NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNSELORS |
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY and OFFICE OFTHE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE |
1:2011cv00445 |
February 28, 2011 |
US District Court for the District of Columbia |
Washington, DC Office |
88888 |
Beryl A. Howell |
Freedom of Information Act |
05 U.S.C. ยง 552 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 114 MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding plaintiff's 101 Petition for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on November 21, 2017. (lcbah2) |
Filing 110 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING the plaintiff's 97 Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on August 21, 2017. (lcbah4) |
Filing 88 MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding the defendants' 59 Motion for Summary Judgment on All Remaining Claims in Civil Action Nos. 11-443, 11-444, and 11-445; and the plaintiff's Motion for Partial Reconsideration in Civil Action No. 11-444 and 70 Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Civil Action No. 11-445. Signed by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on September 6, 2016. (lcbah2) |
Filing 30 MEMORANDUM OPINION regarding 10 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Beryl A. Howell on October 17, 2012. (lcbah1) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the District Of Columbia District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.