857 F. Supp. 2d 76
D.D.C.2012Background
- Schoenman filed FOIA/PA requests in July 2001 to agencies including CIA and FBI seeking records about him, Bertrand Russell, and six organizations.
- Defendants produced some records and withheld others; Schoenman sued in December 2004 against CIA, FBI, and others.
- Court issued multiple opinions; FBI summary judgment on reasonableness of search in 2009; 2011 decision addressed Exemptions 2 and 7(D) and res judicata-like issues.
- January 23, 2012, Court granted CIA summary judgment and entered final judgment, denying further disclosures.
- February 21, 2012, Schoenman moved for reconsideration; Court denied relief on all grounds after final review.
- Decision at issue is the April 30, 2012 memorandum denying Schoenman’s Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reconsideration was warranted for denial of late-file motions under Rule 59(e) | Schoenman seeks relief to reargue whether late filing was excusable | Court properly denied due to lack of good cause and excusable neglect | Denied |
| Whether Milner v. Navy invalidates FBI Exemption 2 withholding as to confidential source numbers | Milner narrows Exemption 2 scope, undermining withholding | Milner cannot justify relief due to delay and earlier reliance on Exemption 7(D) and late timing | Denied |
| Whether new information calls into question the FBI search's reasonableness | Recent articles/opinions suggest the search may be inadequate | New information does not warrant revisiting established findings under Rule 59(e) | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Norman v. United States, 467 F.3d 773 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (burden to show extraordinary circumstances for Rule 59(e) relief)
- Murray v. District of Columbia, 52 F.3d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (vacating judgment requires non-futile reasons)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (Rule 59(e) not vehicle to relitigate old matters)
- Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (due diligence and timely action favored relief standards)
- Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (due diligence and timeliness in Rule 59(e) filings)
- Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 131 S. Ct. 1259 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (exemption 2 scope narrowed to employee relations; timing issues relevant)
- Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 284 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2003) (earlier related FOIA/PA discussion cited in ruling)
- Hopkins v. Women’s Div., Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 98 F. App’x 8 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (affirmation of district court posture)