Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence et al

Filing 88

ORDER WTIHDRAWING (70 in 3:08-cv-02997-JSW) Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation and SUGGESTION for Consent. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on August 17, 2009. (jswlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants. / ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL OF REFERRAL AND SUGGESTION FOR CONSENT No. C 08-01023 JSW

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Now before the Court is the consolidated cross-motions for summary judgment in this case, and the related action, C 08-2997 JSW. The parties have briefed the legal issues relating to whether the withheld records fall within any of the exceptions to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), in their pending cross-motions for summary judgment. This action arises under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552. Plaintiff, the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation, seeks documents related to correspondence between Executive and Legislative Branch officials on the issues relating to crafting consensus legislation about foreign intelligence surveillance. On August 7, 2009, this Court referred the review of whether the defendants properly withheld records regarding the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ("ODNI") and the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and their communications with members of Congress and congressional staffs and with telecommunications companies about proposed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") to a randomly-assigned magistrate judge to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

prepare a report and recommendation on the validity of the withholding of documents as addressed in the parties cross-motions. Upon reconsideration, the Court withdraws the referral. See N.D. General Order No. 42. However, due to the congestion on the Court's calendar, the Court suggests that the parties consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes. The parties are under no obligation to consent, but may choose to do so, and may select a particular magistrate judge, if preferred. The parties shall file a notice by no later than August 21, 2009 indicating whether they consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge for all purposes. Otherwise, the undersigned shall decide the outstanding cross-motions for summary judgment in due course. IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: August 17, 2009

JEFFREY S. WHITE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2