UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _______________________________________ ) ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION ) CENTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-810 (RBW) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) JUSTICE, ) ) Defendant. ) _______________________________________) ) JASON LEOPOLD & ) BUZZFEED, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 19-957 (RBW) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) JUSTICE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiffs in the above-captioned matters, Jason Leopold and Buzzfeed, Inc. (the “Leopold plaintiffs”) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”), pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, seek, inter alia, the release of an unredacted version of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III (“Special Counsel Mueller”) regarding his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election (the “Mueller Report”). See Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 2, 43, Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Action No. 19-810 (“EPIC Compl.”); Compl. ¶ 1, Leopold v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civ. Action No. 19-957 (“Leopold Pls.’ Compl.”). On June 3, 2019, the United States Department of Justice (the “Department”) filed its motion for summary judgment. See Department of Justice’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Leopold v. Department of Justice and Partial Summary Judgment in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice (“Def.’s Mot.”). Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed their cross-motions for summary judgment. See Plaintiff’s Combined Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Motion for In Camera Review of the “Mueller Report” (“EPIC’s Mot.”); Plaintiffs Jason Leopold’s and Buzzfeed Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Leopold Pls.’ Mot.”). On March 5, 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion, in which it concluded that “the actions of Attorney General [William] Barr and his representations about the Mueller Report preclude the Court’s acceptance of the validity of the Department’s redactions without its independent verification” and ordered the Department to submit the unredacted version of the Mueller Report to the Court for in camera review. Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 442 F. Supp. 3d 37, 52 (D.D.C. 2020); see also Order at 2 (Mar. 5, 2020), ECF No. 112. On March 30, 2020, the Department submitted to the Court the unredacted version of the Mueller Report. See Defendant’s Notice of Submission of Documents for In Camera Review at 1–2. After reviewing the unredacted version of the Mueller Report, the Court ordered the Department to “appear before the Court for an ex parte hearing to address the Court’s questions regarding certain redactions of the Mueller Report.” Order at 2 (June 8, 2020), ECF No. 120. And, “[t]o accord the Department knowledge of the questions that the Court ha[d] regarding some of the redactions prior to the ex parte hearing, the Court [ ] prepared an Excel spreadsheet that catalogues these questions,” and “[t]o the extent that the Department is able to respond to the 2 Court’s questions ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals