GlobalNav
On timing, the entire premise of the FOIA lawsuit was to obtain the documentary record on which it was anticipated the FAA would decide when, and under what conditions, a return to service would be authorized. So the nominal slow-motion imitation which much of the USFG conducts was, at least as I read the Complaint by the plaintiffs (and some parts of the court file to date), intended to be set aside. There are expedited proceedings in federal court and not only motions for temporary restraining orders (another example is reinstatement motions on behalf of aggrieved employees under Sec. 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act).
As for proprietary rights of - in this instance - Boeing, it's indisputable that the FOIA exemption serves an important purpose. However . . . and this is not an argument over whether or not the exemption applies to this or that specific document. Instead, in this situation, it can be argued (and probably should be argued) that the proprietary interests of Boeing with regard to the design of the aircraft as such design is in question in the aftermath of the accidents, that those proprietary interests have been relinquished. The public interest in getting assurance that the aircraft this time around is in full conformance and compliance with the certification standards outweighs the interests served by protecting proprietary information.
It isn't the standard rejoinder to assertions of an exemption applying but this is far from a standard matter. If the independent group which is seeking to run a "second set of eyes" review and assessment of the FAA decision-making process isn't going to see everything, what is the point served by their court action? I don't ascribe cynical motives to their court action, whatsoever. Certainly between the legal counsel for plaintiffs - old and established Washington players - and the billable-hours minions of Boeing, somebody can craft a sufficient protective order.