Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION NETWORK,

)

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,

)

and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

)

UNION OF CONNECTICUT,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

)

)

)

Defendant.

)

________________________________________________)

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-137 COMPLAINT February 3, 2015

INTRODUCTION The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy (collectively “Military Service Academies” or “Academies”) are among this country’s preeminent educational institutions, providing a premiere education and leadership training, free of tuition, to a select group of cadets and midshipmen each year. The federal government owns and runs the Academies. Many college-bound women are highly qualified to attend the Academies by every measure,—including academic performance, physical fitness, and leadership potential. Nevertheless, classes at the Military Service Academies are overwhelmingly male. These gender disparities contribute to campus climates rife with gender bias and discrimination. These environments are conducive to sexual harassment and assault of cadets and midshipmen and lead to a culture of shunning and ostracizing those who report sexual violence. A Defense Advisory Committee has identified the limited number of women as a risk factor for rape and abuse, but the Academies have not remedied the disparity or the resulting misogynistic culture.
1

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 2 of 12
The underrepresentation of women at the Military Service Academies contrasts starkly with the wide range of opportunities for military leadership open to women after graduation, particularly in light of the Department of Defense’s elimination of gender-based restrictions on women’s service in combat units and specialties. However, because the service branches often draw their combat leadership from the Military Service Academies, the Academies’ persistent gender disparities reinforce the “brass ceiling” on women’s military leadership by graduating fewer women as leaders in all military fields. In turn, these disparities promote a misogynistic environment in the service branches, similar to that at the Academies, putting servicewomen at heightened risk for sexual harassment and assault.
Plaintiffs Service Women’s Action Network, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut requested records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) to gather information about the policies and practices that lead to women’s underrepresentation in the Military Service Academies. In violation of the FOIA, the Department of Defense failed to conduct a reasonable search or to provide the requested records.
1. This action is brought under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, for declaratory relief finding that the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) has violated FOIA and for injunctive relief to compel a reasonable search for records and timely production of responsive records to Plaintiffs.
2. Plaintiffs seek to obtain the release of records on a matter of public concern, namely, the discrimination that women who aspire to be military officers face due to the admissions policies of the DOD and the Military Service Academies.
2

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 3 of 12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. 4. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(3) as Plaintiff ACLU of Connecticut resides and has its primary place of business in the District of Connecticut and no real property is involved in the action.
PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Service Women’s Action Network (“SWAN”) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that supports, defends, and empowers current service women and female veterans through advocacy initiatives and community programs. SWAN seeks to transform military culture by securing equal opportunity and the freedom to serve in uniform without threats of harassment, discrimination, intimidation, and assault. SWAN resides and has its principal place of business in New York City, New York. 6. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) is a national, nonpartisan public interest organization of more than a million members, activists, and supporters, dedicated to protecting the constitutional and civil rights of individuals. Through its Women’s Rights Project, the ACLU has long been a leader in legal battles to ensure the full equality of women, including military servicewomen, and to ensure that women and girls have access to equal opportunity in public educational institutions. Recently, the ACLU has participated in litigation challenging the military’s ground combat exclusion policy, which was subsequently rescinded, and in FOIA litigation relating to the military and Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ treatment of claims related to military sexual trauma. The ACLU resides and has its principal place of business in New York City, New York.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 4 of 12
7. Plaintiff ACLU of Connecticut (“ACLU-CT”) is a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization dedicated to protecting individual civil rights and the principles of individual liberty embodied in the United States and Connecticut Constitutions. The ACLU Foundation of Connecticut, the litigation arm of the ACLU-CT, engages in litigation in state and federal courts. The ACLU-CT has over 5,000 members in the State of Connecticut and resides and has its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. The ACLU-CT has maintained a docket with impact litigation to promote gender equity, including FOIA litigation relating to the military and Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ treatment of claims related to military sexual trauma and Title IX litigation to create equal opportunities for participation in varsity athletics at Quinnipiac University, a private university that receives federal funds.
8. Defendant U.S. Department of Defense is the federal agency responsible for coordinating and supervising government activity relating directly to national security, the United States Armed Forces, and the Military Service Academies. The DOD is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f).
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Military Service Academies Admit Few Women and Have a Misogynistic Culture
9. Women first matriculated at the Military Service Academies in 1976. Nearly forty years later, the U.S. Military Academy (USMA), the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA), and the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) have failed to recruit and admit sufficient numbers of women to foster a healthy environment in which they are accepted and integrated.
10. The United States Military Academy in West Point, NY, is an academically and physically rigorous four-year leader-development program that prepares students to serve in the U.S. Army. Cadets, who attend West Point tuition-free, graduate with a Bachelor of Science
4

