Brennan Center For Justice At New York University School Of Law v. U.S…
Brennan Center For Justice At New York University School Of Law v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:22-cv-07038
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brennan Center v. DHS, Judge McMahon received the parties’ request to pause scheduling while DHS and ICE searched and produced records; no ruling appears.
The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are affected by the requested changes to scheduling and case management.
What happened
Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Freedom of Information Act. The parties said DHS was searching for records and ICE had begun reviewing and producing responsive, non-exempt records.
The parties jointly asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference indefinitely, excuse them from filing a case-management plan and scheduling order, and allow them to file a status report on January 31, 2023. They said the case might be resolved without further court involvement and would likely be handled through motions asking for judgment based on the records and agency declarations.
The provided document is a letter requesting scheduling relief, not a court ruling. Judge McMahon’s document does not state that she granted or denied the requests.
The detailed version
- Brennan Center For Justice At New York University School Of Law v. U.S… · No. 1:22-cv-07038
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 3, 2023
Document and background
The provided text is a letter from Assistant United States Attorney Anthony J. Sun, on behalf of the defendants, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It concerns an action brought by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law governing access to agency records.
Parties’ requests
The parties jointly asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference scheduled for January 5, 2023, without setting a new date. They also asked to be relieved of the obligation to file a case-management plan and scheduling order. The letter states that a local court rule exempts Freedom of Information Act cases from the mandatory scheduling-order requirement.
The parties further asked the court to permit a status report on January 31, 2023, describing their progress and stating whether a conference would be necessary. They said DHS was conducting searches, ICE had begun reviewing and producing responsive, non-exempt records, and the parties were discussing potential issues.
Expected procedure
The letter states that no discovery schedule was needed at that time because the parties expected the case to be resolved through cross-motions for summary judgment after the search and production process. Summary judgment is a procedure for resolving a case based on the submitted evidence when the relevant facts do not require a trial. The letter also cites authority stating that discovery about an agency’s search and claimed exemptions is generally unnecessary when the agency’s submissions are adequate on their face.
Ruling and classification
The provided text does not contain an order by Judge Colleen McMahon granting or denying any request. It is a party letter seeking scheduling relief and reporting on the parties’ discussions. Because no ruling appears in the provided text, this document is classified as other.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.