N.Y. Times Co. v. DOJ, No. 25-562, 2025 WL 2549435 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2025) (Woods, J.)

N.Y. Times Co. v. DOJ, No. 25-562, 2025 WL 2549435 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2025) (Woods, J.)

Re: Request for Volume II of Special Counsel Smith’s report

Disposition:  Granting defendant’s motion to dismiss

• Procedural Requirements, Records Processing Requirement, “Foreseeable Harm” Requirement:  “Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish that Judge Cannon lacked jurisdiction to enter the Permanent Injunction, the Court holds that the DOJ did not improperly withhold Volume II, and therefore Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state a claim under FOIA for the release of Volume II.”  “Citing the due process rights of the Co-Defendants [in the Florida criminal case], Judge Cannon [previously] enjoined the DOJ from releasing Volume II.”  “Plaintiffs seek to collaterally attack the Permanent Injunction only on the basis that Judge Cannon lacked jurisdiction to issue it.”  “The Court approaches this issue guided by the principle that ‘the original court’s jurisdiction is presumptively valid.’”  “Plaintiffs have not overcome the presumptive validity of Judge Cannon’s jurisdiction to issue the Permanent Injunction.”  “Judge Cannon analyzed the jurisdictional question and held that she possessed the ‘obligation to preserve the integrity of th[e] proceeding should the Eleventh Circuit’ overturn her dismissal order.” “Given that the issue of modifying or vacating the Permanent Injunction is currently before Judge Cannon in the Florida Criminal Case, a ‘collateral[ ] attack’ on the injunction in this Court ‘cannot be permitted to do without seriously undercutting the orderly process of the law.’”  “Having found that Volume II is not being improperly withheld, the Court declines to order the DOJ to take further action with respect to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request.”