Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District of Columbia

Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 9, 2010

DocketCivil Action No. 2010-0256

StatusPublished

This text of Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, (D.D.C. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

~' wl

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES R. SKRZYPEK,

Plaintiff, V_ § civil A¢ii<>n No. 10-0256 (CKK) FEDERAL BUREAU oF rNvEsrloArioN, er al., Defendants. MEMoRANnUM oP1N1oN

Plaintif£ a federal prisoner, brought this action under the Freedom of information Act ("FOIA) in order to obtain information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Executive Offrce for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") pertaining to his home in Chicago, Illinois. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June ll, 2010 [Dkt. #l4]. Because resolution of the motion would potentially have disposed of this case, in its June 15, 2010 Order, the Court advised plaintiff of his obligation to respond to defendants’ motion and warned him that the Court would treat the motion as conceded if he failed to file a timely opposition. The Court initially set July 23, 2010 as the deadline for plaintiff s opposition, and subsequently granted plaintiffs request for an extension of time to August 23, 2010.

On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance [Dkt. #18]. He asserted that searches by the EOUSA (fmding no responsive records) and the FBI (locating seven pages of records, portions of which were redacted under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)), were

conducted in bad faith. P1aintiff claimed that the depositions he proposed to take would show

that the records he sought once existed, thereby demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to the agencies’ compliance with the FOIA. Whether the discovery plaintiff proposed was likely to lead to the location of additional responsive records was speculative, and by order dated September 24, 201 0, the Court denied the motion. That order also directed plaintiff to file his opposition or other response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment not later than October 15, 2010. To date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition to defendant’s motion nor a request for more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court treats defendants’ motion as conceded. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. »< a »§

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

DATE; @a¢. zale/o

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

~' wl

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JAMES R. SKRZYPEK,

Plaintiff, V_ § civil A¢ii<>n No. 10-0256 (CKK) FEDERAL BUREAU oF rNvEsrloArioN, er al., Defendants. MEMoRANnUM oP1N1oN

Plaintif£ a federal prisoner, brought this action under the Freedom of information Act ("FOIA) in order to obtain information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") and the Executive Offrce for United States Attorneys ("EOUSA") pertaining to his home in Chicago, Illinois. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June ll, 2010 [Dkt. #l4]. Because resolution of the motion would potentially have disposed of this case, in its June 15, 2010 Order, the Court advised plaintiff of his obligation to respond to defendants’ motion and warned him that the Court would treat the motion as conceded if he failed to file a timely opposition. The Court initially set July 23, 2010 as the deadline for plaintiff s opposition, and subsequently granted plaintiffs request for an extension of time to August 23, 2010.

On August 27, 2010, plaintiff filed a Rule 56(f) Motion for Continuance [Dkt. #18]. He asserted that searches by the EOUSA (fmding no responsive records) and the FBI (locating seven pages of records, portions of which were redacted under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)), were

conducted in bad faith. P1aintiff claimed that the depositions he proposed to take would show

that the records he sought once existed, thereby demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to the agencies’ compliance with the FOIA. Whether the discovery plaintiff proposed was likely to lead to the location of additional responsive records was speculative, and by order dated September 24, 201 0, the Court denied the motion. That order also directed plaintiff to file his opposition or other response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment not later than October 15, 2010. To date, plaintiff has filed neither an opposition to defendant’s motion nor a request for more time to do so. Accordingly, the Court treats defendants’ motion as conceded. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. »< a »§

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge

DATE; @a¢. zale/o

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Skrzypek v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skrzypek-v-federal-bureau-of-investigation-dcd-2010.