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 5 of 12
degree with a commission as a Second Lieutenant and must serve a minimum of five years on active duty. The USMA maintains class composition goals for women, which are set between 14% and 20% of the Corps of Cadets. The percentage of women at West Point has remained between 14% and 17% for over twenty-five years. Women currently constitute a mere 16% of the Corps of Cadets.
11. The United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO, is a four-year program that describes itself as both a military organization and a university. Cadets, who attend tuition-free, graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree with a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and must serve a minimum of five years on active duty. The USAFA has limited its enrollment of women cadets to at or below 23% of the cadet wing since 1976, despite commissioning its graduates into the Air Force, in which over 99% of career fields have been open to women for two decades.
12. The United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, prepares its students to become professional officers in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Students are midshipmen on active duty in the U.S. Navy and attend the Academy for four years. Midshipmen attend tuitionfree and graduate with a Bachelor of Science degree and with a commission as either an Ensign in the Navy or a Second Lieutenant in the Marine Corps. Graduates are required to serve a minimum of five years on active duty. At the USNA, women continue to constitute less than a quarter of the Brigade of Midshipmen. USNA directs no specific recruiting efforts toward women and has failed to admit women in numbers even closely equivalent to those of men.
13. Without a critical mass of women, female students are subjected to a campus environment of discrimination and gender bias that, in turn, leads to the targeting of women at the Academies for mistreatment, discrimination, harassment, and violence. Despite nearly ten
5

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 6 of 12
years of research, training, and focus on the crisis of sexual assault at Military Service Academies, reports of sexual assault at the Academies have risen in recent years. The Military Service Academies received 70 reports of sexual assaults in the 2012-2013 Academic Program Year. According to the DOD’s data, over 90% of the victims were women.
14. Women’s underrepresentation in the Military Service Academies results in a dearth of women officers in the Armed Forces. Overall, women comprise less than 17% of all officers in the military services.
15. These disparities cannot be justified by reference to limits on the numbers of fields and positions that women can hold within the military. Women have been serving as combat pilots in the Air Force and on combat ships since the early 1990s. Other restrictions on women’s service have been lifted over the past two decades, including restrictions on women’s service in ground combat units. Large numbers of women fought in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
16. In 2013, citing the changes in women’s combat service, the Secretary of Defense rescinded his only remaining policy limiting women’s service in the military – the direct ground combat exclusion policy – and ordered the service branches to integrate women fully into all facets of military service by January 1, 2016.
17. Despite these dramatic shifts in the opportunities for women to serve in all aspects of military life, the Academies maintain a student body that reflects a distant past in which the military barred women from serving in many leadership roles.
18. As in the Academies, and in part as a result of the Academies’ artificial limits on the numbers of women groomed for military leadership, the Armed Forces preserve a culture of discrimination in which harassment and violence against women remain far too common.
6

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 7 of 12
Thousands of members of the United States military experience sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape while serving. According to the DOD, 5,983 women reported military sexual assaults in FY2014. Most victims of sexual trauma, however, never report, often because of ostracism from colleagues and superiors similar to that experienced by those who report sexual violence at the Academies.
SWAN, ACLU, and ACLU-CT FOIA Requests 19. By email dated November 14, 2014, Plaintiffs submitted FOIA requests to USMA, USAFA, USNA, and other relevant DOD components for records relating to admissions policies, rates of admission, recruiting efforts, and admissions targets or quotas for women. Additional items of the FOIA request sought records regarding facilities for women and policies and responses to sexual harassment and assault at the Military Service Academies. Copies of the letters are attached as Exhibits A-C. 20. The Military Service Academies received these letters on November 14, 2014. 21. By letter and email dated December 5, 2014, USMA asked Plaintiffs to narrow their FOIA request to documents from the last six years because records before that time “may have been destroyed.” By email dated December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs declined to narrow their request for the reason stated because the USMA had failed even to determine whether responsive records existed beyond the last six years. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I). 22. On December 31, 2014, Plaintiffs received a letter from the USMA stating that it had not yet made a determination on the Plaintiffs’ fee waiver request and estimated it might take 900 hours to search for and review records responsive to the FOIA request. The USMA did not deny Plaintiffs’ request for records or a fee waiver and accordingly did not advise Plaintiffs of
7

