Skip to main content

White v. DOJ, No. 16-948, 2020 WL 5016799 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2020) (Gilbert, J.)


White v. DOJ, No. 16-948, 2020 WL 5016799 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2020) (Gilbert, J.)

Re:  Requests for a variety of records from various DOJ components

Disposition:  Denying in part and reserving ruling in part on plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e)

  • Litigation Considerations, Relief:  "[T]he Court denies [plaintiff's] motion to alter or amend the judgment on any basis other than the USMS's handling of his 2013 FOIA request."  "With respect to those bases for altering or amending the judgment, [plaintiff] has not clearly established any grounds for Rule 59(e) relief – newly discovered material evidence, intervening changes in the controlling law, or manifest errors of law or fact."  "The Court reserves ruling on the motions to alter or amend the judgment, for contempt, and for an award of costs to the extent they are based on the USMS's conduct."  "The only colorable basis for altering or amending the judgment is [plaintiff's] argument that the USMS misrepresented to the Court in a 2018 affidavit that it expected it would be finished processing his 2013 FOIA request within thirty days."  "The Court took the USMS at its word and found in 2020 that, in the absence of any evidence in the file that the release had not been completed as expected, the USMS had remedied its initial delinquent response to [plaintiff's] 2013 FOIA request and had released the responsive records . . . ."  "Accordingly, it granted summary judgment for the USMS."  "It turns out that, in reality, no responsive records had been processed or released at the time the Court entered judgment."  "The USMS has since begun processing [plaintiff's] request – more thoroughly than it ever had before – and is reporting regularly to the Court on its progress . . . ."  "The USMS's affidavit and its subsequent failure to process his 2013 FOIA request are the bases for [plaintiff's] request to hold the USMS in contempt and for costs from the agency as well as for an amendment of the judgment."  "[T]he Court will hold a videoconference hearing on this ground for relief only."
Court Decision Topic(s)
District Court opinions
Litigation Considerations, Relief
Updated October 7, 2020