Court Opinions

Apr. 2015 to Dec. 2023

For additional sources of FOIA case law, see "Federal court cases" in Useful Links.

Dec. 28, 2023

Nat'l Press Club Journalism Inst. v. USCIS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) both USCIS and ICE conducted adequate searches for records concerning a Mexican journalist and his son, but not with respect to records of “mechanisms used to limit or block phone calls” at ICE’s El Paso facilities”; (2) ICE’s Vaughn Index and declarations were inadequate to justify its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) and Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (3) ICE was entitled to reprocess documents that it inadvertently disclosed to plaintiff, but declining to limit plaintiff’s use of inadvertently disclosed documents because ICE had “not moved for any relief whatsoever on this front.”

Dec. 22, 2023

Ctr. For Investigative Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) -- concluding that DOL improperly withheld EEO-1 reports pursuant to Exemption 4 after deciding—over the objections of six representative federal contractors—that: (1) the workforce demographic data contained within those reports did not qualify as “commercial”; (2) such data was not independently protected by the Trade Secrets Act; and (3) whether the data was “confidential” was a moot issue, as was the foreseeable harm test.

Dec. 21, 2023

Magassa v. TSA (D.C. Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) TSA properly withheld security screening records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r); (2) TSA properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of certain TSA agents associated with screening plaintiff; (3) agency performed adequate search in response to plaintiff’s request; and (4) plaintiff could not challenge agency’s Glomar response as to whether plaintiff appeared on terrorist watch lists, because he failed to raise the issue in his administrative appeal.

Dec. 20, 2023

Muzumala v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) FBI timely responded to plaintiff’s request by regular mail to plaintiff’s last known address, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that he was entitled to a response via email; (2) FBI performed a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, who provided no evidence that agency had responsive records; and (3) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r), as well as Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Dec. 19, 2023

Am. Civil. Liberties Union of Mass. v. DHS (D. Mass.) -- following in camera review of disputed records, concluding that DHS properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portion of its “Criminal Gangs Investigations Handbook” that contained “detailed definitions and the specific criteria that [the agency] considers when identifying gangs, criminal activity, and gang members.”

Lindsay-Poland v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) even if an appropriations rider protected certain firearms information pursuant to Exemption 3, an exception to that rider permitted disclosure of certain “statistical aggregate data” to plaintiff because he was a news media representative or the functional equivalent; and (2) agency failed to adequately show that release of zip code data would violate the privacy of certain licensees and fall outside the bounds of “statistical aggregate data.”

Dec. 15, 2023

Voice of San Diego v. NCIS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) Navy performed adequate search for records concerning its investigations into suicides of certain service members; and (2) government’s explanations for privacy withholdings in the Vaughn Index were too “boilerplate and conclusory” to permit the court to conduct required balancing test; noting that government’s terse descriptions nonetheless suggested that “substantial privacy interests” were at stake, and that court harbored doubt that plaintiff could show an overriding public interest in disclosure.

Dec. 13, 2023

Ulis v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly refused to release the clip-on necktie of D.B. Cooper, because tangible objects are not reproducible and do not qualify as agency records.

Dec. 7, 2023

Nagdy v. DOJ (W.D. Ky.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim against FBI because he failed to administratively appeal from the agency’s response to his request for records concerning his state-court criminal case.

Dec. 5, 2023

Chohan v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f) (Immigration & Nationality Act), to withhold records pertaining to agency’s denial of plaintiff’s visa applications.

Nov. 29, 2023

Roland v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s ruling that: (1) before filing suit, plaintiff failed to administratively appeal DOJ’s determinations that neither the FBI nor National Security Division had records of spying on plaintiff through his television set, and that any existing records would be classified, in any event; (2) plaintiff’s claim about the existence of responsive records was “implausible,” dismissing plaintiff’s reliance on certain video recordings of television broadcasts as unrealistic.

Nov. 28, 2023

Huddleston v. FBI (E.D. Tex.) -- concluding that: (1) the FBI failed to justify its reliance on Exemption 7(D) and 7(E) to withhold information from the images of Seth Rich’s personal laptop; (2) FBI failed to show that records concerning Seth Rich’s work laptop were not “agency records,” rejecting the use of the four-factor Burka test and adopting the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Rojas v. FAA; and (3) FBI properly withheld newly found records concerning the work laptop pursuant to Exemption 7(A), citing a criminal prosecution and governmental action against various Russian nationals who have been indicted by a grand jury in the District of Columbia.

Nov. 27, 2023

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed an adequate search for records of communications between FBI officials and the New York Times regarding search warrants executed in 2021 against certain Project Veritas employees; rejecting plaintiff’s challenges to the search terms employed and the locations searched, as well as plaintiff’s “pure speculation” that the FBI was the source of the newspaper’s reporting.

Nov. 15, 2023

Kilmer v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that: (1) CBP adequately addressed the court’s earlier concerns regarding the agency’s search for certain communications about the ‘Women’s March” in 2017; and (2) CBP properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (deliberative process privilege), 6, 7(C), and 7(E). In reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because CBP had certain enforcement powers, the agency’s search and withholdings should be reviewed under a “strict scrutiny” standard.

Nov. 6, 2023

Contreras & Metelska v. ICE (D. Minn.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C) to redact emails of ICE’s local chief counsel regarding his “no contact” policy with plaintiffs; rejecting plaintiff’s claims that agency’s alleged discriminatory conduct or its release of previously withheld records constituted bad faith warranting additional review of disputed documents.

NY Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting government’s motion for reconsideration in case involving records of FBI’s “use of spyware and other digital surveillance products from the Israeli technology company”; finding that government’s supplemental declaration regarding Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E) was sufficient to sustain withholdings. but cautioning that “this ruling should in no way be construed as approving the Government's failure to effectively support its litigation positions in its summary judgment briefing.”

Nov. 1, 2023

Guarascio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s conviction for manufacturing child pornography, concluding that: (1) although FBI processed and released requested records, FBI failed to show that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge his FOIA/Privacy Act waiver; (2) FBI’s search was inadequate “because it did not aver that it searched all files that are likely to contain responsive materials”; (3) plaintiff was not entitled to a waiver due to indigency or any alleged improprieties in his criminal case, and he failed to show that public interest would be served by disclosure; and (4) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(C), but it did not establish that Exemption 7(D) protected all investigatory records received from a state law enforcement agency.

Oct. 24, 2023

Vidal-Martinez v, DHS (7th Cir.) -- using “clear error” standard, affirming district court’s decision that ICE properly redacted records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because he did not substantially prevail.

Oct. 23, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed an adequate search for various electronic communications, and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold in full five pages discussing the “nuts and bolts of proposed rulemaking”; further noting that the agency met the “deliberative process privilege’s ‘foreseeable harm’ requirement” with a concrete and focused declaration (albeit brief), which was supported by the “context and purpose” of the withheld records.

Oct. 17, 2023

BuzzFeed v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain emails discussing DNA forensic assistance for pending FBI investigations, noting that agency demonstrated that disclosure could cause foreseeable financial harm to genetic testing companies; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold records about reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings that, if disclosed, would reasonably likely to interfere with future criminal cases; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the identities of law enforcement personnel and third parties; and (4) FBI’s properly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold companies’ forensic law enforcement capacities and forensic genealogy testing innovations and advancements, as well as details on evidence collection and evidence gathered for pending investigations.

Oct. 13, 2023

Yim v. NIH (3rd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed a reasonable search for records reflecting any updates to the COVID-19 treatment guidelines endorsed by a vote of a panel of experts; rejecting as speculation plaintiff’s assertion that the expert panel never actually voted on a guideline recommendation about which NIH had produced records.

Oct, 12, 2023

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, concluding that DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation properly withheld some, but not all, presentation slides pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6. Of note, the court chided DOJ for failing to cite Exemption 6 in its Vaughn Index despite being instructed to do so in its prior opinion.

Oct. 2, 2023

Stevens v. HHS (N.D. Ill.) -- determining in relevant part that: (1) EOIR could not deny requests seeking all records about certain third parties as unreasonably described, because plaintiff included requests for more specific items and EOIR did not assert that a search would require unreasonable effort; and (2) plaintiff’s request for screenshots of certain information contained in an agency database was readily reproducible and would not constitute the creation of new records.

Sept. 30, 2023

Shtyenshlyuger v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- in a 71-page opinion, concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal agency’s response that was issued after he had filed suit; (2) agency failed to explain how it processed approximately 3200 responsive pages, and its search terms and search locations were incomplete; (3) agency failed to establish that all of its Exemption 4 withholdings met the “commercial or financial threshold,” let alone the “confidential” prong, and it wholly ignored the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; (4) agency properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it failed to carry its burden with respect to its attorney-client privilege withholdings; and (5) agency could not withhold complaint files under Exemption 6 merely because they were located in a Privacy Act system of records, noting that CMS failed to explain whose privacy interest it sought to protect and “how disclosure would ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted’ invasion of that unspecified interest.”

Sept. 29, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met the foreseeable harm test in withholding portions of a presentation used “to brief White House officials about potential strategies the EPA was considering for regulating power-plant pollution.”

Putnam v. U.S. Army Reserve Bd. Agency (W.D. Okla.) -- holding that agency’s belated response to plaintiff’s request warranted no after-the-fact remedy, and that the agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search.

Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) CIA’s discovery of two additional responsive records did not warrant disturbing court’s initial decision that CIA’s search was adequate; (2) CIA was required to provide actual documents to plaintiff, as ordered in previous ruling, as opposed to a list of names that were not protected by Exemption 6; and (3) neither State Department, FBI, nor ODNI adequately addressed court’s prior concerns about certain withholdings, which necessitated further briefing from the latter two agencies and in camera review of State’s disputed record.

Sept. 28, 2023

Cabezas v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility failed to prove that it had responded to plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed suit, and that OPR improperly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in connection with plaintiff’s request for misconduct records regarding certain law enforcement officers; (2) neither BOP nor plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on question of whether agency received plaintiff’s request; and (3) EOUSA established that it conducted an adequate search for certain forfeiture records pertaining to plaintiff’s property.

Sept. 21, 2023

Protect the Public’s Trust v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly refused to process plaintiff’s unreasonably described request for “all records and communications” between agency political appointees and “any employee or representative” of 25 separate organizations.

Sept. 19, 2023

Radar Online v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI was entitled to raise Exemption 7(A) as grounds for withholding Jeffrey Epstein-related records due to changed circumstances, but agency failed to show how disclosure of particular investigatory records would interfere with a retrial of Ghislaine Maxwell if she prevailed on appeal; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold identifying information concerning minor children, but it failed to meet its burden regarding grand jury materials and juvenile arrest and criminal history information; (3) FBI properly withheld various records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and 7(E); and (4) FBI established that Exemption 7(D) protected information provided by local law enforcement information, but it did not meet its burden with respect to information provided by other sources.

Cable News Network v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- holding that CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to deceased musician James Brown.

Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed adequate search for two Commissioners’ calendars; (2) agency’s explanations for its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege were “insufficiently detailed”; and (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6, but failed to justify its categorical withholding of the names of all “lower-level staff.”

