Scribd
Upload
67 views4 pages

CREW v. DOD: Regarding DISA: 1/7/08 - Document 4

November 6, 2007 // Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), an office in the Department of Defense which runs the White House email servers, for any emails from the Republican Party addresses they had stored on their servers. When DISA failed to complay with the FOIA request, CREW filed suit for access to the disputed emails.

Uploaded by

CREW
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views4 pages

CREW v. DOD: Regarding DISA: 1/7/08 - Document 4

November 6, 2007 // Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), an office in the Department of Defense which runs the White House email servers, for any emails from the Republican Party addresses they had stored on their servers. When DISA failed to complay with the FOIA request, CREW filed suit for access to the disputed emails.

Uploaded by

CREW
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Case 1:07-cv-02003-EGS Document 4 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY


AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON
Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action No. 07-2003 (EGS)


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
_________________________________________________________________

ORDER FOR MEET AND CONFER REPORT

The above captioned case has been assigned to Judge Emmet G.

Sullivan for resolution.

Pursuant to LCvR 16.3 of the Local Rules, as amended effective

December 1, 2000, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), as amended effective

December 1, 2000, counsel shall confer by no later than FEBRUARY

19,2008 and submit their Report addressing all topics listed in

LCvR16.3(c) by no later than FEBRUARY 26, 2008. Counsel are

directed to include in their Report a brief statement of the case

and the statutory basis for all causes of action and defenses.

Counsel are required to comply with LCvR 16.3 and, in

particular, LCvR.3(c), as amended December 1, 2000, and attached

hereto as Appendix I. In considering what form of alternative

dispute resolution the parties think the case most suited to,

counsel are reminded that among their options are mediation,

arbitration, early neutral evaluation, summary jury trial, or any

other form of alternative dispute resolution which can be tailored

to the needs of their case.

Extensions or enlargements of time will only be granted upon

motion, and not upon stipulation by the parties. Motions for a


Case 1:07-cv-02003-EGS Document 4 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 4

continuance or other scheduling change must be filed three business

days prior to the hearing and must include alternative dates that

have been agreed to by all parties. Requests that do not include

an alternative date acceptable to all parties will be denied.

Parties are to communicate with the Court by motion,

opposition, and reply, not by letter. Inquires concerning the

status of any pending matter shall be directed to the Courtroom

Deputy Clerk, Ms. Carol Votteler (202/354-3152), or if she is

unavailable to the staff person in the Clerk’s Office designated as

her substitute, and not to chambers. Chambers personnel will not

handle questions relating to the status or scheduling of pending

matters.

In an emergency, however, chambers can be reached at

202/354-3260.

Date January 7, 2008 EMMET G. SULLIVAN


UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:07-cv-02003-EGS Document 4 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 4

APPENDIX I

RULE 16.3
DUTY TO CONFER

(c) MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED BY THE PARTIES.

At the conference required by this Rule, the parties shall


discuss the following matters:

* * *

(5) Whether the case could benefit from the Court’s


alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures (or
some other for of ADR); what related steps should
be taken to facilitate such ADR; and
whether counsel have discussed ADR and their
response to this provision with their clients. In
assessing the above, counsel shall consider:

(i) the client’s goals in bringing or


defending the litigation;

(ii) where settlement talks have already


occurred and, if so, why they did not
produce an agreement;

(iii) the point during the litigation when


ADR would be most appropriate, with
special consideration given to;

(aa) whether ADR should take place after


the informal exchange or production
through discovery or specific items
of information; and

(bb) whether ADR should take place


before or after the judicial
resolution of key legal issues;

(iv) whether the parties would benefit


from a neutral evaluation of their
case, which could include suggestions
regarding the focus of discovery, the
legal merits of the claim, and assessment
of damages and/or the potential
settlement value of the case; and

(V) whether cost savings or any other


practical advantage would flow from a
stay of discovery or of other pre-trial
Case 1:07-cv-02003-EGS Document 4 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 4

proceedings while ADR process is pending.

You might also like