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 8 of 12
their appeal rights. The USMA asked Plaintiffs to provide an alternative time frame for processing or modify their request.
23. The USMA communication of December 31, 2014 also purported to invoke the “unusual circumstances” provision of FOIA, which permits an agency at maximum an additional ten working days to comply with a FOIA request, beyond the usual statutory 20-day period. The USMA did not provide an expected date for a determination of the request.
24. By email dated January 2, 2015, Plaintiffs stated they would proceed on their November 14, 2014 request but agreed to modify their request for items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 so as to seek records only from 2001 to the present. Plaintiffs also reminded USMA that they will accept a random sample of records responsive to item 3.
25. Further, by email dated January 5, 2015, Plaintiffs declined to consider an alternative time frame because the USMA had failed to provide “the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched,” as required by statute, see 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(B)(i), and thus is not entitled to an additional ten days.
26. Even if the USMA were entitled to the maximum extension of an additional ten working days pursuant to the “unusual circumstances” provision, those additional ten days have already expired.
27. Further, because the USMA has not proposed a date by which it will comply with the original or modified request, Plaintiffs are unable to “arrange an alternative time frame” as contemplated by the “exceptional circumstances” provision of FOIA. Id. § 552(a)(6)(C)(iii).
28. The USMA has failed to produce any responsive records or determine that responsive records do not exist.
8

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 9 of 12
29. Plaintiffs have not received any response or other communication from the USAFA.
30. On January 6, 2015, Plaintiffs sent an email to the USAFA continuing to seek the requested records, but modified their request for items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 to seek records only from 2001 to the present. Plaintiffs also stated that they remain willing to accept a random sample of records responsive to item 3.
31. By letter and email dated November 26, 2014, the USNA acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and noted its substantial nature.
32. By letter and email dated December 10, 2014, the USNA concluded the request was “unreasonably burdensome” and that Plaintiffs’ request for a fee waiver would be granted in part and denied in part. The USNA stated that it would therefore “not proceed further with your request until the scope of your request has been modified, a fee agreement has been reached, and payment has been received.” The USNA stated further that it would “reduce” its fee calculations if Plaintiffs modified their request and advised Plaintiffs of their appeal rights.
33. By email dated December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs agreed to modify their request to the USNA by narrowing items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11 to seek records only from 2001 to the present. Plaintiffs remain willing to accept a random sample of records in response to item 3.
34. To date, the USNA has not advised Plaintiffs of any recalculation of the estimated fees nor informed Plaintiffs whether it continues to believe the request is unduly burdensome.
35. Between December 12, 2014 and January 29, 2015, the USNA provided documents responsive to some but not all of the items in Plaintiffs modified FOIA request. In particular, the USNA provided documents in response to items 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 of the
9

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 10 of 12
request, but the documents provided do not fully respond to each item. The USNA has produced no records in response to items 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, or 15.
36. In sum, DOD has wrongfully withheld requested records from Plaintiffs. To date, the Military Service Academies have not fulfilled the Plaintiffs’ requests and have violated their obligations under FOIA. The USMA and USAFA have not provided any responsive records at all. The USNA has provided records in response to some but not all items in Plaintiffs’ request, and the statutory deadlines for all responses have expired.
37. Plaintiffs have exhausted the administrative remedies available for their FOIA requests.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DOD Failed to Promptly Release Records Responsive to Plaintiffs’ Request 38. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-37 as if set forth in full. 39. DOD’s failure to release responsive records violated Plaintiffs’ right to those records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). 40. In this action, Plaintiffs seek judicial review of DOD’s failure to release records sought in their requests to the USMA, USAFA, and USNA. As to items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11, Plaintiffs have modified their requests to each Academy and seek judicial review only of the failure by DOD to disclose responsive records from 2001 to the present. As specified in their request, Plaintiffs will accept a random sample of the records responsive to item 3.
10

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 11 of 12
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF DOD Failed to Make a Reasonable Effort to Search for Records 41. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-37 as if set forth in full. 42. DOD’s failure to make a reasonable effort to search for responsive records violated Plaintiffs’ rights under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C). 43. In this action, Plaintiffs seek judicial review of DOD’s failure to make a reasonable effort to search for records sought in their requests to the USMA, USAFA, and USNA. As to items 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11, Plaintiffs have modified their request to each Academy and seek judicial review only of the failure by DOD to make a reasonable search for responsive records from 2001 to the present. As specified in their request, Plaintiffs will accept a random sample of the records responsive to item 3.
Requested Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1) Order Defendant to perform a reasonable search and disclose the requested records to Plaintiffs;
2) Order Defendant to grant a full fee waiver to Plaintiffs; 3) Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action; 4) Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees in this action as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E); and
11

