"Dummy Date" E-mails
| Tracking # |
2019-7100, DOJ-2019-002599, DOJ-AP-2019-003849 2019-7100, DOJ-2019-002599 2019-7100 |
| Submitted | Nov. 13, 2018 |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: Matthew Hoppock
To Whom It May Concern:
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:
The e-mail messages to or from any EOIR employee which use the phrase "Dummy Date" or "Dummy Dates" between June 21, 2018 and the date this request is processed.
I am a member of the news member and request classification as such.
The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.
In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 20 business days, as the statute requires.
Sincerely,
Matthew Hoppock
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
An acknowledgement letter, stating the request is being processed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Nov. 13, 2018. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-7100.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew, this is #46 of 88 complex requests. Awaiting attorney review. Wr/JRS
-
~WRD261
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Nov. 13, 2018. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-7100.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Nov. 13, 2018. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-7100.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
The attorney review is complete. We are putting together the package for GC review and release approval.
-
~WRD000
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Nov. 13, 2018. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response. You had assigned it reference number #2019-7100.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Matthew, we sent you responsive documents on or about 25 Feb 2019. I will try to attach an electronic copy. Wr/JRS
-
~WRD000
From: Matthew Hoppock
First, the agency did not perform an adequate search. Second, many of the redactions are not properly exempt. For example, a series of e-mail redactions appear to be the press office advising EOIR officials on how to respond to a reporter's questions. Although those are coded as B5, which the adjudication letter says means they contain "privileged information." But they are plainly not privileged. For example, an Oct. 15, 2018 e-mail from Scott Rosen tells Mary Cheng and Print Maggard how to respond to a reporter's questions on "dummy dates." His advise is factual - he's specifically telling them how to answer a fact question. This is not legal advice is not "privileged" solely because Rosen also happens to be an attorney. Nor is a statement of fact given to an official to provide as the agency's answer to a reporter's question "predecisional."
Another example is an October 18, 2018 e-mail from director McHenry to Nathan Berkley telling Berkley how to answer reporters' questions. This isn't legal advice or predecisional content and is plainly not privileged.
The agency should review all of the B5 redactions, because they all contain discussion of what the agency is going to tell a reporter. It is neither legal advice nor predecisional and isn't exempt.
But the context makes clear the writer is not giving legal advice. He's telling
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Attached is correspondence from the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy, which is associated with the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Please do not reply to this e-mail, as this account is not monitored.
Thank you,
-----------------------------------------
Initial Request Staff
Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
202-514-3642 (Main Line)
202-514-1009 (Fax)
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
This message is to notify you of a new appeal submission to the FOIAonline application. Appeal information is as follows:
* Appeal Tracking Number: DOJ-AP-2019-003849
* Request Tracking Number: 2019-7100
* Requester Name: Matthew Hoppock
* Date Submitted: 04/09/2019
* Appeal Status: Submitted
* Description: EOIR Appeal
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
Attached is correspondence from the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy, which is associated with the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
Please do not reply to this e-mail, as this account is not monitored.
Thank you,
-----------------------------------------
Initial Request Staff
Office of Information Policy
U.S. Department of Justice
202-514-3642 (Main Line)
202-514-1009 (Fax)
From: Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review
DOJ-AP-2019-003849 has been processed with the following final disposition: Affirmed on Appeal.
Files
pages