The Bourne Identity is a 2002 action-thriller film based on Robert Ludlum's 1980 novel. It was directed and co-produced by Doug Liman and written by Tony Gilroy and William Blake Herron. It stars Matt Damon as Jason Bourne, a man suffering from psychogenic amnesia attempting to discover his identity amidst a clandestine conspiracy within the CIA. It also features Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Clive Owen, Brian Cox, Walton Goggins, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje. The first installment in the Bourne film series, it was followed by The Bourne Supremacy (2004), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Bourne Legacy (2012), and Jason Bourne (2016).
Filming began in October 2000.[8] [9]From the onset of filming, difficulties with the studio slowed the film's development and caused a rift between the director and Universal Pictures, as executives were unhappy with the film's pacing, emphasis on small scale action sequences, and the general relationship between themselves and Liman, who was suspicious of direct studio involvement.[10] A number of reshoots and rewrites late in development, plus scheduling problems, delayed the film from its original release target date of September 2001 to June 2002 and took it $8,000,000 over budget from the initial budget of $60 million; screenwriter Tony Gilroy faxed elements of screenplay rewrites almost throughout the entire duration of filming.[10] A particular point of contention with regard to the original Gilroy script were the scenes set in the farmhouse near the film's conclusion. Liman and Matt Damon fought to keep the scenes in the film after they were excised in a third-act rewrite that was insisted upon by the studio. Liman and Damon argued that, though the scenes were low key, they were integral to the audience's understanding of the Bourne character and the film's central themes. The farmhouse sequence consequently went through many rewrites from its original incarnation before its inclusion in the final product.[10]
2002) Action | English | 2002.rar
Bensman v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., 49 F. App'x 646 (7th Cir. 2002) (attorney fees: district court acted within its discretion when it denied pro se plaintiff compensation for his personal work time, a new shirt, and computer expenses in this FOIA action where that requester sought information in connection with his efforts to protect a species of bat; a new shirt and computer expenses are "at best akin to overhead expenses" that are considered part of attorney fees; a pro se plaintiff is entitled for reimbursement of costs only, not attorney fees).
Ferranti v. ATF, No. 01-5451, 2002 WL 31189766 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 2, 2002) (per curiam) (grants government's motion for summary affirmance in this FOIA action, finding that government has addressed with specificity the applicability of Exemptions 2 and 7(C) to the redacted information).
Livshits v. Dep't of Justice, No. 02-5087, 2002 WL 31520350 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 2002) (per curiam) (grants government's motion for summary affirmance in this FOIA action, finding that DEA conducted a reasonable search).
Coleman v. United States Dep't of Justice, No. 02-79-A (E.D. Va. Oct. 7, 2002) (exhaustion: in this FOIA action where plaintiff sought records concerning the 1992 shootings at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, finds that plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies only in part, yet incorrectly seeks judicial review of the case as a whole; plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the agency's use of the statutory exemptions, but not concerning the adequacy of the agency's search; search issue is not properly before the court) (Exemption 3 [Rule 6(e)]: protects grand jury witness testimony) (Exemption 5: the attorney work-product privilege protects investigatory documents that contain the "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories" of the attorneys involved) (Exemption 7(C): exemption protects the identities of people who aided in the investigation; because Ruby Ridge "arouses a visceral reaction from those who believe the actions of the FBI were unwarranted," the privacy interests of informants are "formidable").
Dow Jones Co., Inc. v. FERC, 219 F.R.D. 167 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (Exemption 7(A): in this FOIA action where plaintiff seeks disclosure of an appendix to a report of a FERC investigation into energy production and sales at 2 California power plants, finds that the agency has not shown that disclosure would interfere with a pending law enforcement proceeding; target companies have copies of the report; a court has never upheld the use of the exemption on the basis that disclosure would interfere with settlement discussions or impede the willingness of targets of investigation to disclose additional information voluntarily) (Exemption 7(B): agency has not shown that any trial or adjudication is "pending or truly imminent" or that disclosure would generate pretrial publicity that could deprive the companies or their employees of their right to a fair trial) (Exemption 7(C): incorrectly holding that the exemption does not protect the identities of company employees who cooperated with or who were mentioned in the investigation, because they are not accused of any criminal activity and because disclosure would not "otherwise intrude on their privacy" as the information is not "of an intimate personal nature" and there is a "great" public interest in information relevant to the California energy crisis and the agency's performance of its regulatory duties) (Exemption 4: applying the National Parks test, finds that the information in the appendix is largely commercial and financial in nature; agency has not shown that disclosure would impair its ability to obtain such information in the future; "[a]greements for confidentiality, standing alone, are insufficient to satisfy the requirements" of the exemption; declines to adopt Critical Mass because its holding "is not consistent with Ninth Circuit jurisprudence, nor with the purposes of Congress in enacting FOIA").
Iowa Citizens for Cmty. Improvement v. USDA, 256 F. Supp. 2d 946 (S.D. Iowa 2002) (Exemption 6: orders in camera inspection of a letter written by the nominee to the third-highest post in the USDA and an audiotape of a telephone conversation between the nominee and his brother during which the nominee allegedly admits and/or alludes to the fact that he has improperly received farm subsidies; finding that fitness for office is not a "valid public interest" under the FOIA; in light of the fact that farm subsidies have been improperly received and that the USDA has required partial repayment without undertaking further administrative action, the public has a right under the FOIA to disclosure of information about the nominee and his family members if it is relevant to an understanding of whether the actions or failures to act by the USDA were the result of the individual's status as a nominee; if the information concerns intra-familial relationships and is not relevant to such understanding, disclosure would be a "clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy"; nominee discussed the contents of the audiotape during his public confirmation hearings before the Senate; the privacy interests of nominee's brother and third parties are diminished because a transcript of the conversation was, at least partially, published in a local newspaper). 2ff7e9595c
Коментарі