Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Consolidate Cases

D.D.C.April 8, 2011

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10-2013 (ESH) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE ) UNITED STATES, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-0426 (RJL) ) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR CONSOLIDATION Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. (“Judicial Watch”), by counsel, respectfully submits this response to Defendant United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) motion for consolidation. MEMORANDUM OF LAW Judicial Watch does not object in principle to Defendant DOJ’s motion to consolidate the above-captioned cases. Nevertheless, Judicial Watch does have concerns that it would like to bring to the Court’s attention. First, Judicial Watch is concerned about any delays that the Plaintiff in C.A. No. 10-2013 might suffer as a result of the consolidation. Although the FOIA requests at issue in these two Case 1:11-cv-00426-ESH Document 8 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 2 2 cases do concern similar subject matter, CA No. 10-2013 is in a significantly further advanced procedural posture than is C.A. No. 11-0426. Specifically, Defendant has already filed a motion for summary judgment in C.A. No. 10-2013, and Media Research Center’s opposition to that motion is due on April 15, 2011. In other words, briefing in that case is already very far along, whereas no briefing has even been scheduled in Judicial Watch’s case. If these cases are consolidated, Judicial Watch respectfully requests that there be no resulting delay in adjudicating Plaintiff Media Research Center’s claims. Second, while two FOIA requests at issue do concern similar subject matter, they are not identical. Judicial Watch wants to ensure that any resolution to Defendant’s summary judgment motion with respect to Plaintiff Media Research Center’s request will not limit Judicial Watch’s opportunity to object to Defendant’s response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request or any claims of exemption. In other words, Judicial Watch respectfully submits that it must be given a full and fair opportunity to respond to any summary judgment motion Defendant files with respect to Judicial Watch’s request. Dated: April 8, 2011 Respectfully submitted, JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. /s/ Jason B. Aldrich D.C. Bar No. 495488 Paul J. Orfanedes D.C. Bar No. 429716 Suite 800 425 Third Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20024 (202) 646-5172 Attorneys for Plaintiff Case 1:11-cv-00426-ESH Document 8 Filed 04/08/11 Page 2 of 2