointly requested a one-month adjournment of the initial pretrial conference, which had been scheduled for August 10, 2022. They also asked to be relieved from submitting a proposed case-management plan. They stated that this Freedom of Information Act action was exempt from certain initial-disclosure and scheduling requirements and that a scheduling order was unnecessary because the case might be resolved by agreement or motions for summary judgment.
The parties agreed that a discovery order was unnecessary at that time. They did not consent to conducting all further proceedings before a United States magistrate judge.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla adjourned the initial pretrial conference to September 28, 2022, at 12:00 p.m. The court relieved the parties of their obligation to submit a proposed case-management plan before the conference. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 20.
The order addressed scheduling and pretrial obligations. It did not decide whether the agencies had violated the Freedom of Information Act, whether any records were exempt from disclosure, or whether the plaintiff was entitled to the requested records.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.