The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Defense
- Denise Cote
- 1:22-cv-09481
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Defense, Judge Cote received a joint update seeking more time; the letter reports ongoing FOIA processing, not a ruling.
The New York Times Company and Azmat Khan, who were seeking Defense Department records, and the United States Department of Defense, which was processing the requests.
What happened
The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Defense concerns four requests under the Freedom of Information Act for Defense Department records about civilian casualties and related payments. The parties jointly told the court that the requests remained under review.
The Defense Department reported searches and processing by several components, including the Africa Command, Central Command, and Army. The parties were discussing processing schedules, possible referrals, and whether one Central Command request should be temporarily held while overlapping records were reviewed. They also asked to postpone the initial pretrial conference and planned to submit another status report.
Judge Denise Cote was asked to adjourn the conference, but the provided text is a joint letter rather than a court order and does not show that the request was granted or denied. The court therefore made no stated ruling in this text.
The detailed version
- The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Defense · No. 1:22-cv-09481
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 2, 2023
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a joint letter from counsel for The New York Times Company, Azmat Khan, and the United States Department of Defense. The parties submitted it in a case brought under the Freedom of Information Act, a federal law governing access to agency records. The letter updates the court on the status of four requests and asks to postpone the initial pretrial conference scheduled for March 2, 2023.
Requests and processing status
Khan submitted one request to the United States Africa Command, two to the United States Central Command, and one to the United States Army. The requests concern reported civilian casualties from military operations, including a March 18, 2019 incident in Baghuz, Syria, and records concerning condolence or ex gratia payments.
The Africa Command had completed its search and identified 174 potentially responsive records totaling about 1,200 pages. It had begun reviewing the records for responsiveness and information potentially protected by statutory exemptions. The letter states that most or all of those records were on classified systems or contained classified information and that review by other Defense Department components or agencies would likely be required.
For the two requests concerning Baghuz, the Army had completed its search for records relating to General Michael X. Garrett's independent review. The Office of the Secretary of Defense was reviewing the search results before referring the records to Central Command for processing. The Defense Department proposed that Central Command process those records and temporarily hold the separate, potentially duplicative Central Command request. The plaintiffs were considering that proposal.
For the remaining Central Command request, the letter states that Central Command had advised the plaintiffs that processing might not be possible because of limited information in the request, but that it would advise them after completing its efforts.
Requested scheduling change
The parties stated that they did not anticipate discovery at that time and noted that Freedom of Information Act cases are generally resolved through summary judgment, a procedure in which the court decides whether undisputed facts require judgment for one side. They asked the court to move the initial conference to a date during the first two weeks of April and proposed filing a status report on March 31, 2023.
Disposition
The provided text does not contain a judicial order or state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted or denied the requested adjournment. It is therefore not a merits decision or a disposition of the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.