Case 1:16-cv-06120-RMB Document 46 Filed 09/08/17 Page 1 of 2
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-X

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY and
CHARLIE SAVAGE,

DOC
#:__
DATE FILED: <T(s/t7
16 Civ. 6120 (RMB)

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

- against -

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
-X

The Court will hold brief oral argument regarding DOJ's motion for summary judgment,

dated March 27, 2017 [#23], and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, dated April 24, 2017
[#32], on Wednesday, September 13, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Counsel should be fully prepared to
discuss, among other things, the following:
• John Brennan's letter (dated February 1, 2010) to Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi.

• Three press releases issued by DOJ (on June 11, 2009, December 20, 2009, and
January 21,2010).
• Record support for the contention that "the vast majority of the statements plaintiffs
cite were not made by decision-makers, but rather by advisors (DO J Reply at 4).
Specify which individuals were not decision-makers.
• Do all segments of the threat assessments "reveal the deliberative process . . . itself
by demonstrating which facts in the ... record were considered significant"? Lead
Indus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 610 F.2d 70, 85 (2d

Cir. 1979).
• Was the interagency review ofGuantanamo Bay detainees a "confidential" process?
• What portions, if any, of threat assessments (apart from footnotes that cite FBI
FD-302 file numbers for interviews of third parties) does the Government assert are

covered by Exemption 7(B)? Do the Government declarations support the idea that
all of those portions are protected by Exemption 7(B)?
• In what way do the declarations of Section Chief Hardy and Assistant Section Chief
Seidel explain that "reveal[mg] targets of investigative activities or a close

1

 Case 1:16-cv-06120-RMB Document 46 Filed 09/08/17 Page 2 of 2

association with another target of investigation" would disclose "information that

may not already be available through [ongoing] court proceedings"? (Hardy Decl. ^

39;SeidelDecl.^[5.)
If Exemption 5 were not involved in this case, exactly what portions of what
documents would or should be disclosed?

Dated: New York, New York

September 8, 2017

^

RICHARD M. BERMAN
U.S.D.J.