Bakaj v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DHS properly redacted the names of four CIA officials pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Inspector General Act, National Security Act, and the CIA Act.

Wright v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that one of plaintiff’s requests was unreasonably described, the FBI conducted adequate searches with respect to four of five disputed items, and the FBI properly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 1 and 3.

Sept. 16, 2023

Lawyers for Civil Rights v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (D. Mass) -- summarily adopting Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that USCIS properly witheld some, but not all, records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege, and that all of agency’s attorney-client privilege withholdings were proper; also remarking without context that “a generalized intention to shield government employees from unwanted attention is insufficient to support a wholesale exemption from the Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) disclosure requirements.” 

Sept. 13, 2023

NY Times v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact limited information from two documents pertaining to FBI shooting incidents, because such information would—in combination with publicly available information—risk revealing the identities of FBI agents and third parties with no overriding public interest.

Stalcup v. FBI (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff neglected to properly file administrative appeals with the U.S. Navy and FBI following their pre-litigation responses to his requests for TW Flight 800 records.

Sept. 12, 2023

Osen LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that the Office of Foreign Assets Control properly withheld “designation packages” pertaining to three sanctioned, Hamas-related organizations pursuant to Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1).

Sept. 11, 2023

Colo. Wild Pub. Lands v. U.S. Forest Service (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of agency’s evaluation of a proposed land exchange, ruling that: (1) agency improperly withheld disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5, because they were either not deliberative or did not meet the foreseeable harm test; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold employee’s work cell phone number and contact information of third parties, except for business contact information of real estate agents; and (3)(a) plaintiff adequately alleged that agency had policy and practice of unlawfully withholding land exchange records, (b) its claim was not moot, and (c) declaratory relief was appropriate but that a referral to a Special Counsel was not.

Sept. 8, 2023

Gun Owners of America v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI reasonably interpreted the scope of plaintiff’s request regarding website visitor information as seeking “preexisting aggregate records, not each underlying document that would allow it to construct the record itself,” and that FBI performed an adequate search (finding no responsive records); rejecting as irrelevant plaintiff’s arguments that other DOJ components produced individualized records and that DOJ’s counsel understood which records plaintiff was interested in, because the plain meaning of the actual request controlled.

Sept. 5, 2023

Am. Oversight v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not adequately search for various documents relating to people who had died in ICE’s custody; (2) because ICE did not even attempt to justify its Exemption 3 withholdings (failing to file a promised ex parte declaration), it must release documents withheld solely under that exemption; and (3) ICE’s generalized assertions about foreseeable harm were inadequate to justify its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege.

Sept. 1, 2023

Wilderness Workshop v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Forest Service performed adequate search for records concerning landowner’s request for access to national forest in Colorado, but USDA’s Office of Information Affairs failed to adequately explain its search methodology; (2) government’s declarations and Vaughn indices did not contain enough information to justify withholdings under the deliberative process privilege; (3) government properly withheld records pursuant to the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges and the foreseeable harm requirement was met; (4) government properly withheld information about federal employees under Exemption 6; and (5) government produced records in the format plaintiff requested (searchable PDF files), and it was not required to transmit those records via the means plaintiff requested (flash or jump drive).

Martin v. Garland (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted a reasonable search for records concerning the medical leave of an Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted him, and that EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Polidi v. Mendel (E.D. Va.) -- deciding that U.S. Patent and Trade Office properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact information pertaining to third parties appearing in records concerning plaintiff’s expulsion from the Patent Bar.

Yadav v. USCIS (D. Md.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to agency’s denial of plaintiff’s application to adjust his residency status, and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

Aug. 30, 2023

Cullen v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) pro se prisoner waived his right to dispute adequacy of agency’s search for records pertaining to its investigation of plaintiff because he failed to mention the issue in his briefing; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), including images of adult pornography that plaintiff failed to establish were commercially produced.

Mountgordon v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning investigatory records generated from plaintiff’s complaint, finding that: (1) agency failed to expressly address the foreseeable harm requirement with respect to the withholding in full of its investigative report under the deliberative process privilege, nor did the agency sufficiently support its segregability analysis; and (2) regarding requested witness statements, the agency properly excluded “UCMJ rights forms” as non-responsive, but that agency’s declaration “conflates Exemptions 5 and 6 and offers too little detail to sustain the withholdings on the present record.” Of note was the court’s criticism of the agency in the opinion’s introduction: “Here, the Coast Guard’s motion for summary judgment is poorly supported and lacking essential detail. Many of its withholdings are likely proper, but the Coast Guard has not taken the time to support its position. That means more work for the Coast Guard, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court. And, more importantly, it also means unnecessary delay, which is antithetical to FOIA.”

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons improperly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold records describing guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain lethal injection substance, because those records did not involve agency “investigations” or “prosecutions”; (2) in accordance with recent D.C. Circuit decision, BOP did not sufficiently explain how information that could lead to identify the suppliers of lethal injection substances to the federal government was commercial information for Exemption 4 purposes'; and (3) BOP’s foreseeable harm argument “failed to connect any particular document to the stated harm” or to explain how deliberations would be harmed by disclosure.

Aug. 29, 2023

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Park Police (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of tort claimants, and—invoking the court’s inherent powers—ordering plaintiff not to use or disseminate names of claimants that agency inadvertently disclosed; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of police officers involved in same tort claims, noting that disclosure would reveal “little more about Park Police’s conduct than what has already been disclosed,” e.g., settlement amounts and officers’ employment status.

Aug. 25, 2023

Found. for Gov't Accountability v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- in case concerning DOJ’s strategic plan to promote voter registration and participation in response to Executive Order 14019, determining that: (1) DOJ properly withheld some, but not all, disputed emails pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; and (2) DOJ improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold the final version of DOJ’s strategic plan because it was not pre-decisional; and (3) ordering in camera review of DOJ’s strategic plan to evaluate DOJ’s presidential communications claim, noting that DOJ’s sworn statements “lack sufficient detail and are contradicted by the record evidence.”

Aug. 24, 2023

Thompson v. DOJ (W.D.N.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that the Environmental & Natural Resources Division had adopted a pattern or practice of delaying responses to plaintiff’s FOIA requests; rejecting government’s argument that because all of plaintiff’s requests had received a response, plaintiff’s pattern-or practice claim was moot; noting government’s delays in responding to plaintiff’s requests and to other FOIA requesters, as indicated in DOJ’s annual FOIA reports.

Aug. 18, 2023

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) affirming district’s decision that FBI and DOJ performed adequate searches for records pertaining to veterans prohibited from purchasing firearms due to mental defects, and rejecting appellant’s argument that DOJ should have expanded its search from the Attorney General’s Office to the Office of Legislative Affairs based on results of AG’s searches; and (2) vacating and remanding district court’s decision that Department of Veterans Affairs properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges, because VA’s declaration described the documents at a “very high level of generality” and stated only “in conclusory fashion” that documents documents fell within those privileges.

Brown v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for witness interviews pertaining to the 2015 San Bernardino attack and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Aug. 17, 2023

Smartflash, LCC v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because underlying FOIA requests were not submitted by plaintiff, but by its attorney, who failed to clearly indicate that the requests were submitted on behalf of his client; rejecting attorney’s assignment of his FOIA rights to plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes because it occurred eight months after the lawsuit was filed.

Aug. 11, 2023

Magassa v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C). 7(E), and 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; further determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny whether plaintiff appeared on any “watch list” records,

Aug. 10, 2023

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case involving detention records from DHS database, ruling that: (1) Customs and Border Protection properly withheld alien registration numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C), likening them to social security numbers; (2) CBP did not sufficiently explain how disclosure of anonymized A-numbers or fingerprint identification numbers would compromise anyone’s privacy; and (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold locations of Border Patrol stations, and both parties failed to explain scope of their Exemption 7(E) dispute concerning database definitions.

Aug. 9, 2023

Bonner v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that government properly relied on Exemption 3 to redact records prepared by former FBI agents concerning the detention of terrorist Abu Zubaydah; stating that government’s classified declarations “reflect an unusual and commendable degree of care in the Government's approach to classification and redactions. They reflect, as well, that the redactions to the materials in this case were made judiciously, not excessively, and based on a sophisticated and informed understanding of the ongoing national security threats posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

N.Y. Times v, FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- in case concerning FBI’s report about “Havana Syndrome,” ruling that: (1) agency failed to sufficiently establish the applicability of Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E), thus warranting in camera review of the report; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold the names and phone numbers of Special Agents, locations of victims and their health information, and identifying information of certain witnesses, none of which plaintiff disputes.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- determining after in camera review that ICE properly used Exemption 5 or Exemption 7(E) to withhold many, but not all, communications from senior attorneys to trial attorneys counting case descriptions, practice pointers, legal strategies, and other guidance.

Aug. 7, 2023

Ctr. for Medical Progress v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that HHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identities of two NIH employees who worked on university grant application pertaining to the collection and distribution of fetal stem cell tissue, noting that the potential for violence and harassment outweighed plaintiff’s asserted public interests.

Aug. 2, 2023

Vaskas v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s criminal conviction for possession of child pornography, holding that: (1) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Federal Victims’ Protection & Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d); (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications pertaining its investigation, case planning and surveillance of plaintiff; (3) agency properly withheld identifying information of government employees and third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Aug. 1, 2023

La Union DEL Pueblo Entero v. FEMA (S.D. Tex.) -- in most relevant part, (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R) that FEMA failed to show that it adequately searched for records concerning its “Individuals and Households Program”; and (2) agreeing with R&R that FOIA authorizes prospective injunctive relief as a remedy, but declining to decide whether it can enforce the electronic reading room requirement.

July 31, 2023

Biear v. DOJ (M.D. Pa) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 3, 7(D), and 7(E), per magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R); (2) with two exceptions, including the names of deceased individuals, R&R would be granted with respect to FBI’s withholdings pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- holding that NSA and CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to redact portions of records records relating to a 1967 attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship.

July 25, 2023

Down Law Grp. v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Coast Guard did not conduct adequate search for certain records concerning the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill clean-up, because agency erroneously narrowed scope of plaintiff’s first request and failed to sufficiently explain its search methodology; and (2) agency failed to show how Exemption 6 protected the names of Coast Guard personnel who were given awards for their service in connection with the oil spill response, rejecting agency’s explanation that disclosure would subject personnel to a harassment and violence.

July 24, 2023

McCann v. USCIS (E.D. La.) -- deciding that: (1) agency failed to sufficiently explain how it searched for records pertaining to plaintiff; (2) agency conducted adequate segregability analysis, noting that agency’s Vaughn Index was “detailed and meticulous”; and (3) ICE properly processed 16 pages referred to it from USCIS, but ICE failed to account for a 17th page that USCIS reportedly referred to it.

July 21, 2023
Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program v. DHS (D. Mass.) -- determine that: (1) government neglected to adequately search for records concerning ICE's use of solitary confinement in immigration detention centers; (2) government failed to show that certain redacted emails and memoranda were pre-decisional under Exemption 5 or that factual materials in expert reports were Inextricably Intertwined with policy making recommendations; and (3) government properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold four types of records concerning detainees.