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 1 Filed 02/03/15 Page 12 of 12

5) Grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: February 3, 2015 New Haven, CT
Respectfully submitted,
By:__/s/ Michael J. Wishnie_______
Ashley Anderson, Law Student Intern Alexandra Brodsky, Law Student Intern Phoebe Clarke, Law Student Intern Elizabeth Deutsch, Law Student Intern Arielle Humphries, Law Student Intern Bethany Li, ct29666 Michael Wishnie, ct27221 P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 (203) 432-4800
Ariela Migdal, Senior Staff Attorney* Lenora M. Lapidus, Director* ACLU Foundation Women’s Rights Project 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 (212) 519-7861
*Motion for admission for admission pro hac vice forthcoming.

Sandra J. Staub, ct28408 Legal Director ACLU of Connecticut 2074 Park Street, Suite L Hartford, CT 06106 (860) 523-9146 ext. 211

12

 </s> Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION

)

NETWORK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-137 June 23, 2015

DEFENDANT’S STATUS REPORT Defendant, by its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this status report pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order of May 1, 2015 (Doc. 27). In the paragraphs below, Defendant reports on the actions taken by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (“West Point”), the U.S. Air Force Academy (“Air Force Academy”) and the U.S. Naval Academy (“Naval Academy”) (collectively “Military Service Academies” or “Academies”) in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests to each Academy that are the subject of this action. WEST POINT
1. West Point has completed reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiffs requests, and has provided all such responsive material, with the exception of Request No. 3. The Parties currently are negotiating the response to Request No. 3. See infra.
2. West Point provided all of its responsive material on May 6, 2015. The

1

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 6
documents produced by West Point total nearly 2,300 pages and 8 videos. West Point has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions. NAVAL ACADEMY
3. The Naval Academy has completed reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiffs requests, and has provided all such responsive material, with the exception of Request No. 3. The parties currently are negotiating the response to Request No. 3. See infra.
4. The Naval Academy provided some of this information prior to the commencement of this litigation, further information on May 6, 2015, and completed its response on May 26, 2015. The documents produced by the Naval Academy total nearly 4,000 pages. The vast majority of these documents were produced in full, but some contain redactions pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) & 552(b)(6).1 The Naval Academy has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions. AIR FORCE ACADEMY
5. The Air Force Academy has fully responded to items 1, 2, and 11 of Plaintiffs’ requests and currently is in the process of conducting reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession that is responsive to the remaining items of Plaintiffs requests. The Air Force Academy anticipates that it will complete its response to those items by July 23, 2015. The documents produced by the Air Force thus
1 Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. § 552(b)(6)
2

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 6
far total 17 pages. To date, the Air Force Academy has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions.
6. The parties currently are negotiating the Air Force Academy’s response to Request No. 3. See infra. SAMPLE APPLICATIONS (REQUEST NO. 3)
7. Plaintiffs’ Request No. 3 seeks numerical data regarding the number of applicants to the Military Service Academies, and a random sample of such applications. At the April 24, 2015 conference, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that Defendant first would produce one representative application from each Military Service Academy by March 26, 2015, before the parties negotiate the scope of any random sample.
8. On March 26, 2015, Defendant provided to Plaintiffs the requested numerical data, and a representative application packet (the “Sample Packets”) for each respective Academy. The Sample Packets contain redactions pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) & 552(b)(6).
9. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs sent an email to Defendant requesting additional information about the Sample Packets, including both additional descriptions of redacted information and some substantive follow-up questions. On June 17, 2015, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that it intends to respond to many of their questions about the Sample Packets, including providing some additional descriptions of the redacted information. Defendant further informed Plaintiffs that, with respect to their substantive follow-up questions, Defendant is evaluating whether and to what extent disclosure is possible for each question, and whether Defendant can disclose the requested additional
3

