`Case 1:22-cv-03009-JMC Document 29 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`JASON LEOPOLD,efai.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`JUSTICE,et ai.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:22—cv-03009-JMC
`
`NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF
`
`CROSS-MOTIONS FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`On May24, 2023, based on events unfolding in ACLU v. CIA, No. 22-cv-11532-DJC (D.
`
`Mass), the parties movedto stay briefing on their cross-motions for partial summary judgment
`
`addressing the propriety of Defendants’ G/omar responsesin this action. The parties explained
`
`that if the Solicitor General were to decide not to appeal the May 11, 2023 Order issued in ACLU
`
`v. CIA, then the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNT’) and the Department of
`
`Justice Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) and National Security Division (“NSD”) in the
`
`instant case would supplementtheir responsesto Plaintiff's request for “a copy of the ‘standing
`
`order’ that former President Trump ‘received [or had] while he wasstill president that authorized
`
`him to take sensitive or classified records from the Oval Office to his residence.” Compl. § 13,
`
`see also id. Exs. 3, 5,9. The parties further explained that this would mootthe issues that the
`
`parties are currently briefing in their cross-motions for partial summary judgment. On May 26,
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03009-JMC Document 29 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`2023, the Court granted the parties’ motion and stayed briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for
`
`partial summary judgment. See May 26, 2023 Minute Order.
`
`
`
`The parties now withdraw their respective motions because the issues addressed therein
`
`are moot. Specifically, the Solicitor General determined not to appeal the May 11, 2023 Order
`
`issued in ACLU v. CIA, and the Government has supplemented its Glomar responses in that case.
`
`See Notice of Compliance, ACLU v. CIA, No. 22-cv-11532-DJC (D. Mass.), ECF No. 39.
`
`Thus, consistent with the parties’ agreement in the instant case, ODNI, OIP, and NSD in this
`
`case have supplemented their responses to indicate that they possess no records responsive to
`
`Plaintiff’s request. This supplemental response has mooted the issues that the parties are
`
`currently briefing.
`
`
`
`Thus, no further briefing on the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment is
`
`necessary, and the parties hereby withdraw their respective motions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 2023.
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
`
`MARCIA BERMAN
`Assistant Branch Director
`Federal Programs Branch
`
`
`/s/ Julia A. Heiman
`JULIA A. HEIMAN (D.C. Bar No. 986228)
`Senior Counsel
`United States Department of Justice
`Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
`1100 L Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: 202-616-8480
`julia.heiman@usdoj.gov
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-03009-JMC Document 29 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`/s/ Merrick Wayne
`Matt Topic, D.C. Bar No. IL0037
`Merrick Wayne, D.C. Bar No. IL0058
`Stephen Stich Match, D.C. Bar No. MA0044
`LOEVY & LOEVY
`311 N. Aberdeen St., 3rd Fl
`Chicago, IL 60607
`Tel: 312-243-5900
`foia@loevy.com
`Attorney For Plaintiff
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
