You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JMA-RLM Document 40 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1817

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
LOUIS FLORES,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
15-CV-2627 (JMA)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT


OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
In an Order dated August 8, 2016, this Court directed defendant United States
Department of Justice (defendant or DOJ) to provide, by August 18, 2016, supplemental
declarations in connection with the parties cross-motions for summary judgment in this FOIA
action. See Order (Aug. 8, 2016), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (DE) #37. On
August 16, 2016, defendant requested a one-week extension of the August 18th deadline, for two
reasons: (1) because at least one of the original declarants was no longer working for the United
States Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia; and (2) defendant, at the Courts urging,
had agreed to voluntarily conduct an additional search for responsive records. See Motion for
Extension of Time (Aug. 16, 2016) at 1, DE #38. Pro se plaintiff Louis Flores (plaintiff)
opposed the motion for an extension of time, arguing that the agency is not permitted to avoid
its FOIA obligations due to an internal burden of its own making; that defendant should not be
allowed to nominat[e] a replacement Declarant, who is completely unfamiliar with the records
sought by plaintiff; and that the ensuing delay and pattern of negligence should be counted

Case 1:15-cv-02627-JMA-RLM Document 40 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1818

against defendant in the Courts ruling on the pending dispositive motions. See Reply in
Opposition (Aug. 16, 2016) at 1-2, DE #39. In addition, plaintiff renewed his request to take
discovery from other government agents. See id. at 2.
This Court granted defendants motion for a one-week extension on August 17, 2016,
with a statement of reasons to follow shortly. Electronic Order (Aug. 17, 2016). This
opinion constitutes the Courts statement of reasons.
The extension requested by defendant is quite modest, particularly given defendants
willingness to conduct an additional search of its databases for the records requested by plaintiff.
In addressing the cross-motions for summary judgment, the Court will take into account
plaintiffs challenges to all of the delays that have occurred, as well as to the adequacy of the
declarations and supplemental declaration(s). Those arguments do not, however, warrant
denying the DOJ an extension of time of only five business days within which to comply with an
order that was intended to generate a more complete record on which to resolve the pending
dispositive motions. Furthermore, if, after reviewing defendants supplemental submission,
plaintiff would like the opportunity to respond to that submission, this Court is prepared to
provide him that opportunity, at his request
Plaintiffs request for discovery from other DOJ employees is denied, for the reasons
previously stated. See, e.g., Minute Entry (Sept. 16, 2015) at 1, DE #14.
SO-ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York


August 24, 2016
/s/

Roanne L. Mann

ROANNE L. MANN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-2-