July 20, 2023

Rocky Mountain Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) Bureau of Land Management’s supplemental filings established that agency had properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met the foreseeable harm standard with respect to withheld records concerning a field office’s amendment of its “Resource Management Plan”; (2) BLM’s supplemental search, which yielded additional responsive records, was adequate; and (3) BLM properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact two newly discovered pages, but it failed to explain how Exemption 5 redactions on one page met the foreseeable harm standard.

July 18, 2023

Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. (D.D.C.) -- holding that 14 agencies properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privliege to withhold in full strategic plans each agency had prepared “in response to an Executive Order regarding promoting access to voting Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and head of the Domestic Policy Council within the White House”; further holding that White House Special Counsel adequately showed foreseeable harm by identifying potential chilling effects on confidential and canid presidential decision-making, consistent with other rulings withun the Circuit.

July 11, 2023

Nat’l Student Legal Def. Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of emails between Social Security Administration and Department of Education lawyers regarding certain student loan program, determining that government’s Exemption 5 withholdings were properly made under the attorney work-product privilege; noting that privilege was justified by both pending and anticipated litigation, and that government’s shifting arguments did not defeat the exemption claim.

July 10, 2023

Rutila v. DOT (5th Cir.) -- affirming district court decision that: (1) FAA’s fee assessment was timely because FAA had tolled response deadline once in order to clarify time scope of plaintiff’s request; (2) FAA was not required to take screenshots of certain requested information that was displayed to agency system users but could not be exported.

July 7, 2023

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that the FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of communications between FBI and Bank of America regarding the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that government had waived its right to invoke its Glomar response.

Pfeiffer v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion for reconsideration of court’s rulings that: (1) plaintiff qualified as an educational institution because he demonstrated that his requests were connected to his scholarly research; and (2) plaintiff’s potential profit from publishing responsive records on his webpage did not trump plaintiff’s intentions to use records for scholarly purposes, and therefore government improperly denied plaintiff’s fee waiver request.

NY Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) — in case involving records pertaining to government’s use of spyware and other digital surveillance products from an Israeli company, concluding that: (1) FBI properly withheld all classified information pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold most, but not all, disputed non-classified records.

July 5, 2023

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold certain records concerning “supplemental environmental projects”; and (2) EPA did not have a pattern or practice of violating FOIA, and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive or declaratory relief.

Naumes v. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff costs and $111,415 in attorney’s fees—after reducing plaintiff’s fee request for time spent on unsuccessful issues—in case concerning access to Army’s mental-fitness questionnaire and related records.

Zaid v. DOJ (D. Md.) -- in consolidated cases involving DOJ, IRS, and DHS records about plaintiff’s client, Zackary Sanders, who was convicted of producing child pornography, concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal from ICE’s determination that his request was “too broad,” because ICE failed to notify plaintiff of his appeal rights; (2) four of plaintiff’s requests to ICE were reasonably described, but a fifth request seeking “any records referencing specific term was “overly broad”; (3) U.S. Secret Service performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s client; (4) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(D); (5) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); (6) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(E); and (7) ICE properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research v. SEC (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to challenge the SEC’s redactions and plaintiff could not add the claim via briefing; (2) plaintiff’s timeliness claim became moot as soon as the SEC issued a final determination, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that its timeliness claim was '“capable of repetition, yet evading review”; and (3) in response to requests for “all communications” of various SEC employees, the agency unreasonably limited its searches to the specific examples of communications that plaintiff identified.

June 30, 2023

Flyers Rights Education Fund v. FAA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain records pertaining to agency’s recertification of Boeing 737. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected four arguments made by appellants and held that: (1) generic promises by FAA to be transparent about the recertification process fell “far short of an explicit representation that FAA would disclose the disputed documents, and Boeing’s similar statements about transparency “hardly amount to an ‘explicit’ commitment to release [its] proprietary documents, let alone an indication that the FAA would do so”; (2) FAA was not required to release certain agency-authored material because FAA demonstrated that disclosure would reveal confidential commercial information obtained from Boeing; and (3) questioning whether prohibition on secret agency law may limit the scope of Exemption 4, but in any event finding that records submitted by Boeing to show compliance with FAA regulations were proprietary to Boeing’s aircraft and did not become part of FAA’s body of law; and (4) FAA carried its burden on segregability with nonconclusory affidavits.

June 29, 2023

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ’s Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the identity of a former senior employee from a report concerning that employee’s misconduct; noting that the employee’s rank, seriousness of wrongdoing, and absence of alternative access to the information favored disclosure, but agreeing with district court that disclosure would “do little to advance the public interest identified by [plaintiff]” and that disclosure would impact the privacy of victims, witnesses, and other third parties.

June 28, 2023

Hoffman v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D. Pa.) -- in case involving records of communications about asylum seekers at certain ports of entry, finding that: (1) CBP failed to adequately explain how it conducted it searched mobile devices for “WhatsApp” chats, and (2) agency used reasonable key phrases to search Shared Drives, but not its email accounts.

Judicial Watch v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that DHS properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold two photographs showing injuries suffered by a Secret Service Agent from President Biden’s dog.

Judicial Watch v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that DHS properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold six photographs showing injuries suffered by Secret Service Agents from President Biden’s dog.

June 27, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney’ client privileges to withhold records related to the Secretary’s approval to enter the Paris Climate Agreement; noting that foreseeable harm requirement was met for both asserted privileges.

June 26, 2023

The James Madison Project v. NSA (D. Md.) -- ruling that NSA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold intelligence records concerning hostile country’s “high-powered microwave system weapon” that was discussed in agency’s 2014 unclassified memo to a former employee.

Elliott v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. (D. Md.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim because he failed to administratively appeal from agency’s “no records” response before filing his lawsuit.

Stonehill v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining, in most relevant part, that plaintiff was a proper party because the FOIA requests at issue—which were submitted by her attorney—all identified plaintiff and referred to an attached power of attorney document that identified plaintiff’s attorney; further noting that agency’s summary judgment motion made clear that agency was aware of attorney’s representation of plaintiff in “this string of related FOIA actions going back decades.”

June 22, 2023

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DOJ (W.D. Wash.) -- concluding that: (1) DEA conducted an adequate search for records related to claims filed against the agency; (2) DEA properly withheld names of claimants pursuant to Exemption 6,; (3) DEA improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of DEA tortfeasors and various other claim-related information; (3) DEA failed to show that requested claim records were compiled for law enforcement purposes under Exemption 7(C); (4) DEA neglected to submit sufficient information to court concerning withheld court-sealed records; (5) DEA neglected to produce all meaningful, reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of certain responsive records; and (6) DEA’s untimely, 18-month response was not “egregious.”

June 21, 2023

Friends of the River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency did not justify (and therefore must disclose) most of its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege because agency failed to articulate foreseeable harm, but that agency properly withheld records pursuant to attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges.

June 20, 2023

Cameron v. BOP (S.D. Ind.) -- dismissing prisoner-plaintiff’s claim as moot because agency released requested documents with some redactions after plaintiff filed suit and plaintiff failed to opposed agency’s motion to dismiss.

June 14, 2023

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that communications between South Dakota state officials and the National Guard (a hybrid state-federal entity) did not fall within Exemption 5’s consultant corollary exception because they were not made for purpose of aiding the National Guard’s deliberations; noting that its ruling “produced an odd outcome considering that these discussions would be protected either under Exemption 5 (if wholly federal) and under South Dakota law (if wholly state) . . . and yet the very structure of the National Guard necessitates crossing federal-state lines.”

June 13, 2023

Bloomberg L.P. v. USPS (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that USPS properly withheld certain anonymized change-of-address data pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2), because the requested data relates to a commercial product licensed by the agency.

Bothwell v. DOJ (W.D. Okla.) -- deciding that: (1) DOJ was a proper defendant, but not two DOJ components, and (2) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and properly stated a claim under FOIA.

Rhoades v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (E.D. Va.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for permitting records and related correspondence from 1983, and that it was not required to ask private land owners if they maintained requested records

June 9, 2023

Schaerr v. Dep’t of Justice (D.C. Cir.) — affirming district court; concluding, based on circuit precedent, that an agency need not search for responsive records before invoking Glomar and refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records, as such information would itself be exempt under the FOIA; further holding that the defendant agencies had properly invoked Glomar in conjunction with Exemptions One and Three; rejecting requester’s claims of “bad faith” in rebutting agency affidavits because those “allegations [are] either too generalized or too attenuated from the specific classification decisions at issue[.]”

June 2, 2023

Smolen v. FAA (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) FAA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold draft agreement between the agency and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and that it demonstrated reasonable foreseeable harm from disclosure; and (2) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal the adequacy of the agency’s search, but even if he had, agency’s search was adequate.

June 1, 2023

Sarama v. DEA (M.D. Fla.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees and costs because although DEA commenced search for certain records prior to lawsuit, it failed to process and disclose a mere 5 pages for a significant amount of time; (2) plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs despite lack of public benefit on disclosure, because DEA’s response was unreasonable and plaintiff’s interest in disclosure was not commercial.

May 24, 2023

Cause of Action Inst. v. NOAA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency’s search was inadequate because agency too narrowly defined what constituted the “agency records” of one of its regional Fishery Management Councils by only including correspondence “submitted to the chair” or “specifically discussed or disseminated at a Council meeting”; ordering agency to conduct a supplemental search of non-federal employee council members’ personal accounts and devices.

May 23, 2023

Anand v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Office of Inspector General properly refused to search for “all reports from Blue Cross Blue Shield corporation to OIG concerning improper prescribing of opiates by specific physicians,” because the search would take the entire FOIA staff more than 9 years to complete (or one full-time employee 28 years at a cost of at least $3.5 million), which was deemed unduly burdensome.

Anthony v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff’s claim was moot with respect to four pages that BOP released in full; (2) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal BOP’s denial of his expedition request before filing suit; and (3) plaintiff also was not required to administratively appeal BOP’s final decision on the merits, which postdated plaintiff’s lawsuit.

May 16, 2023

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, but reducing requested fee award from $156k to $106k because: (1) plaintiff failed to show that the rate sought by its attorney rate was consistent with the prevailing market rate for similar legal services; (2) much of the attorney’s work was “needless, duplicative, or inefficient,” and the billing records lacked adequate details; and (3) plaintiff’s request for $45k for fees spent on its fee petition was unreasonable and would constitute an “unsupportable windfall.”

May 12, 2023

Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that OMB sufficiently established that it properly relied upon Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning its decision to “halt its initiative for the collection of pay data from employers by the [EEOC]”; further finding that OMB satisfied the foreseeable harm standard by linking identifiable harms to specific information, and that it established that it produced all reasonably segregable information.

May 11, 2023

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. CIA (D. Mass.) -- concluding that CIA, ODNI, DOD, and NSA improperly issued Exemption 7(A) Glomar responses in connection with plaintiff’s request for President Trump’s alleged standing order declassifying documents taken from the Oval Office; finding that FBI did not sufficiently explain how its criminal investigation would be harmed if defendants searched for responsive records, particularly in light of the fact that three other intelligence agencies had already conducted searches and issued “no records” responses and that President Trump and multiple former Trump administration officials had issued statements on the matter.

