UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY ) AND ETICS IN WASHINGTON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-1344 (RBW) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR ) FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-2125 (RBW) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”) and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (the “RCFP”), bring these civil actions against the defendant, the United States Department of State (the “Department”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. See generally Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief (“Compl. I”), Civ. Action No. 19- 1344, 1 ECF No. 1; Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Compl. II”), Civ. Action No. 19-2125, ECF No. 1. Currently pending before the Court are (1) the Defendant’s Motion for 1 Unless indicated otherwise, the docket numbers to which the Court will be referring are derived from the docket for Civil Action No. 19-1344. Summary Judgment (the “Department’s motion” or “Def.’s Mot.”), ECF No. 18, and (2) the Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the “plaintiffs’ motion” or “Pls.’ Mot”), ECF No. 19. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ submissions, 2 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must grant in part and deny in part both the Department’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND CREW represents that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan organization . . . committed to protecting the rights of citizens to be informed about the activities of government officials and agencies, and to ensuring the integrity of government officials and agencies.” Compl. I ¶ 4. The RCFP represents that it is “an unincorporated nonprofit association of reporters and editors dedicated to preserving the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press and vindicating the rights of the news media and the public to access government records.” Compl. II ¶ 3. On March 19, 2019, both plaintiffs independently submitted FOIA requests to the Department for records “relating to a telephone conference call on international religious freedom on which [then-]Secretary of State [Michael] Pompeo had participated on March 18, 2019. See Def.’s Facts ¶ 1; see Pls.’ Facts I ¶ 1. Specifically, the RCFP requested 2 In addition to the filings already identified, the Court considered the following submissions in rendering its decision: (1) the Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Mem”), ECF No. 18; (2) the Defendant’s Statement of Material Facts Not in Genuine Dispute (“Def.’s Facts”), ECF No. 18-1; (3) the Declaration of Eric F. Stein (“Stein Decl.”), ECF No. 18-2; (4) the plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pls.’ Mem.”), ECF No. 19-1; (5) the Plaintiffs’ …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals