The New York Times Company v. United States Department of Justice

Opinion

we United States Attorney Southern District of New York 86 Chantbers Street New York, New York 10007 3, 2025 By ECF a ee Se Sel he □□ The Honorable Colleen McMahon ~~~ □□□ United States District Judge | (MENT ba OF tend ee □□ □□ Daniel Patrick Moynihan ONIC. LY FO United States Courthouse a 500 Pearl Street , sue Kee inn OK ; rues New York, NY 10007 ee ee Re: = The New York Times Company v. U.S. Department of Justice, 25 Civ. 4199 (CM) (JW) Dear Judge McMahon: ite Me rh This Office represents defendant U.S. Department of Justice (*DOJ” or the Is[o-0s “Government’’), in the above-referenced action brought pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seg. We write jointly with Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide the Court with a status update and to respectfully request that the Court relieve the parties of their requirement to submit a Civil Case Management Plan by July 7, 2025, and to appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for September 11, 2025 (ECF No. 7). The parties met and conferred to discuss the status of the processing of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to DOJ dated March 20, 2025. By letter dated July 3, 2025, the Department's Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) issued a final response to Plaintiffs in which OIP produced four pages of responsive material with redactions made pursuant to Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The parties have further discussed and agreed upon the appropriate next steps in this action, subject to the Court’s approval. The parties respectfully request that they be relieved of the requirement to submit a Civil Case Management Plan and to appear at the Initial Pretrial Conference, see ECF No. 7. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 16.1, cases involving reviews from administrative agencies, including FOIA cases like this one, are generally exempted from the mandatory scheduling order requirement. Moreover, courts in this district regularly exempt □□□□ cases from scheduling requirements, see, e.g., Endorsed Order dated Nov. 6, 2024, The New York Times Company vy. U.S. Dep't of Defense, 24 Civ. 6337 (CM) (ECF No. 13). as FOIA cases typically do not involve discovery and are resolved at summary judgment. See Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). The parties respectfully propose that they submit either a stipulation of voluntary dismissal or a joint status letter to the Court by August 8, 2025, regarding the status of their progress in resolving Plaintiffs’ FOIA request and raising any disputes that require the Court’s intervention, to the extent the parties are not able to resolve such disputes informally.

Page 2

We thank the Court for its consideration of this letter. Respectfully, JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney By: Tomoko Onozawa TOMOKO ONOZAWA Assistant United States Attorney Peled2t2) 637-2721 E-mail: Tomoko.Onozawa(@usdoj.gov ec: Plaintiffs’ Counsel (By ECF)