WILLIAMS v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, No. 1:2018cv00019 - Document 44 (D.D.C. 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Dabney L. Friedrich on 3/30/20.(ah)

Download PDF
WILLIAMS v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DAVID WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. No. 18-cv-19 (DLF) EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In response to Defendant’s Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment, plaintiff David Williams concedes that defendant Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is entitled to summary judgment on the issues remaining in this FOIA case. See Pl.’s Concession to Def.’s Statement of Material Facts and Supplemental Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 42; Mar. 25, 2019 Mem. Op. and Order, ECF No. 23 (granting EOUSA partial summary judgment). And “once all the documents are released to the requesting party, there no longer is any case or controversy” to resolve on summary judgment. Bayala v. DHS, 827 F.3d 31, 34 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see Shapiro v. United States Dep't of Justice, 239 F. Supp. 3d 100, 106 n.1 (D.D.C. 2017) (noting that “to the extent the FOIA requester does not seek to compel the release of the withheld information, . . . the Court need not—and should not—enter summary judgment in favor of the government. Rather, . . . there is simply no dispute to resolve.”) (distinguishing Winston & 1 Dockets.Justia.com Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503, 505 (D.C. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, EOUSA’s supplemental motion will be denied. A separate order will issue contemporaneously. ________________________ DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge March 30, 2020 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.