Kean v. NASA, 1:03-cv-02509

10
emails under FOIA Exemption 5. Separately, plaintiff moved to
strike several of NASA’s supporting declarations on the basis
that they were not made under penalty of perjury. Defendant thus
re-filed those declarations in order to comply with 28 U.S.C. §
1746.
On March 29, 2005, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to
strike the declarations as moot because defendant had re-filed
proper declarations. The Court also directed defendant to file a
supplemental reply in order to fully respond to plaintiff’s
arguments made in her opposition to summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary
judgment without prejudice to reconsideration after filing of the
supplemental reply.
Defendant filed its supplemental reply, which included
additional documentation, and the Court informed the parties that
it would take defendant’s renewed motion for summary judgment
under advisement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed her motion for
summary judgment. Defendant’s opposition to this motion included
still more declarations by NASA employees. Both motions are
pending before the Court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment should be granted only if the moving party
has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and
that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Case 1:03-cv-02509-EGS Document 45 Filed 03/27/07 Page 10 of 21