From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Center for National Security Studies v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Aug 15, 2002
217 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2002)

Summary

finding stay appropriate where the district court had "ordered the Government to produce a list of the identities of all individuals detained in connection with the investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and a list of the identities of their attorneys" in part because "disclosure of the names of the detainees and their lawyers would effectively moot any appeal"

Summary of this case from American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Defense

Opinion

No. Civ.A. 01-2500 GK.

August 15, 2002.

Arthur Barry Spitzer, Washington, DC, Steven R. Shapiro, Lucas Guttentag, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, David Lane Sobel, Kate Abbott Martin, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs.

Lisa Ann Olson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

Paul Douglas Kamenar, Washington, DC, for Amicus.


ORDER


On August 2, 2002, this Court ordered the Government to produce a list of the identities of all individuals detained in connection with the investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and a list of the identities of their attorneys. The Government has filed an appeal, will ask the Court of Appeals for expedited consideration, and now seeks a stay of this Court's Order pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(c).

Given the fact that stays are routinely granted in FOIA cases; that disclosure of the names of the detainees and their lawyers would effectively moot any appeal; and that the Government has promised to seek expedited consideration from the Court of Appeals; the Court deems the granting of a stay appropriate. Population Institute v. McPherson, 797 F.2d 1062, 1078 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Ashcroft v. North Jersey Media Group, ___ U.S. ___ 122 S.Ct. 2655, 153 L.Ed.2d 831 (2002); American Civil Liberties Union of N.J. v. County of Hudson, 352 N.J. Super. 44, 799 A.2d 629 (2002), cert. denied ( 174 N.J. 190, 803 A.2d 1162 (2002)); United States Dept. of Justice v. Rosenfeld, 501 U.S. 1227, 111 S.Ct. 2846, 115 L.Ed.2d 1015 (1991).

WHEREFORE, it is this day of August, 2002 hereby

ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Stay Pending Appeal is granted.


Summaries of

Center for National Security Studies v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

United States District Court, D. Columbia
Aug 15, 2002
217 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2002)

finding stay appropriate where the district court had "ordered the Government to produce a list of the identities of all individuals detained in connection with the investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and a list of the identities of their attorneys" in part because "disclosure of the names of the detainees and their lawyers would effectively moot any appeal"

Summary of this case from American Civil Liberties Union v. Dept. of Defense

granting a stay in a FOIA case where defendants had already filed a notice of appeal and "promised to seek expedited consideration from the Court of Appeals"

Summary of this case from NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund v. Wilkinson

granting stay of disclosure order in FOIA case pending appeal where compliance with order "would effectively moot any appeal"

Summary of this case from CENTER FOR INT. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. OFFICE/U.S. TRADE REP.

relying on government promise to seek expedited review in granting stay pending appeal

Summary of this case from CENTER FOR INT. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. OFFICE/U.S. TRADE REP.
Case details for

Center for National Security Studies v. U.S. Dept. of Justice

Case Details

Full title:CENTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY STUDIES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES…

Court:United States District Court, D. Columbia

Date published: Aug 15, 2002

Citations

217 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2002)

Citing Cases

CENTER FOR INT. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW v. OFFICE/U.S. TRADE REP.

Second, defendants have made a strong showing of irreparable harm because disclosure of the documents in…

Veritas v. The N.Y. Times Co.

It is well settled in the law that a stay is appropriate when, without a stay, the relief sought on appeal…