Rosenfeld v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT re 20 First MOTION for Summary Judgment Cross-Motion and Opposition filed by Seth Rosenfeld, 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendant's Notice of Motion; Motion for Summary Judgment filed by United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Status Report due by 7/13/2012.. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/2/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2012)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

Northern District of California

3

SETH ROSENFELD,
No. C 11-2131 MEJ

4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE,

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(DKT. NOS. 14 AND 20)

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
The Court has conducted an in camera review of the classified declarations submitted by

10 Defendant. The Court finds that Defendant cannot rely on the exemption outlined in 5 U.S.C. §

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11 552(c)(2) for this matter.1 Pursuant to this finding, Defendant is ordered to supplement its production
12 to Plaintiff. Considering that this supplementation will likely affect the issues that were raised by the
13 parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, these motions are VACATED. The parties are ordered
14 to meet and confer and submit a joint case management statement by July 13, 2012 that proposes how
15 the remaining issues in this matter should be resolved. The parties’ joint statement should
16 specifically propose deadlines for any supplemental production of documents, a schedule for
17 dispositive motions if they are necessary, the prospects of settlement or engaging in further ADR to
18 narrow the issues in dispute, and any other matters that may facilitate the just, speedy, and
19 inexpensive disposition of this matter.
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: July 2, 2012

_______________________________

22

Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

Because of the sensitive nature of the in camera review, this order does not provide the
Court’s reasoning behind its decision. The Court, however, will consider a request from Defendant
to issue an order that explains its rationale, as well as an order certifying this issue for interlocutory
appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). If Defendant wishes to make any of these requests, it
should notify the Court in writing by July 6, 2012, and the Court will then determine whether any of
the requests are warranted.