2014-01-24 19 0 REPLY to opposition to motion re 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by PATRICK DONAHUE, DAVID C. WILLIAMS. (Soskin, Eric) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
Orly failed to raise the proper issues
In their opening brief, Defendants moved for summary judgment on the adequacy of their search for responsive documents as well as on the three withholdings taken pursuant to Exemption 7(C). See Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 16, at 5-8 (“USPS MSJ”).Plaintiff’s opposition brief does not contest any aspect of the search, taking issue only with aspects of the response to Plaintiff’s appeal. See Plaintiff’s Opposition (“Pl. Opp.”), ECF No. 18 at ¶ 14 et seq. Nor does Plaintiff contest any withholding pursuant to Exemption 7(C) or any legal argument made in support of the withholdings. See generally Pl. Opp. Plaintiff has thus conceded any arguments as to the adequacy of Defendants’ search and to the redactions taken in the documents released.
But did manage to raise irrelevant issues
The arguments Plaintiff has made, by contrast, describe ancillary matters, none of which have any bearing on the parties’ arguments concerning summary judgment, and which rehash other matters already decided by, or presently before, the Court.For example, Plaintiff’s contention that she is entitled to summary judgment based on the Defendants’ alleged lack of timely response, see Pl. Opp. at ¶¶ 2-3, has already been adjudicated by the Court. See ECF No. 14.For this reason, Plaintiff’s argument would be relevant to a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), but not in response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment or in support of Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s arguments concerning alleged misconduct by Defendants and the Court pertaining to this issue, see Pl. Opp at ¶¶ 4-7, are likewise inapposite to summary judgment, and moreover, merely rehash similar tendentious allegations raised in Plaintiff’s motion to recuse. Compare ECF No. 17.