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 6
information without conveying exempt information. Defendant is in the process of collecting and evaluating this follow-up information.
10. The parties have agreed that they will have a phone conference to discuss the definition of “packet” for each Military Service Academy, once outstanding issues relating to redactions are resolved. At this early stage of the process, it is not clear whether an agreement will be reached as to the definition of “packet.” And until open issues are resolved, it cannot yet be determined if there is an agreeable timeframe for providing a random sample of applications. REQUEST NO. 11
11. In Request No. 11, Plaintiffs seek “[a]ll records of sexual violence, including but not limited to harassment and assault, and records reflecting the number and handling of these reports” since 2001.
12. Defendant has provided 1,096 pages of material responsive to this request, which consist of annual reports for 2006-2013 to Congress regarding sexual harassment and violence at the three Military Service Academies. These reports are the most complete and comprehensive source for the information sought in Request No. 11, and they only have been required since 2006 (thus, reports do not exist for the period before 2006).
13. On May 6, 2015, Defendant informed Plaintiffs that, to the extent their request seeks every document associated with every claim of sexual harassment at one of the Academies since 2001, that request is overly broad and unduly burdensome. See Service Women’s Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 888 F. Supp. 2d 282, 291 (D. Conn. 2012).
4

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 5 of 6

Dated: June 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Attorney General
MARCIA BERMAN Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Emily B. Nestler EMILY B. NESTLER (Fed. Bar No. phv07346) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 616-8489 Fax: (202) 616-8470 emily.b.nestler@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the Defendant

5

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 30 Filed 06/23/15 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 23, 2015, the foregoing Defendant’s Status Report was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Emily B. Nestler EMILY B. NESTLER Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch

 </s> Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 32 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION

)

NETWORK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-137 July 23, 2015

DEFENDANT’S SECOND STATUS REPORT Defendant, by its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this status report pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order of May 1, 2015 (Doc. 27). In the paragraphs below, Defendant reports on the actions taken by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point (“West Point”), the U.S. Air Force Academy (“Air Force Academy”) and the U.S. Naval Academy (“Naval Academy”) (collectively “Military Service Academies” or “Academies”) in response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests to each Academy that are the subject of this action. WEST POINT
1. West Point has completed reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, and has provided all such responsive material, with the exception of Request No. 3. The Parties currently are negotiating the response to Request No. 3. See infra.
2. West Point provided all of its responsive material on May 6, 2015. The

1

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 32 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 5
documents produced by West Point total nearly 2,300 pages and 8 videos. West Point has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions. NAVAL ACADEMY
3. The Naval Academy had reported in its June 23, 2015 report that it had completed reasonable searches to find all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, and provided all such responsive material, with the exception of Request No. 3. However, the Naval Academy since located a few additional responsive documents and sent those documents to Plaintiffs on July 23, 2015. The parties currently are negotiating the response to Request No. 3. See infra.
4. The Naval Academy provided some of this information prior to the commencement of this litigation, further information on May 6, 2015, more on May 26, 2015, and completed its response on July 23, 2015. The documents produced by the Naval Academy total nearly 6,000 pages. The vast majority of these documents were produced in full, but some contain redactions pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) & 552(b)(6).1 The Naval Academy has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions. AIR FORCE ACADEMY
5. The Air Force Academy has completed reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests, and has provided
1 Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Exemption 6 protects information about individuals in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. § 552(b)(6)
2

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 32 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 5
all such responsive material, with the exception of Request No. 3. The Parties currently are negotiating the response to Request No. 3. See infra.
6. The documents produced by the Air Force Academy total 2,711 pages. The Air Force Academy has not withheld any documents in full under the FOIA exemptions. The vast majority of these documents were produced in full, but some contain redactions pursuant to FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) & 552(b)(6). SAMPLE APPLICATIONS (REQUEST NO. 3)
7. Plaintiffs’ Request No. 3 seeks numerical data regarding the number of applicants to the Military Service Academies, and a random sample of such applications. At the April 24, 2015 conference, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that Defendant first would produce one representative application from each Military Service Academy by March 26, 2015, before the parties negotiate the scope of any random sample.
8. On March 26, 2015, Defendant provided to Plaintiffs the requested numerical data, and a representative application packet (the “Sample Packets”) for each respective Academy. The Sample Packets contain redactions pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(b)(5) & 552(b)(6).
9. On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs sent an email to Defendant requesting additional information about the Sample Packets, including both additional descriptions of redacted information and some substantive follow-up questions. On July 13, 2015, Defendant responded to many of Plaintiffs’ questions about the Sample Packets, including providing some additional descriptions of the redacted information.
3

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 32 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 5

10. The parties have continued to discuss the definition of “packet” for each Military Service Academy, including both the number of applications sought by Plaintiffs, and the option for Defendant to provide the statistical data sought by Plaintiffs in a form other than a random sample of application packets (i.e., in the form of a spreadsheet). At this stage of the process, it remains unclear whether an agreement will be reached regarding the need for, or volume of, a random sample of application packets.

