The New York Times Company v. United States Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: April 29, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02333
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

‘ GES Bs ahte LLL Vi FUOLICG United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007 April 29, 2025 VIA ECF Hon. Denise L. Cote Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: The New York Times Company and Neil Bedi v. U.S. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, 25 Civ. 2333 (DLC) Dear Judge Cote: I write jointly with counsel for plaintiffs in this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case to respectfully propose a schedule on cross-motions for summary judgment, adjourn the answer date, and propose that the Court cancel the initial case management currently set for May 23, 2025 at 2:30 pm. Background. The defendant in this FOIA action, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), is an agency within the Department of Defense. It is responsible for, among other things, conducting background investigations and adjudicating applications for federal security clearances. In September of 2024, plaintiffs made a FOIA request to DCSA for “a list of security clearances for Elon Musk, including the extent and purview of each of the clearances.” Complaint | 9, ECF No. 1. On October 2, DCSA responded, noting that it had identified two records of responsive pages, and that they were properly withheld in full on privacy grounds pursuant to FOIA’s exemptions 6 and 7(C). Plaintiffs made an administrative appeal, which DCSA denied, and requested reconsideration, which DCSA also denied. See Complaint □□ 11-15. Summary judgment schedule; answer date. The parties agree that the only issue in this case is whether the two pages of records are exempt. This question is appropriately resolved via cross-motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994) (FOIA cases are generally resolved through cross-motions for summary judgment based on legal argument and factual matter provided by declarations, without discovery). The parties have conferred and propose the following four-brief schedule: e« The government’s opening papers will be due by May 30, 2025; Plaintiffs’ papers in opposition, and in support of any cross-motion, will be due by June 27, 2025; « The government’s papers in opposition to any cross-motion and reply in support of its own motion will be due by July 18, 2025; ¢ Plaintiffs’ reply in support of their own motion will be due by August 8, 2025.

Page 2

Additionally, the government requests, with plaintiffs’ consent, that its deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint—currently tomorrow, April 30—be adjourned without date. The parties expect that the facts relevant for resolving the cross-motions for summary judgment will be contained in declarations and exhibits thereto. We therefore respectfully request that the government’s time to answer be adjourned until after a decision on any summary judgment motion (if the case is not fully resolved without such motion), or such other time as the Court may order. Initial conference. If the Court adopts the schedule proposed above, the parties respectfully propose that the Court also cancel the initial case management conference currently set for May 23 at 2:30 pm. We do not expect there will be any open issues to discuss. The parties thank the Court for its consideration of this submission. Respectfully, JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney By: /s/ Peter Aronoff PETER ARONOFF Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, 3rd floor New York, NY 10007 Counsel for Defendant cc (via ECF): Counsel for plaintiffs VZe Nr a3 fonts ‘5 canceblrd? nb. ted plo Lerte ‘s al, *y Uf . ta =