Brigida v. DOT Getting a Hearing

MINUTE ORDER. As requested, see Dkt. 39 at 1, the Court intends to hold a motion hearing regarding 39 Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. In order to facilitate scheduling, the courtroom deputy shall contact the parties to request that they provide, on or before May 7, 2018, three potential hearing dates/times during the week of May 21, 2018. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on May 4, 2018. (JPF) (Entered: 05/04/2018)

Rojas v. FAA 5 Prompts Agency to Revise Policy Documents

In a sworn declaration by Michele L. Root, Director of the Office of Investigations, the FAA alleges that its previous policy documents were the reason why not all FOIA exemptions were applied to the records at issue in Rojas v. FAA 5. This is what FAA alleges is what caused the ‘human error’ earlier in the litigation. As a result of this case, the FAA alleges it is revising its policy to prevent this ‘error’ from occurring again.

The judge did not accept this argument, and ordered that records be released nevertheless.

5. It was AEO500s policy and practice that, in response to any FOIA request wherresponsive records exist , AEO-500 wou ld perform a search, collect responsive records , and review those records for all applicable exemptions. According to all records and notes availablethis search was conducted by Elaine Stone Arthur , AEO 500 Manager, in accordance with thASH Policy Guidance estab lished and in practice in 2015.

6. I have no information in the files to indica te if any additional record s, that were considered nonresponsive to FOIA 2015-009570 , were fully reviewed for other FOIA exemptions , other than those cited in the initial release dated November 13, 2015. Other such FOIA exemptions might have included exemption (2), which protects records related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency and exemption (5), which protects the integrity of the deliberative or policymaking processes within the agency by exempting mandatory disclosur e of opinion , conclusion, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters.

[..]

8. Currently AXI, as the new Office of Investigations for ASH, has re-examined its process and practices to ensure that our policy and guidance is in compliance with all applicable FOIA and PA rules, standard use practices , and new statutes. Our current Policy Guidance has been rewritten and is currently in draft and will be sent to FAA s Office of Chief Counsel (AGC) .

33-2 Decl M Root

Judge Officially Finds FAA’s Motion to Assert New Exemptions “Moot” – Rojas v. FAA 5

Likely to ensure that there is no ambiguity of what happened during the status conference, the FAA’s motion to assert new exemptions has been officially denied.

U.S. District Court

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 4/18/2018 at 7:45 AM MST and filed on 4/18/2018

Case Name: Rojas v. Federal Aviation Administration et al
Case Number: 2:16-cv-03067-GMS
Filer:
Document Number: 39(No document attached)

Docket Text:
Pursuant to discussions at the status conference on April 6, 2018, IT IS ORDERED finding [33] the Motion for Leave to File moot. Ordered by Judge G. Murray Snow. (GMS, ag)(This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.)

Status Hearing – New Exemption Claims DENIED – Rojas v. FAA 5

The FAA brought Russell Christensen, FAA’s Managing Director for Litigation,  to the 11 minute status hearing held today. At issue was whether FAA could assert new exemptions. The Court held that Defendant would have to produce the documents. The hiring of air traffic control specialists was found to not be a matter of national security. The Court further suggested that the facts and circumstances of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. United States Department of Justice, which FAA cited as their reason for claiming new exemptions, didn’t apply. 854 F.3d 675, 680 (D.C.Cir. 2017).

We look forward to working with the FAA to bring these documents to the sunlight.

Accordingly, the Court ordered FAA provide all documents within 30 days.

U.S. District Court

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 4/6/2018 at 11:09 AM MST and filed on 4/6/2018

Case Name: Rojas v. Federal Aviation Administration et al
Case Number: 2:16-cv-03067-GMS
Filer:
Document Number: 37(No document attached)

Docket Text:
MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge G Murray Snow: Status Conference held on 4/6/2018. FAA has 30 days to comply with supplemental disclosure of documents as set forth on the record. Plaintiff shall have 15 days thereafter to file a Motion for Order to Show Cause and Motion for Sanctions.

APPEARANCES: Michael Pearson for Plaintiff, who is also present. Paul Bullis for Defendant. Russell Christensen is also present. (Court Reporter Charlotte Powers.) Hearing held 9:55 AM to 10:06 AM. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (KFZ)