Dated: July 23, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER Acting Assistant Attorney General
MARCIA BERMAN Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Emily B. Nestler EMILY B. NESTLER (Fed. Bar No. phv07346) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 616-8489 Fax: (202) 616-8470 emily.b.nestler@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the Defendant

4

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 32 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 23, 2015, the foregoing Defendant’s Second Status Report was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/ Emily B. Nestler EMILY B. NESTLER Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch
5

 </s> Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 51 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION

)

NETWORK, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

)

)

Defendant.

)

___________________________________ )

Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-137 June 17, 2016

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Plaintiffs Service Women’s Action Network, American Civil Liberties Union, and American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant U.S. Department of Defense (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that this case has been settled between the parties. The parties further stipulate and agree that this case shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 17, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Bethany Li Miriam Becker-Cohen, Law Student Intern Ashley Ingram, Law Student Intern Madeline Ranum, Law Student Intern Emma Roth, Law Student Intern Bethany Li, Supervising Attorney, ct29666 Jason Parkin, Supervising Attorney, ct28499 Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 (203) 432-4800

1

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 51 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 3
Lenora Lapidus Women’s Rights Project American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 (212) 284-7356 Counsel for Plaintiffs
BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General MARCIA BERMAN Assistant Branch Director /s/ Emily B. Nestler EMILY B. NESTLER (Fed. Bar No. phv07346) Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 616-8489 Fax: (202) 616-8470 emily.b.nestler@usdoj.gov Counsel for Defendant
2

Case 3:15-cv-00137-SRU Document 51 Filed 06/17/16 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 17, 2016, the foregoing Stipulation of Dismissal was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.
/s/Bethany Li Bethany Li, ct29666 Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 Tel.: (203) 432-4800 Fax: (203) 432-1426 bethany.li@yale.edu
3

 </s> Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 1 of 7
CLOSED,EFILE
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:15−cv−00137−SRU

Service Women's Action Network et al v. Defense Assigned to: Judge Stefan R. Underhill Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Date Terminated: 06/17/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Service Women's Action Network

represented by Ariela M. Migdal American Civil Liberties Union Foundation − Brd St NYC 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−519−7861 Fax: 212−549−2580 Email: amigdal@aclu.org TERMINATED: 07/28/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus American Civil Liberties Union−NY Women's Rights Project 125 Broad St., 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 212−549−2668 Fax: 212−549−2580 Email: llapidus@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: michael.wishnie@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany Yue−Ping Li Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 203−436−8971 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: bethany.li@yale.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. McGuire American Civil Liberties Union − CT 330 Main St., First Floor Hartford, CT 06106

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 2 of 7

860−523−9146 Ext. 212 Fax: 860−586−8900 Email: dmcguire@acluct.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Parkin Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization Yale Law School PO Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520−9090 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: jason.parkin@yale.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J. Staub Center for Public Representation 22 Green St. Northampton, MA 01060 413−586−6024 Fax: 413−586−5711 Email: sstaub@cpr−ma.org TERMINATED: 02/27/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union

represented by Ariela M. Migdal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany Yue−Ping Li (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. McGuire (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Parkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J. Staub (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 3 of 7

Plaintiff
American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut

represented by Ariela M. Migdal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/28/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lenora M. Lapidus (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bethany Yue−Ping Li (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J. McGuire (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jason Parkin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sandra J. Staub (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2015 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Department of Defense U.S.

represented by Emily B. Nestler US Department of Justice, Civ Div, Fed Programs 20 Massachusetts Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 202−616−8489 Fax: 202−646−8460 Email: emily.b.nestler@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vanessa Roberts Avery U. S. Attorney's Office−CT 157 Church Street 25th Floor New Haven, CT 06519 203−821−3700 Fax: 203−773−5373 Email: vanessa.avery@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 4 of 7

02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/03/2015 02/04/2015 02/04/2015
02/04/2015
02/04/2015
02/04/2015 02/18/2015 02/18/2015

