The Intercept Media, Inc. v. National Park Service
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-10922
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In The Intercept Media v. National Park Service, Judge Engelmayer set deadlines for a draft Vaughn index and a joint letter about discovery and summary judgment.
The Intercept Media, Inc., the other plaintiffs, the National Park Service, the other defendants, and the Government were affected by the deadlines and scheduling requirements.
What happened
The Intercept Media, Inc. v. National Park Service involved an initial pretrial conference with the court and counsel.
The court ordered the Government to provide the plaintiffs a draft Vaughn index by March 15, 2024. It also required a joint letter by April 15, 2024, addressing whether summary judgment or discovery would be necessary and, if so, proposing a schedule.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued this scheduling order. The order set deadlines but did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or whether summary judgment or discovery would ultimately be necessary.
The detailed version
- The Intercept Media, Inc. v. National Park Service · No. 1:23-cv-10922
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 16, 2024
Background
The court issued the order after discussing the case with counsel at an initial pretrial conference. The opinion does not resolve the underlying dispute.
Deadlines
The court set two deadlines:
- By March 15, 2024, the Government had to provide the plaintiffs with a draft Vaughn index. A Vaughn index is a document identifying records withheld by the Government and explaining the claimed basis for withholding them. - By April 15, 2024, the parties had to submit a joint letter stating whether summary judgment, discovery, or both would be necessary. If either would be necessary, the letter had to propose a discovery or briefing schedule.
Disposition
The court entered the scheduling order and set the listed deadlines. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer did not rule on the merits of the case, decide whether discovery or summary judgment would be necessary, or enter a judgment on the claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.