Case Activity (2672)

1. Order | Filed: July 09, 2026 | Entered: July 09, 2026 GREENSPAN v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS et al

   Freedom of Information Act | District Of Columbia

   Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

   MINUTE ORDER (paperless), GRANTING intervenor Bola Tinubu's 87 Amended Motion to Amend Briefing Schedule ("Intervenor's Mot."), over partial objection by plaintiff, see Pl.'s 88 Opp'n. Intervenor seeks leave to file a response to plaintiff's 85 Second Mot. for Summary Judgment, on the same day the governments response is due, July 27, 2026. While plaintiff "does not object" to this timing or to intervenor filing a response regarding "Exemption[s] 6 and 7(C) as applied to information about Intervenor personally," plaintiff objects to intervenor's "unrestricted participation," including the possibility that intervenor will "relitigate" issues already decided in this case, or "address search adequacy, segregability, Exemption 7(D), or Exemption (b)(3)." Pl.'s Opp'n at 1-2. Additionally, plaintiff seeks, as a condition of intervenor filing a response to plaintiff's summary judgment motion, that intervenor file a "certification... that neither Intervenor nor anyone acting at his direction or on his behalf has taken any action to interfere with Plaintiff's ability to prosecute this litigation, including with respect to the operation of Plaintiff's website, PlainSite, where production documents are posted," since plaintiff "has experienced sustained technical interference with PlainSite's operation over an extended period," which he suspects intervenor has orchestrated. Id. at 2.
   
   Whether intervenor has standing to defend the invocation of FOIA exemptions other than 6 and 7(C) or the adequacy of the government's search, and whether intervenor's potential arguments are futile given the legal issues already decided in this case, as plaintiff suggests, are questions better decided with the benefit of full merits briefing, rather than in the process of issuing a scheduling order. Intervenor will therefore be permitted to file a response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without express restrictions on arguments intervenor may advance.
   
   Nor will intervenor be required to certify that he has not interfered with plaintiff's website. Plaintiff apparently "intends to address" the attacks on his website "on a fuller evidentiary record, in a forthcoming motion." Pl.'s Mot. at 2. This allegation about the intervenor will not be dovetailed into a scheduling order.
   
   In sum, intervenor is DIRECTED to file, by July 27, 2026, any response to plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment, not to exceed 45 pages. See D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 7(e).
   
   Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on July 9, 2026. (lcbah2)

2. Response | Filed: July 06, 2026 | Entered: July 09, 2026 DENT v. WHITE HOUSE et al

   Prisoner Petition: Civil Rights (Other) | District Of Columbia

   Response to (non-motion) Document

   RESPONSE - Objections to Non-Disclosure filed by JASON DENT. (znmw)

3. 2670 additional result(s)