May 8, 2023

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- in cases concerning communications of seven agency officials regarding indictment of state judge and court officer for obstruction of justice, (1) denying agency’s renewed motion for summary judgment because it was prematurely filed and did not comport with local rules; and (2) ordering agency to provide additional information concerning its search for text messages on government-issued telephones.

May 3, 2023

Cato Inst. v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff’s request for “any records from any . . . component pursuant to” Directive 5300.27 was not reasonably described, and rejecting plaintiff’s attempt in litigation to reframe the scope of its request; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the Department failed to notify plaintiff that its request was too vague, as required by Department regulations.

Apr. 24, 2023

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that FBI reasonably foresaw that disclosure of certain talking points related to agency’s investigation of Hilary Clinton’s private email server would cause harms protected by Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; noting that FBI articulated “the connection between the information at issue . . . and the chilling effect of disclosure, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that a chilling effect that is “highly likely” is not “reasonably foreseeable.”

Apr. 17, 2023

Council on American-Islamic Relations v. USCIS (D. Conn.) -- ruling that: (1) government failed to demonstrate that an immigration-related report was “closely held” within the Executive Branch, which precluded withholding the report in full pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege; the presidential communications privilege covering the report was not waived by official disclosure; and government satisfied the foreseeable harm standard; (2) government properly withheld portions of the report pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, as well as Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E); and (3) State Department properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold information from “State Cable” and “Operational Q&A” documents, and it properly withheld a draft Paperwork Reduction Act-related statement pursuant to the attorney-client and deliberative process privileges.

Apr. 14, 2023

Heritage Found. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in connection with its request for expedited processing of its request for records concerning a freight-train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio; reasoning that although one of the plaintiffs appeared to qualify as a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were likely to succeed on the merits as to whether there was an “urgency to inform the public” or that plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm.”

Cunningham v. HUD (E.D. Pa.) -- dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s FOIA claims against individual employees and for money damages, but permitting plaintiff to amend complaint that failed to allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

Apr. 6, 2023

Jordan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that pro se prisoner’s request was improper because it essentially asked DEA to provide answers to questions plaintiff had about agency’s investigation, as opposed to asking for certain documents; rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to clarify and expand scope of his request to any records that pertained to his initial inquiries; and stating in dicta that if merits of the withholdings had been reached, agency’s categorical approach to withholding the names of all law enforcement agents under Exemption 7(C) would have been improper, despite the “substantial privacy” interests involved.

Apr. 4, 2023

O'Brien v. DOJ (3rd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision concerning FBI’s investigatory records concerning plaintiff (a former physician convicted of multiple drug-related charges), noting that source’s trial testimony did not waive government’s ability to withhold records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

Apr. 3, 2023

Am. Immigration Council. v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that some (but not all) remaining disputed documents concerning “credible fear interviews” were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Mar. 31, 2023

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- in most relevant part, finding that agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search for records located on personal devices and agency cell phones by searching agency’s email accounts to which employees were required to send them by existing policy.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was not required to submit a separate request to the agency’s Office of Inspector General concerning COVID measures in immigration facilities (including complaints and grievances), but rather that agency’s Privacy Office should have forwarded plaintiff’s request to OIG based on nature of the request or, at the very least, after clear leads developed during agency’s search that OIG likely maintained responsive records.

Mar. 30, 2023

Gandhi v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold employer identification numbers (EINs) of health care organization and taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) of their parent organizations, noting that SEC and Department of Labor release EINs to the public and that EINs are available through “pay-for-subscription” services; further noting that CMS failed to offer providers any assurances of confidentiality for their EINs or TINs, and that CMS offered no competent evidence that a foreseeable harm would occur if the requested records were released; and (2) agency’s reliance on Exemption 6 to withhold the same information was likewise improper, because Exemption 6 did not protect privacy interests of business entities.

Del Cid v. EOIR (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff was ineligible for award of attorney’s fees and costs because he did not prove that his lawsuit was the catalyst behind EOIR’s production of his immigration records; pointing out that agency demonstrated that it had started to process plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed his lawsuit and that agency’s FOIA backlog and the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its final response.

Mar. 29, 2023

Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case apparently of first impression, holding that DOJ could not rely on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to withhold statistics concerning deaths of individuals in custody reported by States to DOJ in compliance with the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013.

Hand v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of communications between a retired FBI Special Agent and DOJ personnel concerning the criminal investigation and prosecution of plaintiff.

Connell v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in issuing Glomar response to request for certain records concerning Guantanamo Bay detention facility, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that declassified records constituted a public acknowledgment of existence of requested records.

Scarlett v. Nat’l Sci. Found. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Inspector General’s declaration did not adequately explain agency’s search methodology in response to request for complaints concerning plaintiff’s company; and (2) OIG’s declaration did not sufficiently address whether responsive records withheld under Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C) were compiled for law enforcement purposes; and (3) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee names, email addresses, and signatures, but it did not adequately explain what “identifying information” it withheld from the body of a responsive complaint.

Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to exploratory gold mining in Clack Hills National Forest and that agency was not required to extend its initial search cut-off date for supplemental searches; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and deliberative process privileges and Exemption 6; and (3) agency’s transmittal of responsive records via file-sharing website was compliant with plaintiff’s formatting request, which allowed for “‘other electronic media’ in whatever way was ‘most expeditious.’”

Yim v. NIH (D.N.J.) (unpublished) -- deciding that: (1) agency’s recitation of its “standard review process” for handling FOIA requests was sufficient to establish adequacy of its search for COVID Guideline updates that agency had posted on its website; and (2) plaintiff could not expand scope of his request in litigation.

Mar. 28, 2023

Blevins v. ATF (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that ATF performed adequate search for plaintiff’s initial request for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and use of a firearm, and therefore the agency was justified in declining to perform a duplicative search in response to plaintiff’s subsequent request for narrower set of duplicative records.

Schaefer v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly redacted record pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment in case concerning Office of Immigration Litigation training materials for appellate lawyers, concluding that: (1) with minor exceptions, agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withold records, the vast majority of which were “training materials discussing arguments or strategies that HOJ attorneys adopt or consider in particular situations”; further concluding that agency met foreseeable harm requirement; (2) agency’s attorney-client privilege claims were deficient because agency failed to explain on how communications rested on “confidential information obtained from the clients”; and (3) agency did not justify its use of the deliberative process privilege, which in any event the agency deemed a “superfluous” claim.

Mar. 27, 2023

Vanda Pharm. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that even if agency’s clinical review of pending new drug application fell within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, agency failed to meet statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; reasoning that: (1) disclosure would not likely chill deliberations because underlying reviews are required to be published if NDA is ultimately approved; and (2) FDA’s concern that drug manufacturer might use records to mislead public and medical practitioners was too speculative to meet foreseeable harm requirement.

Carpezzi v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, who believed his email was hacked by the government (among other things); and (2) FBI properly withheld identities of employees under Exemption 7(C), as well as sensitive investigation number and database identifier under Exemption 7(E).

Anand v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DEA performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances, and (2) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Anand v. HHS (D.D.C.) determining that HHS OIG performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances; (2) even though portion of co-plaintiff’s request was too vague, HHS failed to follow agency regulation requiring agency to clarify request; and (3) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project v. ICE (D. Me.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for various records concerning agency’s use of a county jail, except for certain policy documents.

Mar. 23, 2023

Americans for Fair Treatment v. USPS (D D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge FOIA regulation that did not allow an appeal to the head of the agency himself, because plaintiff did not allege sufficient risk of future harm; (2) USPS did not perform adequate search for records concerning a COVID-related “Privacy Statement” on its website; (3) USPS failed to delineate its Exemption 5 withholdings, failed in part to adequately explain its attorney-client privilege withholdings, and failed to provide specific foreseeable harm justifications.

Pickering v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that ATF and FBI performed adequate searches, and that FBI properly withheld disputed records; and (2) rejecting R&R’s conclusion that plaintiff improperly sued DHS rather than its component agencies and remanding for further proceedings.

Mar. 22, 2023

Ghinis v. USCIS (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that agency’s search was deficient because it provided “undetailed and conclusory” explanation for why it believes plaintiff’s Alien file is lost; noting that plaintiff provided documentary evidence that requested records could be in two field offices that agency did not search.

Kurzban v NSA (S.D. Fla.) -- finding that: (1) DIA and FBI performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiffs; (2) NSA and CIA properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pursuant to Exemption 1 and 3; and (3) FBI properly withheld certain record pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(A), 7(D), and 7(E).

Mar. 21, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency performed adequate search for calendar and meeting records of agency senior advisor, noting that agency was not required to search for in-meeting chats on Zoom, which the agency did not control; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold personal email addresses, email addresses of White House, EOP, DOD, and DHS employees, and a cell phone number; and (3) agency’s generic, boilerplate explanations for its deliberative process privilege claims did not “even come close” to meeting its burden, nor did agency’s justifications for relying on the presidential communications privilege.

Akel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys performed adequate supplemental search for certain archived emails pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case, but that it neglected to adequately explain its search methods in response to broader, second request.

Gatore v. DHS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision to deny class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), principally because agency had rescinded its policy of withholding “Assessment to Refer” documents in full, rendering case moot.

Mar. 17, 2023

Boundy v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for guidance documents concerning acceptable signatories, even though it did not use plaintiff’s long list of preferred search terms or uncover “secret rules” plaintiff believed existed; and (2) following in camera review, agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold all but two images that it previously disclosed to plaintiff.

Richardson Bay Envtl. Prot. Ass'n v. FAA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) FAA did not sufficiently explain why, in “this day and age,” it searched for certain potentially responsive records only in a physical filing cabinet and not electronically; and (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records concerning plaintiff’s complaints about third party.

Mar. 13, 2023

Vidal-Martinez v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff’s interim petition for award of attorneys fees and costs because agency, not plaintiff, was prevailing party in underlying litigation; rejecting plaintiff’s contention that court’s scheduling orders and minute entries altered parties’ legal relationship or granted plaintiff relief on merits; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that agency changed its legal position under “catalyst theory” of eligibility.

Mar. 9, 2023

Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors (N.D. Ill.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that: (1) U.S. Agency for Global Media performed adequate search for contract records and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 4; (2) HHS adequately explained it search process and properly withheld employee names and titles under Exemption 6; (3) USCIS performed reasonable search and properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold contractor’s pricing information; and (4) USAID cured its search deficiency with supplemental search; and (5) ICE adequately justified its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges.

Williams v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DEA properly withheld various records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case pursuant to Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), that plaintiff was not entitled to special access to records under FOIA to attack his criminal conviction, and that plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.

Mar. 8, 2023

Welsh v. U.S. Dep't. of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for a list of all posts filled by a specific type of U.S. personnel that had international travel restrictions imposed on them, and that the agency was not required to create such a list for plaintiff.

Mar. 7, 2023

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Tenn. Valley Auth. (E.D. Tenn.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact certain information contained in two contracts negotiated with natural gas pipeline companies; further ruling that foreseeable harm provision was applicable, consistent with Second Circuit’s 2022 decision in Seife v. FDA, and that agency adequately established that disclosure would harm companies’ commercial or financial interests; declining to decide whether disclosure was prohibited by Trade Secrets Act and thus outside reach of foreseeable harm provision.

