Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 58 v.

Summary

A consent motion for entry of judgment filed November 8, 2022 as Document 64 by Plaintiff Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research in Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research v. National Institutes of Health, No. 1:21-CV-1275-LMB/JFA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the plaintiff asks the court to set out its judgment in a separate document, and states that the NIH consents. The motion summarizes the court's September 9, 2022 order (Dkt. 58), which granted in part the NIH's summary judgment motion on its Freedom of Information Act searches, and its later order (Dkt. No. 62), which sustained objections to certain redactions and denied judgment on Count I. It is signed by Jeffrey S. Beelaert of Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner LLP.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 58 v.” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-vaed-516270-64-0-900ee01ef2/, SHA-256 c63e97a1b717c9b48059c35a9558bdd2e61ca7d3cdcfba7d1422c162e247df88.

Full text

Case 1:21-cv-01275-LMB-JFA Document 64 Filed 11/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 1023

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

EMPOWER OVERSIGHT )
WHISTLEBLOWERS & RESEARCH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 1:21-CV-1275-LMB/JFA
v. )
)
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH )
)
Defendant. )

CONSENT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, Plaintiff Empower Oversight

respectfully moves this Court for entry of judgment.

Rule 58 states that the judgment “must be set out in a separate document.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) There are five exceptions, but none apply here. The rule also

states a “party may request” that the Court issue the judgment “in a separate

document as required by Rule 58(a).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d). Empower Oversight

contacted government counsel, and Defendant National Institutes of Health consents

to this motion. Empower Oversight accordingly requests that the Court enter
judgment in a separate document in accord with Rule 58.

The Court previously issued two orders. First, on September 9, 2022, the Court

held that the NIH carried its burden of showing that the agency had conducted

searches in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. See Dkt. 58 (addressing

Count II). The Court thus granted in part the NIH’s motion for summary judgment.

See id. (Order at 5). In the same order, the Court required the NIH “to further

explain” certain redactions that the agency made under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). See id.

(Order at 3). And the Court scheduled a hearing for the parties to address the issues

that it identified in the order.

Case 1:21-cv-01275-LMB-JFA Document 64 Filed 11/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 1024

After the hearing, the Court entered a second order. See Dkt. No. 62. The

Court held that the NIH had not carried its burden to provide an adequate basis to

redact “the ‘Status’ column in Exhibit D, and the names of the curator and researcher

previously disclosed.” Id. (Order at 1). The Court therefore “sustained” Empower

Oversight’s objections to those redactions. Id. (granting relief under Count III). The

Court further held that, although the NIH “failed to comply with the time limits set

out in the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6), plaintiff’s request for a

judgment in its favor on Count I of the complaint is DENIED because the defendant

did not act in bad faith and explained it had worked with plaintiff’s former counsel to

arrange for production schedules.” Id. (Order at 1–2 addressing Count I).

* * *

The Court has not yet entered “a separate document” for the judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 58(a). For the foregoing reasons, Empower Oversight respectfully requests

that the Court issue the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d).

Respectfully submitted,

/ s/ Jeffrey S. Beelaert
Jeffrey S. Beelaert (VSB No. 81852)
Stein Mitchell Beato & Missner LLP
901 15th Street NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: (202) 661-0923
Fax: (202) 296-8312
Email: jbeelaert@steinmitchell.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Empower Oversight

November 8, 2022

Case 1:21-cv-01275-LMB-JFA Document 64 Filed 11/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 1025

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that, on November 8, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing motion

with the Court using the CM/ECF system, which automatically sends an electronic

notification of the filing. All parties are registered users of the system, so they will

receive that notification.

Attorney for Plaintiff Empower Oversight

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.vaed.516270.64.0.pdf
Size: 106,278 bytes
SHA-256: c63e97a1b717c9b48059c35a9558bdd2e61ca7d3cdcfba7d1422c162e247df88
Our copy: gov.uscourts.vaed.516270.64.0.pdf
Original: archive.org