The following appeals and district court motions are pending:


9th Circuit:

July 27, 2011: The 9th Circuit REVERSED AND REMANDED the district court denial of a FOIA complaint for Skinner's records. See 9th Circuit decision in Pickard v. DOJ, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. July 27, 2011)("Pickard I").


10th Circuit:

November 5, 2013: The Tenth Circuit REVERSED AND REMANDED the Kansas District Court denial of Defendants' motion to unseal the "Confidential Informant FIle" and "Risk Assessment File" of Gordon Todd Skinner, and instructed the district court to reconsider the motion. See http://cjonline.com/news/2013-11-08/topeka-judge-told-reconsider-sealed-file-lsd-case.

May 7, 2013: Oral argument on this date before Tenth Circuit in Denver, over objection of the Government, regarding the motion to unseal Gordon Todd Skinner's sealed "CI File" in district court, consisting of a.) a "Risk Assessment"; b.) two Quarterly Reports dated January 19, 2001 and March 31, 2001 respectively; and c.) a Deactivation Report dated June 27, 2001.

2012: Opening brief filed requesting that Gordon Todd Skinner's Confidential Informant File (CI File) containing the "risk assessment" (RA file) - sealed in district court at trial in 2003 - be unsealed and made available to the public due to a. the First Amendment and common law right to access to these records; b. Skinner's file already being provided to defense counsel; c. the issue of inauthenticity of the "risk assessment" (see Pickard v. DOJ in Arizona, "Pickard II" infra); d. the need to prevent spoliation or alteration of these exhibits by the government; and e. the 9th Circuit decision in Pickard v. DOJ, 653 F.3d 782 (9th Cir. July 27, 2011)("Pickard I") wherein it was decided that Skinner has no further privacy interests due to his official confirmation as an informant by DEA.

June 18, 2012: The Tenth Circuit issued an opinion stating, "We cannot accept the proposition that the government has a free pass to deceive a habeas court into denying discovery just because it similarly deceived the trial court [ ] We doubt that the governing procedural rules permit the government to gain such an advantage by its own fraudulent conduct." The Tenth Circuit remanded the Kansas case to the district court with instructions to consider Defendants' claim that the "prosecutor's false statement improperly prevented them from obtaining relevant discovery in the 2255 proceedings."

March 21, 2011: Motion to remand for fraud upon the court due to prosecutor's affirmative denial to the district court that no agency other than DEA participated in the investigation. This motion was filed after DOJ through FOIA revealed that the investigation was a multiagency OCDETF and HIDTA investigation (see DEA and DOJ FOIA requests). Oral argument set for January 20, 2012 after Government indicated it was "not prepared" to respond to the motion.


District Court (Kansas):

March 21, 2013: Motion for Judicial Notice of the district's court's sealed "CI File" of Skinner, consisting of a.) an undated, unsigned "Risk Assessment"; b.) two Quarterly Reports dated January 19, 2001 and March 30, 2001 respectively; and c.) a Deactivation Report dated June 27, 2001.

November 5, 2012: Rule 60(b) Motion filed concerning the Government's additional fraud on the district court on remand by submitting to the district court an affidavit from DEA Agent Karl Nichols describing OCDETF member agencies undisclosed at trial and falsely asserting that member agencies participation was "minimal." (Cf. United States v. Aileman, 986 F.Supp. 1228, 1276 (N.D. Cal. 1997), stating DEA's contention that OCDETF member agencies participation was "minimal" was "false" ). The Government failed to contest this motion.

2012: Motion for evidentiary hearing was filed on the issue of fraud upon the district court concerning the prosecutor's deception that only DEA was involved in the investigation, whereas afterward DOJ and FBI through FOIA confirmed the investigation was a multiagency OCDETF and HIDTA investigation (See June 18, 2012 remand on this issue by the Tenth Circuit, stating "We cannot accept the proposition that the government has a free pass to deceive a habeas court just because it similarly deceived the trial court").

September 7, 2011: Second notice (revised) of prosecutor's and agent's violation of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(b) regarding lack of evidentiary support or the authenticity of the "risk assessment" sealed by the district court at trial. No response by the Government.

June 14, 2011: Notice of prosecutor's and agent's violation of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 11(b) regarding lack of evidentiary support for the authenticity of the "risk assessment" sealed by the district court at trial. No response by the Government.


District Court (Northern District of California):

October 3, 2012: DEA produced a partial Vaughn Index of Gordon Todd Skinner's DEA records, but the index was non-compliant with 9th Circuit standards.

September 28, 2012: DEA was given five days to provide Skinner's records, or be held in contempt of court.

2012: DEA then attempted not to file a detailed Vaughn index, but a generalized affidavit.

2012: On remand from the 9th Circuit, DEA attempted to seal its Vaughn Index of Gordon Todd Skinner's DEA records - the first effort of its kind in a FOIA case. DEA's motion was denied by the district court, and DEA was ordered to make public a Vaughn index of each document or portion thereof.

December 14, 2011: The 9th Circuits reversal of Pickard v. DOJ is now pending in district court in San Francisco, awaiting the Government's release of a Vaughn Index (see Pickard v. DOJ, fn 2) ("Pickard 1") of all DEA records on informant Gordon Todd Skinner.


District Court (Arizona):

March 20, 2013: Discovery was conducted through interrogatories and requests for admissions submitted to DEA and responded to by William C. Little, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel, DEA Administrative Law Section. DEA affidavits indicate that "Risk Assessments" did not exist during the period of Skinner's utilization as an informant. A cross-motion for summary judgment was filed (3/20/13) to determine how Agent Nichols prepared a "Risk Assessment" prior to its first appearance in the DEA Agents Manual and in the absence of any interim policy or directives to field offices, and in an effort to resolve the issue of authenticity of the "Risk Assessment" sealed in the Kansas trial.

August 18, 2011: Motion to amend complaint (granted) to include as exhibit DEA FOIA release of July 1, 2011 confirming that "Sec. 6612.13" did not exist in the DEA Agent's Manual at the time of Skinner's purported "risk assessment".

August 9, 2011: This proceeding, also entitled Pickard v. DOJ, 4:11-cv-004420DCB)(D. Arizona)("Pickard II") concerns a FOIA request for "Sec. 6612.13" of the DEA Agent's Manual, cited by the Government as the basis for Gordon Todd Skinner's "risk assessment" sealed by the district court in Kansas. [NB: there is no "Sec. 6612.13" in the DEA Agent's Manual prior to June 28, 2001 during the time Skinner was activated, utilized and deactivated as an informant].


Pending FOIA Requests: See list of FOIA request ultimately to be litigated in federal court.


Attorneys, Defendants and Public Interest Groups are invited to contact us regarding these appeals and motions.