Mar. 6, 2023

Aguirre v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (S.D. Cal.) -- finding that: (1) agency failed to perform reasonable search for certain communications between NRC and generating station operators pertaining to incident involving storage of nuclear waste; (2) agency properly withheld identities third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C); (3) agency properly withheld link to agency computer network pursuant to Exemption 7(F); (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold two “proprietary” documents submitted by private companies under implied promise of confidentiality; not addressing whether foreseeable harm provision applied to Exemption 4; and (5) rejecting plaintiff’s argument that separate Vaughn index was necessary due to alleged deficiencies in agency’s declaration.

Huddleston v. FBI (E.D. Tex.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for interim attorney’s fees and costs in case concerning FBI’s investigation of Seth Rich’s death, but permitting plaintiff to refile same motion after court ruled on pending motions for reconsideration.

Feb. 28, 2023

N.Y. Times. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) agency justified its reliance on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold all but three disputed documents pertaining to a school safety commission, and (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold FBI and DHS reports related to ongoing investigations into school safety incidents

Longas-Palacio v. USCIS (S.D. Tex.) -- concluding that USCIS properly withheld certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s removal proceedings pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 49 U.S.C.§ 114(r) (“No-Fly” list), as well as Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Feb. 23, 2023

Jabar v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision and rejecting arguments that plaintiff-appellant was entitled to greater access to FBI records concerning his criminal case as a constitutional right under Brady v. Maryland, and that district court erred in declining to review documents withheld in full.

Feb. 22, 2023

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) CIA performed adequate search for certain records concerning the Kennedy assassination and it was not required to search its operational files merely because plaintiff speculated that certain individuals should have been targets of government investigations; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that CIA’s failure to find more material, as well as plaintiff’s perceived importance of those records, undermined the adequacy of agency’s search efforts; and (2) although CIA’s use of Exemption 1 to withhold records over 50 years old was questionable, CIA properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act and the Central Intelligence Agency Act; (3)(a) CIA met its burden to segregate and release non-exempt material; (b) CIA was not required to initiate a new search of the classified records retrieved from former President Trump, who plaintiff asserted “had expressed strong interest” in the subject; (c) plaintiff was not entitled to discovery merely because CIA initially denied having received plaintiff’s request; (d) if plaintiff seeks original (and perhaps more legible) FBI records, as opposed to the “blemished” records the CIA located in its files and referred to FBI, it must submit a request to the FBI.

Feb. 21, 2023

Waterman v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision and holding that: (1) IRS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold “evaluative” facts in an auditor’s memo concerning plaintiff’s suspected misconduct, but that the memo’s chronological collection of plaintiff’s statements was not exempt; (2) IRS improperly invoked Exemption 5 to withhold an auditor’s memo summarizing her telephone calls with plaintiff that, in the majority’s view, reflected no point of view; and (3) IRS properly invoked Exemption 5 to withhold an analysis of plaintiff’s disciplinary referral, including extracted facts pertinent to plaintiff’s alleged misconduct. In a partial dissent, one panelist opined that both memos were deliberative because “(1) their purpose was to assist in a discretionary decision” (whether to further investigate [plaintiff]) and (2) their authors selected facts that reflected a point of view (that plaintiff should be investigated).”

Project on Gov't Oversight v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff, a sophisticated FOIA party, had expressly waived its right—via email exchanges with opposing counsel and in joint status reports—to contest the sufficiency of agency’s search for certain complaint-related records maintained by the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; and (2) DHS improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold “unverified observations of first impression” contained in expert reports, and it failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that experts’ analysis, opinions, or recommendations met the foreseeable harm requirement.

Feb. 20, 2023

State of Georgia v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) DOJ failed to establish that communications exchanged with private parties concerning joint election-related lawsuits against plaintiff qualified as “intra-agency” communications under the consultant corollary exception to Exemption 5; and (2) even if disputed communications were considered “intra-agency,” DOJ could not rely on the deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges because it failed to show that it had “sufficiently similar legal interest with of the private litigation groups” to invoke the common interest doctrine.

Feb. 17, 2023

Kolbusz v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s recommendation that FBI properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and deliberative process privileges, and ruling that magistrate properly denied plaintiff’s motion to supplement his complaint.

Feb. 16, 2023

Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. (2d Cir.) — affirming district court dismissal of “policy or practice claim” that alleged APHIS, as a result of its decommissioning of certain databases of proactively disclosed records, was regularly citing “exemptions that do not apply” and engaging in “unreasonable, inexcusable and unexplained delays” while adjudicating requests and appeals for the same records previously hosted on the databases; holding that, “even assuming that a ‘policy or practice’ claim is cognizable [in the Second Circuit], . . . such a claim . . . [fails] because [Congress] . . . reversed the alleged policy or practice . . . [by] direct[ing] the agencies to ‘restore’ each decommissioned database ‘and its contents’ to the status quo ante . . . [and to make those records] available ‘in their entirety without redactions except signatures’”; reasoning that, even if the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, were adopted, it would be inapt because the same “extraordinary set of circumstances” is not present here; of especial note, in a concurrence, Judge Menashi opined that the FOIA does not provide for a ‘policy or practice’ claim, and “[t]he proper avenue for challenging the policies and practice of agencies [vis-a-vis the FOIA] is the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.

Feb. 13, 2023

Immigrant Def. Project v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that: (1) ICE’s search was inadequate because it neglected to search its Office of Public Affairs for records pertaining to “Operation Palladium,” an enforcement program initiated during the Trump Administration, and because it omitted “clearly relevant” search terms; (2) ICE failed to sufficiently explain the applicability of the deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges to two disputed emails; and (3) ICE properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to redact a fugitive operations handbook, but it did not demonstrate the propriety of its remaining withholdings using the same exemption.

Feb. 10, 2023

Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (M.D. Fla.) -- granting agency’s summary judgment motion after finding that agency had properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and then released all requested records after its law enforcement proceeding against plaintiff had closed.

Feb. 8, 2023

Ghassan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff failed to show that he actually submitted requests to FBI for records concerning alleged court-ordered assassination program, and FBI averred that it had never received them and sufficiently explained agency’s search process.

Feb. 6, 2023

Adams v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to plaintiff in its classified databases.

WP Co. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible for and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in case concerning agency payments to Donal Trump-owned properties, but reducing requested award from $91k requested to $55k for excessive and unproductive hours billed.

Feb. 3, 2023

Brody v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) (unpublished) -- less than two weeks after oral argument, affirming district court’s decision that appellant’s requests to FBI required unduly burdensome searches.

Jan. 31, 2023

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision and concluding that: (1) agency failed to establish that the names of companies that supply the government with a drug used for lethal injections qualify as “commercial” information under Exemption 4; and (2) agency failed to show how certain “key contract terms” were “confidential” under Exemption 4.

Sherven v. Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Bd. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff neglected to file an administrative appeal with agency after receiving agency’s final determination.

Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s renewed summary judgment motion after finding that CBP conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (attorney work product), 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).

Jan. 26, 2023

Am. Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rts. Proj. v. ICE (2nd Cir.) -- in a questionable ruling, reversing and remanding district court’s decision that requiring agency to substitute unique identifying numbers for FOIA-exempt alien identification numbers constituted the impermissible creation of new records.

Jan. 20, 2023

State of Indiana v. President Joseph R. Biden (S. Ind.) -- in suit by 14 States against Executive Office of the President, President Biden, the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Garland, U.S. Department of Education, and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, ruling that: (1) individual defendants are not agencies subject to FOIA requests “whether named in an official capacity or not”; and (2) neither EOP, as a whole, nor the White House Office’s Domestic Policy Council are agencies to which a FOIA request may be directed.

Jan. 19, 2023

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff’s request for various records pertaining to COVID-19 vaccine was reasonably described; (2) agency did not sufficiently explain how a search would be unduly burdensome, but encouraging plaintiff to narrow its “extraordinarily broad” request that would require “unusually protracted agency review.”

Jan. 18, 2023

Microsoft Corp. v. IRS (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for records concerning its longstanding audit of plaintiff, noting that agency was not required to search records created and maintained by private contractors; and (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 2, 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103), 4, 5, 6, and 7(A).

Jan. 17, 2023

Perioperative Services & Logistics, LLC v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs (D.C. Cir.) — on appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to accept and rely upon an ex parte declaration because, as the court below explained, “[t]his is one of the rare cases . . . where the ex parte submission, with its detailed description of the nature of the withheld document and the reasons underlying the exemption, was necessary to preserve the privacy of the third party” implicated in the underlying record; holding, further, that the agency properly applied Exemption 6 and satisfied its obligation to release reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the record at issue.

Jan. 15, 2023

Bahrampour v. Dep't of the Army (D. Md.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from agency component’s final response to his request concerning bioeffects of non-lethal weapons, but allowing plaintiff 20 days to amend his Complaint to address actions of three other Army components.

Jan. 13, 2023

Conn. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. HUD (D. Conn.) -- on reconsideration, ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs would be deemed timely filed due to “unique circumstances” and lack of prejudice to HUD; (2) court clearly erred in citing Second Circuit case that was abrogated by 2007 statutory amendment endorsing “catalyst theory” for recovering fees; and (3) plaintiff failed to prove that records were released more quickly because of its lawsuit; HUD diligently responded to request initially, but it was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic and resolving request-related legal questions.

Jan. 11, 2023

Bioscience Advisors, Inc. v. SEC (N.D. Cal.) -- in relevant part, determining that agency performed adequate search for multiple contract exhibits and that, in any event, plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies for 83 requests; further finding that plaintiff’s claim concerning agency’s withholdings was not exhausted, either.

Dec. 30, 2022

Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv. (10th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision and finding that: (1) plaintiff waived argument that Vaughn Index was insufficient; (2) agency performed reasonable search for voluminous records concerning proposed highway project; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 and demonstrated prospective harm, but declining to hold that the foreseeable harm provision imposed a “heightened burden”; and (4) district court properly ordered plaintiff to return two documents that agency accidentally disclosed to plaintiff without redaction, even though another organization subsequently posted the documents online.

Wright v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss case concerning COVID-19 vaccine safety records, because agency ignored Departmental regulation to contact requester and explain why it found one of his requests to be overbroad and not reasonably described.

Dec. 27, 2022

Sayed v. U.S. Maritime Admin. (D. Mass.) -- concluding that agency neglected to sufficiently explain its search methodology in response to request for records pertaining to government-owned vessel docked in Alabama in 2020.

Woodward v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- on second renewed summary judgment, ruling that: (1) agency failed to show that another court’s sealing order precluded FOIA disclosure of records pertaining to use of cell phone tracking technology during criminal investigation of plaintiff; and (2) agency waived its right to make new withholding claim under Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Pen Register Act.

Dec. 20, 2022

NBC 7 San Diego v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DHS and two components failed to provide sufficient explanations as to why they deemed requested records concerning a secret tracking database to be non-responsive, noting that agencies improperly considered “context” of requests instead of identified search terms.

