The New York Times Company v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation

Opinion

cam, TENN — LAOIGEIGT HE EO HE Le AGE LT fs Sa U.S. Department of Justice Pets United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007 January 9, 2025 □□ Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein Bee CUDA FE United States District Judge cy Sg ef fis □□□ United States Courthouse PEA BILE, Leh poe “ ie □ □□ 500 Pearl Street rhe hee Fog HOTTRA LOY OE” New York, NY 10007 oe oy ae . ie eh be. Re: The New York Times Company et al. v. FBI, 24 UW Dear Judge Hellerstein: \ A □□□□ 1frofeoes” This Office represents the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the “FBI” or “Government”) in the above-referenced action brought by The New York Times Company and Adam Goldman (“Plaintiffs”) pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. We write to respectfully request that the Court adjourn the currently scheduled January 17, 2025 initial conference to a date that is convenient for the Court the week of January 27, 2025 or any date thereafter. The reason for this request is that the undersigned will be travelling internationally on January 17, 2025, and will accordingly be unable to attend the conference. Plaintiffs consent to this adjournment request. In addition, because this is an action brought pursuant to FOJA, which in essence seeks review of agency action, the parties respectfully submit that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(B){i) and 26(f), this action is exempt from initial disclosures and the 26(f) conference and report. In addition, the parties understand that pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.1, this FOIA action ts exempt from the requirement of a mandatory scheduling order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). Accordingly, the parties respectfully request to be reheved from the obligation in the Court’s order dated January 7, 2025, Dkt. No. 10, to provide a case management plan, which we understand te fulfill that requirement. Moreover, the parties respectfully submit that such a scheduling order is unnecessary because the parties expect that this matter, like most FOIA matters, will be resolved either consensually by the parties or through motions for summary judgment without discovery. See Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 (2d Cir, 2005); Carney v, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994), We thank the Court for its consideration of this matter.

edds@ L.24-CV-U fo ru-ARr MOCUTTIETH 14 Filed ULfUa co Page 4 Ube Page 2

Respectfully, EDWARD Y. KIM Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Danielle J. Marryshow DANIELLE J. MARRYSHOW Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 637-2689 danielle.marryshow@usdoj.gov cc: Counsel for Plaintiffs (By ECF)