Sherrod v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s second supplemental motion for summary judgment—that is, its third attempt to justify its treatment of records—in a case involving an inmate’s access to surveillance camera videotapes documenting his crimes; treating the motion as unopposed since the plaintiff “has not filed a response”; concluding that “Defendants have satisfied their burden to adduce evidence demonstrating a reasonably adequate search.”
Foreman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment in a case involving a pro se inmate’s access to “various records related to his incarceration and medical treatment”; holding the agency properly redacted the names of certain correctional officers who interacted with the requester under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); noting the “heightened security concerns” about revealing the identifies are those officers working in the SHU context; noting also that the requester’s asserted public interest was actually a “personal interest in discerning potential defendants for his own litigation,” which should properly be pursued through civil discovery in separate litigation.
Bennett v. U.S. Postal Serv. (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion to dismiss; holding the pro se incarcerated requester failed to reasonably describe the records sought in his request; explaining the request was “impermissibly vague” because, in relevant part, it sought “every piece of information about any service ever offered by the United States Postal Service”; explaining how the requester also requested “contracts” without any further specificity.
Summaries of published opinions issued in 2026 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2025, 2024, and from 2015 to 2023.