Dec. 19, 2022

Platsky v. FBI (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny records indicating whether plaintiff appeared on watchlist.

Naumes v. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that Army properly withheld three sets of survey questions pursuant to Exemption 4 because questions were designed and voluntarily submitted by private scientist who held copyright.

Nat’l Pub. Radio v. U.S. Cent. Command (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning the First Battle of Fallujah on April 12, 2004, and denying plaintiff’s request for declaratory judgment regarding government’s untimely response.

Dec. 15, 2022

Proj. on Gov’t Oversight v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that Treasury performed reasonable search for certain emails of seven senior officials, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that Treasury was required to prove that employees followed policy of forwarding work-related emails on their personal accounts to their official Treasury accounts.

Dec. 14, 2022

Frost v. DOJ (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision, noting that appellant failed to raise genuine dispute about the adequacy of government’s search for records and that court would not consider issues raised for first time on appeal.

Wine v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to amend court’s judgment that plaintiff failed to appeal from agency’s partial denial of his request for records concerning himself.

Young v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for informant records pertaining to plaintiffs criminal prosecution and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

Dec. 9, 2022

Harrington v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees after concluding that plaintiff was ineligible for fees. Specifically, plaintiff failed to show that “his lawsuit substantially caused HHS to release records. HHS began processing [plaintiff’s] requests before he filed his complaint, and any delays by HHS were fairly attributable to the scope of [plaintiff’s] requests and a substantial backlog of other FOIA requests.”

Dec. 1, 2022

Greenspan v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys. (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Board properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold communications received from two private firms that contained their internal economic analyses; and (2) Board properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold other communications sent and received by Chairman Powell containing the term “bubble” or “taper tantrum.”

Nov. 29, 2022

Immerso v. DOL (2nd Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s “well-reasoned” decision that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery and concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing filing sanctions on plaintiff and her attorney.

Berk v. Exec. Office of United States Attorneys (5th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that multiple agencies performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution and properly withheld certain records; further affirming district court’s ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.

Farahi v. FBI (D.D.C.) --ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff’s immigration removal proceedings, but agency’s 2019 ex parte declaration was now outdated on the issue of whether enforcement proceedings remained pending or reasonably anticipated; and (2) for reasons that could not be stated on public record, FBI needed to provide additional information to the court in order to satisfy statute’s segregability requirements.

Nov. 28, 2022

Ryan, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (5th Cir.) -- in reverse-FOIA case concerning tax adviser’s “formula” for recovering overpaid royalties, vacating and remanding district court’s decision after concluding that district court and agency did not “fully explore the record or the Supreme Court’s decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).”

Shem-Tov v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case for failure to prosecute because plaintiff, who sought records to defend herself in her criminal trial in Israel, neglected to contact the court for nearly five months and disregarded three court orders during that time period.

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Podesta (D.D.C.) -- dismissing two defendants from case, John Podesta and the National Climate Task Force, because neither are agencies subject to FOIA.

Accuracy in Media v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records related to the 2012 attack on the United States Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation finding that: (1) DOD performed adequate search for records and properly withheld 12 pages of maps pursuant to Exemption 1; (2) CIA properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the CIA Act of 1949 and National Security Act of 1947 to withhold records related to a complaint sent to CIA’s Inspector General; and (3) issue of FBI’s Glomar response was moot because FBI agreed to search for requested records after the magistrate issued his recommendation.

Nov. 23, 2022

Democracy Forward Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation finding that EOUSA adequately searched for records of communications with Trump Transition Team, except for agency’s failure to actually search for emails records of certain employees rather than merely asking those employees whether requested communications exist.

Nov. 22, 2022

Wattleton v. DOJ (D.D.C. ) -- determining that EOUSA performed adequate search for records indicating whether any individuals or entities accessed case information from various databases related to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.Nov. 21, 2022

Clemente v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s unopposed motion for summary judgment after finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records related to Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged criminal activities; and (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), and that it also properly withheld records previously sealed by court order.

Dalal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s antisemitic crimes, ruling that: (1) FBI’s search was not entirely adequate because it failed to explain why it would be unduly burdensome to search Special Agent’s informant files; (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges, but it improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 7(A); (3) EOUSA conducted an adequate search, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 and attorney work-product privilege, and failed to show that Exemption 7(C) protected a search warrant application in full; and (3) FEMA conducted an adequate search, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, and failed to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(E).

Nov. 18, 2022

Nat'l Ass'n of Minority Veterans v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that correspondence between the parties after litigation commenced concerning the scope of plaintiff’s request was not an improper attempt by plaintiff to expand request, and therefore the agency was required to justify the withholdings that it had made in the course of processing plaintiff’s modified request.

Nov. 4, 2022

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- in case concerning records of an attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship during the 1967 Six-Day War, ruling that government properly redacted one document pursuant to Exemption 1 but failed to establish the adequacy of its segregability analysis or its remaining withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

Nov. 2, 2022

Cato Inst. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search concerning plaintiff notwithstanding agency’s decision not to search database identified by plaintiff; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names and identifying information of third parties of investigative interest.

Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility Proj. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D.N.Y.) -- after reviewing representative sample of disputed records in camera, ruling that agency’s declaration and Vaughn Index failed to adequately describe and justify withheld information concerning “Tactical Terrorism Response Teams,” and that agency failed to provide reasonably specific segregability analysis.

Nov. 1, 2022

Luedde v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s uncontested motion for summary judgment regarding its response to plaintiff’s request for records concerning himself, and declining to consider at this stage whether pro se plaintiff would be entitled to litigation costs.

Oct. 31, 2022

Emery v. DOJ-FBI (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose government’s motion; and (3) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not oppose.

Emery v. DOJ-ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) ATF conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose agency’s declarations; (3) ATF properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), as well as Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), none of which plaintiff contested; and (4) plaintiff was ineligible to receive costs of litigation because he did not substantially prevail.

Oct. 21, 2022

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold pseudonyms used by agency in its investigation of Clive Bundy; (2) FBI properly withheld names of four Special Agents pursuant to Exemption 7(C), notwithstanding their trial testimony or news reports associating them with the Bundy investigation, because plaintiff failed to show that those Special Agents were involved in specific aspect of the investigation covered by records at issue; (3) FBI properly withheld four categories of records pursuant to Exemption 7(E), rejecting plaintiff’s argument that foreseeable harm provision applies to Exemption 7(E).

Oct. 19, 2022

Satterlee v. IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- granting agency’s supplemental motion for summary judgment after finding that agency released all remaining responsive records, specifically the oath of office of a Revenue Officer and plaintiff’s taxpayer transcripts, which documented all “balance-due notices” that had been sent to plaintiff.

Oct. 18, 2022

Insider, Inc. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of five members of 2020 presidential transition teams from GSA’s transition expenditure records; agreeing with agency that team members were not public figures and would face threats or harassment, whereas disclosure would shed “almost nothing: about GSA’s operations.

Oct. 10, 2022

Roberson v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies because his lawsuit was deemed filed on the date he provided it to prison officials for mailing, which preceded the FBI’s untimely response by two days; and (2) doctrine of res judicate did not preclude plaintiff from bringing his FOIA claim.

Oct. 6, 2022

Barrack v. DOJ (D. Colo.) -- concluding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the National Security Division’s denial of his attorney’s FOIA request, because the request did not indicate that it was made on behalf of plaintiff; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that NSD was sufficiently aware on whose behalf the request was submitted so as to confer standing, noting that plaintiff was mentioned only once in an email to the Office of Information Policy.

Oct. 4, 2022

Nat'l Sec. Archive v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- relying on government’s ex parte, in camera declarations, holding that CIA properly invoked on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold in full a memo drafted by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1989, notwithstanding State Department’s subsequent publication of memo’s transcribed text with minor redactions.

Sept. 30, 2022

McMichael v. DOJ (D. Del.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to an award of costs and nearly all requested attorney’s fees in case involving FBI’s investigatory records concerning theft of jewels from Royal Family of Hesse by U.S. military officers during World War 2.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) EOUSA and OIP conducted adequate searches for travel, budget, and expense records pertaining to John Durham’s investigation of the 2016 presidential campaign; and (2) DOJ properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(F).

Jarvis v. HUD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s housing complaints, rejecting plaintiff’s allegations of a conspiracy between the agency and property company to conceal records.

Sept. 28, 2022

Kendrick v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), and met the foreseeable harm requirement; noting that satisfying the terms of exemptions outside of Exemption 5 by itself “goes a long way to meeting the foreseeable harm requirement.”

Nat'l Pub. Radio v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DHS improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold mostly factual information contained in investigatory reports of immigrant detention facilities, and it failed to show that any of its withholdings met the foreseeable harm requirement.

Am. Small Bus. League v. OMB (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that OMB performed a reasonable search for records indicating the total federal acquisition budget for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019, and that plaintiff impermissibly expanded the scope of its request after commencing litigation.

Sept. 27, 2022

Hall & Assocs. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed adequate search for records transmitted between headquarters and Region 7 concerning November 2013 meeting; (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges to withhold portion of email discussing possible enforcement action; (3) in camera inspection was required to ascertain whether eleven documents concerning contemplated regulatory action contained purely factual material; and (4) agency conducted adequate search for certain enforcement orders and properly withheld most, but not all, records pertaining to draft administrative order pursuant to multiple Exemption 5 privileges.

Sept. 25, 2022

Argyle Sys. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that IRS properly invoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) to categorically withhold various records, including Reporting Agent Authorization forms (i.e., Forms 8655); further concluding that statute’s foreseeable harm provision does not apply to Exemption 3 withholdings.

Sept. 21, 2022

Freeman v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s unopposed renewed summary judgment and finding that agency properly withheld internal secure fax numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and intranet and internal web addresses pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- granting plaintiff’s discovery request regarding agency’s search notwithstanding lack of unusual circumstances and D.C. Circuit precedent disfavoring routine discovery.

Sept. 20, 2022

Bader Family Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency failed to conduct adequate search for emails concerning school disciplinary policies by neglecting to use reasonable search terms and not searching a non-government email account to which responsive emails had been sent; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact cell phone number and non-government email address.

Sept. 19, 2022

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that Exemption 8 protected in full an independent monitor’s 1,000-page compliance report concerning HSBC and that no non-exempt information could be reasonably segregated and released, including “background information or a table of contents.”

Kuzma v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- (1) adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that FBI performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E); (2) rejecting magistrate’s finding that FBI improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and ruling that FBI made reasonable effort to ascertain whether individuals whose names were withheld were still alive; and (3) rejecting magistrate’s conclusion that plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees was limited to the timeframe in which the Complaint was filed through FBI’s first release of records.

Sept. 16, 2022

Ctr. for Immigration Studies v. USCIS (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff’s request seeking all emails sent and received by three senior officials over a nine-month period —a total of 1.6 million pages—was unduly burdensome and need not be processed.

Sept. 15, 2022

Franklin v. United States (5th Cir.) -- in relevant part, deciding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff attorneys’ fees because “the public gains no benefit” from disclosure of records concerning plaintiff’s tax penalties.

Sept. 14, 2022

Hooker v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case brought by former Department employee and vexatious litigator after finding that Department performed reasonable search for requested document, which was ultimately produced after plaintiff filed suit.

