First Amendment Coalition v. United States Department of Justice
9th Cir.; 15-15117 The court of appeals reversed a judgment and remanded. The court held that a plaintiff was required to show causation in order to…
August 28, 2017 at 06:27 PM
4 minute read
9th Cir.;
15-15117
The court of appeals reversed a judgment and remanded. The court held that a plaintiff was required to show causation in order to be entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) following the agency's voluntary disclosure of the sought after documents.
In September 2011, American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a terrorist, was killed in a drone attack in Yemen. This spawned parallel litigations under the FOIA for the release of legal memoranda prepared by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) addressing the legality of the targeted killing of U.S. citizen terrorists. Both the New York Times and the ACLU, in New York, and the First Amendment Coalition, in California, filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for the release of legal memoranda prepared by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) addressing the legality of the targeted killing of U.S. citizen terrorists. Both district courts granted summary judgment in favor of the DOJ. While appeal in the New York case was pending, in February 2013, a DOJ “White Paper” addressing this lawfulness of the use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen was leaked to the press, and, a few days later, officially disclosed by the Office of Information Policy. The Second Circuit thereafter ordered the disclosure of a reacted version of the OLC-DOD memo sought by the NY Times and ACLU. In August 2014, the DOJ released to Coalition a redacted 2010 DOJ-CIA memorandum pertaining to a contemplated CIA operation against Anwar al-Awlaki.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBill Would Bar Courts From Charging Public Fees for Accessing Online Civil Records
5 minute readJudge Alsup Loses Quixotic Battle to Unveil Patent License Info
Barrett's Debut Majority Opinion Drew Two Dissenting Justices, Ending Unanimity Streak
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250