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $400 receipt number 0205−3497028.), filed by Service Women's Action Network. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
Judge Stefan R. Underhill added. (Lynch, K.) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
2 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER − PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/3/2015.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
3 STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/3/2015.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
4 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: Counsel initiating or removing this action is responsible for serving all parties with attached documents and copies of 3 Standing Protective Order, 1 Complaint filed by Service Women's Action Network, 2 Electronic Filing Order Signed by Clerk on 2/3/2015.(Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Sandra J. Staub on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network (Staub, Sandra) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Lenora M. Lapidus to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3497636) by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Staub, Sandra) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
7 MOTION for Attorney(s) Ariela M. Migdal to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3497649) by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Staub, Sandra) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by David J. McGuire on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network (McGuire, David) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Department of Defense. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
9 ORDER granting 6 Motion for Attorney Lenora M. Lapidus to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Lenora M. Lapidus for American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network added.; granting 7 Motion for Attorney Ariela M. Migdal to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Ariela M. Migdal for American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network added. Certificate of Good Standing due by 4/5/2015. Signed by Clerk on 2/4/2015. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
10 ENTERED IN ERROR − ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and LR 4 as to *Department of Defense* with answer to complaint due within *60* days. Attorney *Michael J. Wishnie* *Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St* *Yale Law School 127 Wall Street* *New Haven, CT 06511*. (Oliver, T.) Modified on 2/4/2015 (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 02/04/2015)
11 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED in accordance with FOIA statute, 5 U.S.C. 552 as to *Department of Defense* with answer to complaint due within *30* days. Attorney *Michael J. Wishnie* *Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St* *Yale Law School 127 Wall Street* *New Haven, CT 06511*. (Oliver, T.) Modified on 2/5/2015 TO CORRECT THE RULE (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 02/04/2015)
Docket Entry Correction re 10 Electronic Summons Issued MODIFIED TO NOTE THE ENTRY AS ENTERED IN ERROR AND REDOCKETED AS DOC 11 (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Lenora M. Lapidus on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network (Lapidus, Lenora) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Ariela M. Migdal on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 5 of 7

02/24/2015 02/27/2015 03/20/2015 03/20/2015 03/20/2015 03/27/2015 04/01/2015
04/01/2015
04/07/2015 04/08/2015 04/08/2015
04/10/2015 04/24/2015 05/01/2015 05/18/2015 05/19/2015 06/23/2015

Network (Migdal, Ariela) (Entered: 02/18/2015)
14 MOTION for Sandra J. Staub to Withdraw as Attorney by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Staub, Sandra) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sandra J. Staub terminated. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/27/2015. (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily B. Nestler on behalf of Department of Defense (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by Emily B. Nestler on behalf of Department of Defense (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
18 Defendant's ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by Department of Defense. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7)(Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 03/20/2015)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Vanessa Roberts Avery on behalf of Department of Defense (Avery, Vanessa) (Entered: 03/27/2015)
20 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 7 MOTION for Attorney(s) Ariela M. Migdal to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3497649) by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Migdal, Ariela) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
21 CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING re 6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Lenora M. Lapidus to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 0205−3497636) by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Lapidus, Lenora) (Entered: 04/01/2015)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Bethany Yue−Ping Li on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network (Li, Bethany) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
23 MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Intern by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
24 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION., Set Deadlines/Hearings: In Person Status Conference set for 4/24/2015 03:00 PM in Chambers Room 411, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
25 ORDER granting 23 Motion for Leave for Law Student Interns to Appear. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/10/2015. (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
26 Minute Entry for Proceedings Held Before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Status Conference held on 4/24/2015. Total Time: 1 hour (Court Reporter Susan Catucci). (Pannu, C.) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
27 MEMORANDUM of Scheduling Conference, ORDER. (Dispositive Motions due by 9/21/2015). Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/1/2015.(Freuden, S.) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
28 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney law student Ashley Anderson by Service Women's Action Network. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
29 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney.. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/19/2015. (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
30 First STATUS REPORT by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 06/23/2015)

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 6 of 7

07/21/2015 07/23/2015 07/28/2015 08/24/2015
08/25/2015 09/18/2015 09/21/2015 09/21/2015
10/16/2015 10/21/2015
10/22/2015 12/17/2015 12/18/2015 12/18/2015 01/28/2016 01/30/2016 01/30/2016