Sept. 13, 2022

Codrea v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ATF properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of agency’s involvement in alleged 2018 gun incident involving Hunter Biden; finding that public interest in agency’s handling of this matter was “significant,” but that it was outweighed by subject’s “remarkably strong” privacy interest.

Sept. 12, 2022

Ecological Rights Found. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D.D.C.) — in a challenge to the EPA’s 2019 direct final rule implementing various changes to the agency’s FOIA regulations, (1) granting the government’s motion to dismiss several claims on various grounds (lack of standing, failure to state a claim, redressability, and/or statute of limitations)—namely, two substantive claims challenging provisions requiring submission of all requests to the EPA’s National FOIA Office and authorizing the Administrator to issue final determinations, as well as a procedural claim alleging failure to promulgate the rule through notice-and-comment rulemaking; (2) remanding the remaining claim without vacatur to permit the EPA to revise a portion of the rule authorizing the withholding of a “portion of a record on the basis of responsiveness.”

Cause of Action Inst. v. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) — ruling that: (1) requester had standing to bring policy-and-practice challenge to agency’s allegedly unlawful withholding of Section 232 secretarial reports under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the presidential-communications and deliberative-process privileges, until such time as the President directs disclosure; (2) the same policy-and-practice claim was ripe for review because it required neither “speculation about future application” nor consideration of “the facts of a particular case”; and (3) the claim fails on the merits because secretarial reports required under 19 U.S.C. § 1862(b)—or at least the underlying report requested by the plaintiff—falls “squarely within [the presidential-communications] privilege” as “a confidential report from a Cabinet Secretary to the President, created to advise him on matters of national security and ‘made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”

Sept. 9, 2022

Wash. Post v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) government could not use Exemption 6 to categorically withhold names of retired, non-Senate confirmed service members who applied to work for foreign governments; (2) government was required to disclose income and security clearance information of retired, Senate-confirmed foreign employment applicants that had been withheld under Exemption 6; (3) Air Force properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of military officer alleged to have violated federal law; (4) Departments of the Army and the Navy improperly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold portions of memoranda containing facts provided by non-agency personnel, and they failed to reasonably segregable factual materials withheld under the deliberative process privilege.

Sept. 8, 2022

Smith v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate searches for all but one of 14 items pertaining to a third party’s prosecution for production and possession of child pornography; (2) FBI properly withheld some, but not all, responsive records pursuant to Exemption 7(A), and FBI’s declaration discussing agency’s concurrent reliance on underlying exemptions was too general to warrant summary judgment.

Sept. 7, 2022

Advancement Proj. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) ICE properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to visa sanctions, but it failed to properly explain its segregability analysis; and (2) State Department properly withheld records on same subject pursuant to Exemption 7(E) and Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency did not entirely justify its search for records concerning former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power’s requests to “unmask” the identity of former National Security Advisor Lieutenant General Michael Flynn in intelligence reports.

Sept. 2, 2022

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on third round of summary judgment, concluding that DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portions of DEA’s Agents’ Manual.

Ctr. for Medical Progress v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold five categories of disputed records pertaining to University of Pittsburgh’s fetal tissue-related grant application to NIH, and agency sufficiently demonstrated that disclosure would cause foreseeable harm; and (2) agency properly withheld records identifying university’s employees, third-party supporters, and clients pursuant to Exemption 6 due to potential violence and harassment.

Sept. 1, 2022

Munene v. Talebian (W.D. Wash.) -- denying award of attorneys’ fees and costs after concluding that plaintiffs failed to establish that lawsuit had “a substantial causative effect on EOIR's release of the requested documents.”

Buzzfeed Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE again failed to justify use of Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to redact two documents pertaining to alien “Risk Classification Assessments,” and granting ICE’s renewed summary judgment motion regarding searches and withholdings not in dispute.

Aug. 31, 2022

Dale v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for various records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), which plaintiff did not dispute.

Aug. 29, 2022

Wine v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claim because he failed to administratively appeal from agency’s decision to partially redact email about law enforcement’s entry onto plaintiff’s property.

Aug. 25, 2022

Kendrick v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency did not adequately describe how it searched for certain records concerning plaintiff, who was sentenced to “life imprisonment plus 30 years” for his involvement in a “drug ring,” and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

Aug. 23, 2022

Scoville v. U.S. Dep’t of State (E.D. Wis.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s Complaint alleged sufficient facts to state plausible “policy and practice” claim, noting that agency allegedly failed to comply with plaintiff’s FOIA requests on six occasions from 2014 to 2021.

Aug. 19, 2022

Transgender Law Ctr. v. ICE (9th Cir.) (amending May 12, 2022 opinion) -- holding that: (1) agencies must prove adequacy of search “beyond material doubt” and that district court erred in finding that DHS adequately searched or records pertaining to asylum-seeker’s death from HIV in federal custody; (2) district court should not have “essentially treated all drafts as necessarily covered by the deliberative process privilege”; (3) district court erred in permitting government to withhold email domain addresses under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (4) government’s use of Exemption 7(E) was overbroad and district court neglected to analyze whether withheld records were techniques and procedures, and not guidelines; and (5) district court failed to ensure that government’s Vaughn Index entries were non-conclusory, that government explained why documents were not segregable, and that government properly designated certain documents as non-responsive or duplicates.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ failed to adequately explain how agency memorandum to Attorney General Barr concerning Mueller Report fell within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; declining to decide whether “a purely hypothetical, academic discussion among agency personnel could qualify under the . . . privilege”; refusing to allow DOJ to present a new argument that memorandum was drafted “for the purpose of determining the content of a possible public statement regarding the report.”

Asian Am. Advancing Justice v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly relied to on Exemption 7(E) to redact memorandum of understanding concerning Vietnam’s acceptance of certain Vietnamese citizens.

Aug. 17, 2022

Occupational Safety & Health Law Proj. v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- in case involving request for company’s settlement agreement, ruling the government met its burden for the "commercial" and "obtained from a person" requirements of Exemption 4, but that had not carried burden as to the confidentiality prong of Exemption 4, foreseeable harm, or segregability.

Aug. 16, 2022

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBI properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withhold records generated from interviews of targets or subjects related to investigation of persons associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign; rejecting appellant’s flawed reasoning that “an attorney can waive protection for work-product documents even before the documents exist.”

Aug. 15, 2022

Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (6th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, affirming district court’s ruling that government properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold records concerning U.S. Attorney’s decision not to prosecute a state prosecutor with obstruction of justice.

McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- amending court’s memorandum opinion of March 31, 2022.

Aug. 12, 2022

Telematch, Inc. v. USDA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) USDA properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2)(B), to withhold farm numbers and tract numbers associated with its farm subsidy programs; and (2) USDA properly used Exemption 6 to withhold customer numbers assigned to individual farmers, because release “substantial probability” existed that release would reveal financial condition of farmers and plaintiff did not establish an overriding public interest.

Aug. 11, 2022

Climate Investigations Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- following five rounds of summary judgment, deciding that: (1) agency performed adequate supplemental search of Secretary’s office; (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold some, but not all, disputed documents, and it met the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.

Aug. 10, 2022

Protect the People’s Trust v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that Department’s Privacy Office received plaintiff’s request and was required to search for responsive records, because: (1) the request was addressed to the Privacy Office, among others; and (2) another DHS component referred records to the Privacy Office, as well as a copy of the request; (3) plaintiff repeatedly informed DHS that the Privacy office maintained responsive records'; and (4) DHS regulations did not require plaintiff to resubmit request if misdirected.

Aug. 5, 2022

Seife v. FDA (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that Exemption 4 protected portions of pharmaceutical company's successful application for accelerated approval of a drug. Of note, concluding that government met statute’s foreseeable harm provision, which the Court held, in the Exemption 4 context, required the government to address “the submitter's commercial or financial interests.”

Pub. Citizen v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency failed to submit any admissible evidence to support its claim that Exemption 4 protected records concerning the operations of certain meat- and poultry-processing facilities during the early months of the COVID-19.

Aug. 3, 2022

Hamad v. Myorkas (S.D. Ohio) -- determining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services properly relied on Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records concerning agency’s investigation of plaintiff for marriage fraud.

Aug. 2, 2022

Fair Lines Am. Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Census Bureau properly withheld certain aggregated data under Exemption 3 in conjunction with 13 U.S.C. § 9(b), because agency plausibly explained that disclosure “would contribute to the ability of a third party to reconstruct the dataset.”

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review, deciding that government properly withheld all but one record pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Aug. 1, 2022

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- granting agency’s motion for protective order and denying plaintiff’s request to depose agency declarant, because agency’s declaration already addressed topics raised by plaintiff and plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that declaration was made in bad faith.

July 29, 2022

Blake v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that National Security Agency properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with National Security Act of 1959, in refusing to confirm or deny existence of intelligence records related to the disappearance and death of Nicholas Blake, a United States citizen, in Guatemala in 1985.

July 28, 2022

Moore v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff did not waive issue of the adequacy of CIA’s search for records concerning Korean War-era prisoner of war and CIA neglected to address plaintiff’s related arguments; (2) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, and, with limited exceptions, properly issued Glomar responses using same exemption; and (3) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6, and it performed adequate segregability analysis.

July 25, 2022

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving redactions to 4-page document concerning origin of agency’s investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, finding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of non-senior executive FBI officials at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels; and (2) FBI properly withheld other information pursuant to Exemptions 1, 7(D), and 7(E).

July 22, 2022

Hansten v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- rejecting DEA’s Exemption 7(E) Glomar response to request for DEA Forms 222 issued on particular day, because although agency “could use Form 222 in a diversion investigation, the entries on this form say nothing about how the DEA would “go about investigating” a diversion case."

July 21, 2022

Lewis v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D. Md.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff was not entitled to money damages from Department of Veterans Affairs for disclosing records only after plaintiff filed her lawsuit; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold certain records concerning plaintiff’s complaint about third party, but that it improperly withheld internal tracking numbers, information on the administrative processing and status of the complaint and investigation, and standard form instructions.”

July 20, 2022

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of agency communications with financial institutions about the violent attack at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that FBI had official acknowledged existence of those records.

July 19, 2022

Montgomery v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) IRS properly relied on Exemption 7(D) in refusing to confirm or deny existence or records concerning involvement of whistleblower(s) in agency’s investigation of plaintiffs; and (2) IRS performed adequate search for agency communications with third parties about plaintiff’s taxes.

July 15, 2022

Shapiro v. FBI (D.C. Cir. ) -- affirming, in most respects, district court’s decision that FBI performed adequate search for voluminous records related to the animal rights movement, but remanding case to fill in gap concerning certain electronic surveillance records

July 14, 2022

Adams v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning himself and the agency; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3; and (3) agency properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, but it failed to demonstrate that all of its Glomar responses were appropriate.

July 8, 2022

Behar v. DHS (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and holding that: (1) records obtained by the Secret Service from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and transition were not “agency records” because agency did not control them; and (2) even if disputed records qualified as agency records, they were protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(C).

