Columbia Riverkeeper v. Bostick et al
| Columbia Riverkeeper |
| Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick and U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers |
| 3:2013cv01494 |
| August 26, 2013 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Portland (3) Office |
| Paul Papak |
| Freedom of Information Act |
| 05 U.S.C. ยง 552 Freedom of Information Act |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
74
OPINION & ORDER: CRK's Motion for Attorney Fees and Litigation Costs 63 is Granted in Part and Denied in Part, and CRK is awarded a total of $89,289.58 in attorney fees and litigation costs. Signed on 5/5/15 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
|
Filing
41
OPINION & ORDER: The Corps' motion 27 for summary judgment is Granted as to the Corps' decision to withhold from production in response to CRK's FOIA request the document bearing Vaughn Nos. 102-103 and is otherwise Denied , and CRK's cross-motion 32 for summary judgment is Denied as to that same document and is otherwise Granted. The Corps is directed to produce to CRK all reasonably segregable information contained in the draft memoranda (other than the document bearing Vaughn Nos. 102-1 03) and briefing materials at issue herein, in a manner consistent with the discussion above. A final judgment will be prepared. Signed on 8/14/14 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)
|
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 Oregon 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.