31 MOTION for Ariela Migdal to Withdraw as Attorney by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Migdal, Ariela) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
32 Second STATUS REPORT by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
33 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ariela M. Migdal terminated. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/28/2015. (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
34 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until August 28, 2015for Defendant to submit to Plaintiff its Search Declarations and Vaughn Index 27 Memorandum of Conference, Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
35 ORDER granting 34 Motion for Extension of Time to 8/28/2015 for Defendant to submit Search Declarations and Vaughn Index. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/25/2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 08/25/2015)
36 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until October 21, 2015 and November 11, 2015 for the Parties' Dispositive Motion 27 Memorandum of Conference, Order, Set Deadlines/Hearings by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
37 ORDER granting 36 Motion for Extension of Time regarding Dispositive Motion Deadlines set in 27 Memorandum of Conference, Order. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 9/21/2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant shall file any dispositive motion by no later than October 21, 2015; Plaintiffs shall respond to Defendants motion and file any cross motion by no later than November 11, 2015; Defendant shall file a reply in support of any dispositive motion, and a response to any cross motion filed by Plaintiffs, by no later than December 3, 2015; Plaintiffs shall file a reply in support of any cross motion by no later than December 21, 2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
38 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time until December 18, 2015 regarding Dispositive Motions 37 Order on Motion for Extension of Time by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
39 ORDER granting 38 Motion for Extension of Time re 27 Memorandum of Conference, Order. Defendant shall file all dispositive motions by 12/18/2015 and Plaintiffs shall file responses and/or cross motions by 1/29/16. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/21/2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Dispositive Motions due by 12/18/2015; Plaintiffs' response and/or cross motions due 1/29/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
40 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until January 29, 2016 Dispositive Motions by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 12/17/2015)
41 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/18/2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 1/29/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 12/18/2015)
42 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until 2/5/2015for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and related briefing schedule Set Deadlines/Hearings by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
43 ORDER granting 42 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/30/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 01/30/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Dispositive Motions due by 2/5/2016, Plaintiffs' Response/Cross Motions due by 3/4/2016, Defendant's Response/Reply due by 4/7/2016, Plaintiffs' Reply due by 4/21/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 01/30/2016)

Case: 3:15-cv-137 As of: 11/09/2017 02:40 PM EST 7 of 7

02/05/2016 02/08/2016 02/09/2016 02/09/2016 02/29/2016 03/04/2016 03/04/2016 04/14/2016 04/15/2016 04/15/2016 06/17/2016 06/17/2016

44 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until 03/04/2016for Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Related Briefing 43 Order on Motion for Extension of Time by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Jason Parkin on behalf of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network (Parkin, Jason) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
46 ORDER granting 44 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/9/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Dispositive Motions due by 3/4/2016, Plaintiffs' Response/Cross Motions due by 4/1/2016, Defendant's Response/Reply due by 4/29/2016, Plaintiffs' Reply due by 5/20/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
47 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time until April 18, 2016 for Dispositive Motions 46 Order on Motion for Extension of Time by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
48 ORDER granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/4/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Defendant's Dispositive Motions due by 4/18/2016, Plaintiffs' Response/Cross Motions due by 5/20/2016, Defendant's Response/Reply due by 6/10/2016, Plaintiffs' Reply due by 7/1/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 03/04/2016)
49 Joint MOTION to Vacate Briefing Schedule by Department of Defense. (Nestler, Emily) (Entered: 04/14/2016)
50 ORDER granting 49 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/15/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Dispositive Motions due by 6/20/2016; Status Report due by 6/20/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 04/15/2016)
51 STIPULATION of Dismissal by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, Service Women's Action Network. (Li, Bethany) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link:

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 06/20/2016)


[CONTENT] February 3, 2015 | Service Women’s Action Network | Freedom of Information Act | FOIA | the United States Department of Defense | the U.S. District Court | Connecticut |||  ||| DOD | the US Military Academies | FOIA ||| ACLU | ACLU | Connecticut ||| June 23 and July 23, 2015 | two | the U.S. Military Academy | the U.S. Air Force Academy | the U.S. Naval Academy | FOIA |||  ||| June 17, 2016 |||  [SUMMARY] On February 3, 2015, an advocacy organization for women in military service, Service Women’s Action Network, filed this lawsuit under Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) against the United States Department of Defense (“DOD”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The Act requires government organizations to conduct a reasonable search or to provide the records when requested by the public. The plaintiffs argued that DOD, however, did not comply to the plaintiffs’ request to gather information from the US Military Academies about the policies and practices that lead to women’s under-representation in the Academies in violation of FOIA. Represented by ACLU and ACLU of Connecticut, the plaintiffs asked for declaratory relief, and for the court to compel a reasonable search for records and timely production of records on the discrimination faced by women who aspire to be military officers due to the defendants' admissions policies.

On June 23 and July 23, 2015, the defendant filed two status reports to report on the actions taken by the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and the U.S. Naval Academy in response to the plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. These Academies has completed reasonable searches designed to find all information in its possession responsive to the plaintiffs’ request, with some exceptions. 

On June 17, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal informing the court that this case had been settled between the parties and agreed to a stipulated dismissal with prejudice. The case is now closed.