Microsoft Corporation v. Internal Revenue Service

Filing 65

ORDER re Parties' 64 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court extends the deadline for Plaintiff to file its response an additional 32 days, up to and including 7/22/2022. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SB)

Case 2:15-cv-00369-RSM Document 65 Filed 05/17/22 Page 1 of 5

1

THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
NO. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
vs.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

13
Defendant.

14

NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
May 12, 2022

15
16

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
NO. 2:15-cv-00850-RSM
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

vs.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.

21
22
23
24
25

The above-captioned actions are for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Freedom of
Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, and the Administrative Procedure Act,
5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. On April 29, 2022, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Defendant’s Motion” or “Motion”), with a noting date of June 27, 2022. See Doc. 63. Under

26
STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT – Page 1
(No. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM)

LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TEL [phone] FAX, [phone]

Case 2:15-cv-00369-RSM Document 65 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 5

1

Local Civil Rule 7(d), Plaintiff has until June 20, 2022, to file its response to Defendant’s Motion.

2

Given the broad scope of this matter, the numerous complex issues potentially subject to briefing,

3

and the breadth of Defendant’s Motion, its declarations, and exhibits, the parties stipulate to

4

Plaintiff’s request that the Court extend the deadline for Plaintiff to file its response an additional 32

5

days, up to and including July 22, 2022. Plaintiff anticipates that this will be its only request to

6

extend the deadline to file its response.1 In support of this request, the parties state the following:

7

1.

For the last two years, the parties have worked together to narrow the issues before

8

the Court and to resolve various matters without Court intervention. During that time, Defendant

9

shared with Plaintiff certain draft declarations regarding Defendant’s search efforts and draft Vaughn

10

indices. Plaintiff’s counsel provided detailed comments on those declarations and Vaughn indices

11

in multiple emails to Defendant’s counsel and comprehensive letters dated November 30, 2020,

12

December 11, 2020, January 13, 2021, March 9, 2021, July 28, 2021, September 22, 2021, and

13

November 10, 2021. In addition, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel held several telephonic

14

conferences regarding Plaintiff’s counsel’s comments.
2.

15

Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s comments included several letters, material edits

16

to its search effort declarations, the release in full of additional records, and an expanded Vaughn

17

index. Defendant has represented that it withheld from production approximately 7,200 document

18

pages in part, and 38,200 document pages in full.
3.

19

On April 29, 2022, Defendant filed its Motion and supporting papers, totaling 850

20

pages. Defendant claims exemptions from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4),

21

(b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), and (b)(7)(E). As part of its 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) exemption

22

claims, Defendant withheld documents under the deliberative process privilege, the attorney-client

23

privilege, and the work product doctrine.

24
25
26

1

Defendant also intends to make a request to extend its reply deadline to Plaintiff’s opposition. To ensure that an
extension request for the reply deadline is made only once, Defendant intends to wait until after Plaintiff has filed its
opposition to obtain a better estimate of the time needed to prepare its reply.
STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT – Page 2
(No. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM)

LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TEL [phone] FAX, [phone]

Case 2:15-cv-00369-RSM Document 65 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

4.

Defendant’s Motion presents complex issues of fact and law regarding Defendant’s

search efforts and exemption claims.
5.

On April 29, 2022, Defendant also filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the

parties’ related FOIA matter. See Dkt. 2:15-cv-01605 RSM, Doc. 51.
6.

Plaintiff requests additional time to fully evaluate Defendant’s Motion, declarations,

and exhibits (including its Vaughn index) to prepare its response.
5.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate to Plaintiff’s request that the Court extend the

deadline for Plaintiff to file its response an additional 32 days, up to and including July 22, 2022.
DATED this 12th day of May, 2022.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

CALFO EAKES LLP

By: s/ Stephen S. Ho
Stephen S. Ho
Trial Attorney, Tax Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

By: s/ Patricia A. Eakes
Patricia A. Eakes, WSBA #18888
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Attorney for Defendant Internal Revenue
Service

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP
By: s/ Daniel A. Rosen
Daniel A. Rosen, NYBA #2790442
(pro hac vice)
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation

23
24
25
26
STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT – Page 3
(No. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM)

LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TEL [phone] FAX, [phone]

Case 2:15-cv-00369-RSM Document 65 Filed 05/17/22 Page 4 of 5

1
2
3
4

ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED this 17th day of May, 2022.

5

A

6
7

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10

Presented by:

11

CALFO EAKES LLP

12

15

By: s/ Patricia A. Eakes
Patricia A. Eakes, WSBA #18888
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

16

BAKER & McKENZIE LLP

17

By: s/ Daniel A. Rosen
Daniel A. Rosen, NYBA #2790442
(pro hac vice)
452 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

13
14

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
By: s/ Stephen S. Ho
Stephen S. Ho
Trial Attorney, Tax Division

26
STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT – Page 4
(No. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM)

LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TEL [phone] FAX, [phone]

Case 2:15-cv-00369-RSM Document 65 Filed 05/17/22 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3
4

U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorney for Defendant Internal Revenue Service

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
STIPULATED MOTION & ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLTF’S RESPONSE TO DEF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT – Page 5
(No. 2:15-cv-00369-RSM)

LAW OFFICES

CALFO EAKES LLP
1301 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 2800
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
TEL [phone] FAX, [phone]