Sea Shepherd Legal v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-01485-JLR Document15 Filed 11/12/19 Page 1 of 3

1 District Judge James L. Robart 2 3 4 5 6 7 . g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 )| SEA SHEPHERD LEGAL, Case No. C19-1485 JLR 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED MOTION AND 13 PPRGPOSED] ORDER FOR RELIEF 14 v. FROM 26(F) CONFERENCE, INITIAL DISCLOSURES, AND 15 |] NATIONAL OCEANIC AND JOINT STATUS REPORT 16 ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, et al., Noted for Consideration: 17 November 12, 2019 . Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff SEA SHEPHERD LEGAL (“SSL”) filed the above-captioned lawsuit 2 0 under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against Defendants NATIONAL 21 OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (“NOAA”) and NATIONAL 22 □ MARINE FISHERIES SERVICES (“NMFS”), seeking disclosure of certain documents. 2 . 3 Sea Shepherd Legal v. NOAA, et al., 19-cv-463-JLR is a related case before the Court. 24 For the reasons stated below, the parties respectfully request that the Court vacate ? = the Rule 26 deadlines (Dkt. No. 13), and instead allow the parties to submit a joint status 26 report within the next 60 days. 27 The ultimate issue in a FOIA action is whether the agency in question has 2 . 8 “improperly” withheld agency records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); Kissinger v. Reporters

STIPULATED MOTION . UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Case 2:19-cv-01485-JLR Document15 Filed 11/12/19 Page 2 of 3

1 || Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980). This is typically a question 2 || of law for the Court, rather than a question of fact, and thus, “‘[sJummary judgment is the 3 || procedural vehicle by which nearly all FOIA cases are resolved.’” Shannahan v. IRS, 411637 F. Supp. 2d 902, 912 (W.D. Wash. 2009) (quoting Los Angeles Times Commce'ns, 5 || LLC v. Dep't of Army, 442 F. Supp. 2d 880, 893 (C.D. Cal. 2006)). The parties agree that 6 || the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1) and the requirements of Rule 26(f), 7 || requiring the parties to prepare a discovery plan, are not appropriate in this case at this 8 || time, as the litigation is unlikely to lead to trial, and very possibly not discovery. That 9 || being said, SSL reserves the right to request discovery should evidence of bad faith or 10 || other grounds for discovery emerge. li ‘Thus far, the parties have worked cooperatively in an attempt to resolve this 12 |} litigation without motion practice. Defendants intend to produce the requested 13 || documents imminently with a final determination letter, As further discussion is 14 || expected after the production, counsel for the parties intend to continue to work together 15 || on any issues. If at any time in the next 60 days it becomes apparent that resolution 16 || between the parties is not feasible, the parties will submit a joint briefing schedule to the 17 || Court. 18 || SO STIPULATED, 19 Dated this 8th day of November 2019. 20 sf Brett W. Sommermeyer 21 BRETT W. SOMMERMEYER, WSBA # 30003 22 . s/____ Catherine E, Pruett 23 CATHERINE E. PRUETT, WA BAR # 35140 24 SEA SHEPHERD LEGAL 25 2226 Eastlake Avenue East, No. 108 26 Seattle, WA 98102 Phone; (206) 504-1600 27 Email: brett(@seashepherdlegal org 3g Email: catherine@seashepherdlegal. org Attorneys for Plaintiff . STIPULATED MOTION UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Case 2:19-cv-01485-JLR Document15 Filed 11/12/19 Page 3 of 3

2 SO STIPULATED. 3 || Dated this 12th day of November 2019. 4 s/___ Michelle R. Lambert MICHELLE R. LAMBERT, NY # 4666657 6 Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office 7 1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 700 8 Tacoma, Washington 98402 Phone: 253-428-3824 9 Email: michelle. lambert@usdoj.gov. 10 Attorneys for Defendants 12 13 14 15 16 RDER 7 ORDER 18 ITIS SO ORDERED. 19 Mw 0 Dated this day of Novemb 19, 21 JAMES 1] ROBART “ 93 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

STIPULATED MOTION UNITED STATES ATTORNEY □□□ +t+4f0e¢ □□□ 4 SA Gausncaom Gancoer Grave □□□□