O'Brien v. DOJ (E.D. Pa.) -- determining that FBI properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s co-defendant pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

July 7, 2022

Hall v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- in case litigated for 18 years, deciding “final issue” that agency performed adequate search of its operational files for records concerning Vietnam War prisoners of war.

Hughes v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, (2) EOUSA improperly treated records related to two defendants in plaintiff’s criminal case as non-responsive, and agency needed to clarify whether it possessed a sealed court filing that it treated as non-responsive; (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege; (4) EOUSA and FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records concerning various third parties, but ordering each agency to release records concerning plaintiff’s codefendants; and (5) plaintiff was eligible and entitled to recover his litigation costs of $350.

July 1, 2022

Conn. Fair Housing. Ctr. v. HUD (D. Conn.) -- ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for costs and attorney’s fees because court played no role in settlement reached between the parties.

June 30, 2022

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Me. Found. v. ICE (D. Me.) (magistrate’s recommendation) -- following in camera review of records concerning asylum applications, finding that ICE properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Rutila v. DOT (N.D. Tex.) -- on remand from Fifth Circuit, finding that: (1) FAA properly tolled its response to one of plaintiff’s requests concerning air traffic controller training and therefore plaintiff’s failure to pay estimated fees precluded his claim; (2) FAA performed reasonable search for certain emails; (3) five of plaintiff’s requests concerning agency employee were either not reasonably described or improperly required creation of new records; and (4) agency conducted adequate search for air traffic training manual.

June 27, 2022

N.Y. Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- following in camera review of a report concerning Volkswagen AG’s compliance with plea agreement, ordering limited disclosure of information that DOJ had withheld under Exemption 4 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case involving illegal alien data in the department’s Enforcement Integrated Database, ordering CBP to address whether database contains unique identifiers other than A-numbers and concluding that CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold some, but not all, disputed database information.

Pfeiffer v. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff, a PhD anthropology candidate, had sufficiently demonstrated that his request fell within fee category of an educational institution, rejecting agency’s argument that plaintiff’s potential profit transformed request to commercial use.

Kowall v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend two aspects of court’s summary judgment ruling, namely that ATF performed adequate search for records concerning client’s post-conviction proceedings and that FBI properly withheld plea agreement of client’s co-defendant.

June 23, 2022

Selgjekaj v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that EOUSA reasonably described its search for grand jury records associated with plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.

June 22, 2022

Smith v. EOUSA (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of summary motion in government’s favor, but agreeing that pro se plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of filing and mailing costs due, in part, to agency’s dilatory search for records.

June 21, 2022

BuzzFeed Inc. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identity of former DOJ employee who had sexually harassed a subordinate, according to public OIG report.

June 16, 2022

Vidal-Martinez v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding after in camera review that agency properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold records concerning plaintiff’s detention and rejecting plaintiff’s contention that alleged government impropriety undermined its withholding claims.

June 15, 2022

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that EPA properly relied on deliberative process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges to withhold eight categories of disputed records concerning a 2019 Department of Justice memo concerning EPA’s use of “Supplemental Environmental Projects” in settlement agreements.

June 10, 2022

Avila v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency’s use of plaintiff’s full name as sole search term was too narrow to uncover all records responsive to plaintiff’s request for records concerning a February 2011 attack involving plaintiff; (2) agency adequately justified withholding some but not all documents pursuant to Exemption 1, and it provided inadequate description for one document withheld under Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft documents, all but one document constituting outward-facing deliberations, and all but two miscellaneous records; and (4) agency properly withheld emails reflecting policy and legal advice pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

June 9, 2022

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed adequate search for personal text messages related to fishing observer program on or after September 20, 2017, when a new agency policy required such messages to be forwarded to agency email accounts; (2) agency’s search for all other records was inadequate, in part because agency neglected to explain its search process; and (3) agency’s “withholding log” and declaration were sufficiently detailed.

June 7, 2022

Inter-Cooperative Exch. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (9th Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, reversing and remanding district court’s decision and holding that agency employee failed to use adequate terms when searching his personal cell phone for records concerning the arbitration system that sets the price of crab.

Am. Small Bus. League v. SBA (N.D. Cal.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff was a representative of the news media for fee purposes, consistent with multiple court decisions holding that “non-profit organizations that conduct investigations and publish press release and other articles about their findings” so qualified; and (2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to public interest waiver of duplication fees for requests seeking communications from agency’s press office and board members.

June 3, 2022

Eddington v. DOD (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome agency’s declaration that it did not receive any of his requests emailed to 14 DOD components and rejecting appellant’s argument that district court abused its discretion in failing to order discovery.

Barnes v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester’s criminal plea bargain precluded requester from seeking government records pertaining to his case, because government identified legitimate criminal-justice interest in enforcing waiver provision.

Fogg v. IRS (8th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that IRS properly withheld portions of Internal Revenue Manual pursuant to Exemption 7(E) and remanding for in camera review, because agency’s declaration erroneously characterized the IRS solely as a law enforcement agency.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- deciding that: (1) agency did not perform adequate search for records concerning a Massachusetts state judge and court security officer who helped a criminal defendant evade ICE arrest; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records related to pending criminal prosecution of the judge and court officer.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, finding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met foreseeable harm requirement in withholding portions of draft OIG report regarding agency’s impersonation of a journalist in 2007.

June 2, 2022

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold some, but not all, disputed records regarding a 2019 telephone conference call on international religious freedom; and (2) agency properly withheld email username of former Secretary Pompeo, but that agency improperly withheld government email domain address of former Deputy Secretary and the private email domain address of an agency employee.

May 31, 2022

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Me. Found. v. USCIS (D. Me.) -- concluding that: (1) agency reasonably declined to search thousands of A-Files for certain requested documents because search would be too burdensome, and that agency’s search for other records was adequate; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption (7C); (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold asylum applicant names, addresses, names of relatives, and addresses of relatives, but improperly withheld citizenship information, country of origin, political affiliation, roles in political elections, and religious affiliation; and (4) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain records related to detecting fraudulent asylum applications, but ordering disclosure or in camera review for other withheld records.

May 27, 2022

Hyatt v. U.S Patent & Trade Office (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly denied plaintiff’s request for waiver of fees arising from request for records concerning plaintiff’s patent applications, because plaintiff failed to show that records would advance public understanding of agency operations; and (2) administrative record did not adequately support agency’s determination that plaintiff’s request fell within commercial use fee category, and remanding to agency for further action; declining to decide whether standard of review should be de novo or “arbitrary and capricious."

Am. Oversight v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on review of Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, holding that: (1) judge did not clearly err in finding that U.S. House committee was a proper defendant-intervenor and that court had subject matter jurisdiction, rejecting plaintiff’s “counter-intuitive theory“ that the Committee was required to seek injunction against government defendants; (2) judge did not clearly err in finding that HHS performed adequate search for records regarding health care reform legislation; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s consultant corollary to withhold records of communications with Congress, except for certain factual information; (4) HHS was required to submit additional affidavit clarifying with certainty whether or not talking points were adopted as the agency’s position or were later used and shared outside the agency; (5) OMB was required to disclose names of attendees and locations of meetings; and (6) judge did not clearly err in denying plaintiff’s requests for in camera review and discovery.

May 20, 2022

Crow v. IRS (D. Idaho) -- determining that IRS properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a) to withheld certain records concerning its investigation of plaintiff and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that instant FOIA action permitted IRS to release return information under section 6103(h)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (authorizing release in “judicial or administrative proceeding pertaining to tax administration”).

Khullar v. Rosario (S.D. Fla.) -- finding that U.S Patent and Trademark Office performed reasonable search for disciplinary records concerning plaintiff; rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that agency’s declaration contained inadmissible hearsay, that USPTO's response to a prior FOIA request raised questions about agency’s search, and that USPTO's search was inadequate because it failed to yield three allegedly responsive documents

May 18, 2022

Schmitz v. DOD Inspector Gen. (E.D. Va.) -- holding that plaintiff’s failure to file administrative appeals from any of his three requests to DOD IG warranted dismissal of his case on exhaustion grounds; rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that appeals would have been futile and that litigation productions by a different DOD component precluded an exhaustion defense.

May 17, 2022

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing in part and remanding in part district court’s decision and concluding that draft letters and certain associated emails concerning the addition of citizenship question to 2020 Census fell within the ambit of Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

May 13, 2022

Newman v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- determining that government performed “thorough” searches for records concerning former Cuban exile and inmate Antonio Veciana, whose incarceration and supervision ended in the early 1980s. Of note, the court remarked that this case was “yet another example of the “mismatched incentives” that FOIA creates” because “nonprofit FOIA requestees like [plaintiff] pay little to nothing for their FOIA requests . . . [s]o they do not internalize the costs of a wild goose chase like this one. This case has tasked multiple attorneys at three agencies (including the U.S. Attorney's Office) and several FOIA specialists in the search for decades-old inmate records that by regulation should have been transferred or destroyed years ago. Unsurprisingly, they were. But the cost of this predictably fruitless search is borne by the agencies, and ultimately, American taxpayers.”

Story of Stuff Proj. v, U.S. Forest Serv. (D.D.C.) -- awarding $106,214 in attorney’s fees and costs after thirty-percent reduction for time spent on plaintiff’s unsuccessful claims, and disallowing time invested in case after court hearing on plaintiff’s motion for fees and costs.

May 12, 2022

Transgender Law Ctr. v. Immigration & Customs Enf't (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court and finding that: (1) DHS agencies failed to show “beyond material doubt” that they conducted adequate search for records concerning asylum-seeker's death in federal custody; (2) government’s Vaughn Indices failed to provide sufficient detail to permit review of withholdings; (3) court erred in treating all drafts as necessarily covered by Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; (4) agencies improperly withheld email domain addresses of agency employees under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (5) agencies failed to distinguish whether records withheld under Exemption 7(E) were law enforcement techniques and procedure or guidelines; and (6) agencies failed to provide sufficient detail concerning its segregability analysis.

Synopsys, Inc. v. DOL (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decisions that: (1) company untimely moved to intervene after summary judgment was granted to FOIA requester seeking access to company’s employment data (EEO-1 reports); and (2) DOL was entitled to summary judgment in company’s reverse-FOIA action, finding that APA claim on Exemption 4 grounds was precluded by Supreme Court precedent.

May 9, 2022

Emuwa v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding on remand that D.C. Circuit’s foreseeable harm opinion in Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. FBI did not warrant revision of court’s initial decision granting summary judgment to government on Exemption 5 grounds.

May 5, 2022

Anthony v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (W.D. La.) -- holding that venue was improper because plaintiff’s incarceration in Louisiana did not confer residency in that state, requiring case to be transferred to the District of Columbia in absence of evidence of plaintiff’s residency elsewhere.

Apr. 28, 2022

Zirvi v. NIH (D.N.J.) -- concluding that: (1) multiple agencies properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records concerning a biotechnology company; (2) plaintiff’s belief that withheld documents would show existence of criminal conduct did not undermine exemptions or warrant discovery or in camera review; and (3) plaintiff was neither eligible nor entitled to costs.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to strike agency’s declaration in connection with plaintiff’s requests for COVID-19 data and cost and staffing data related to federal executions.

Apr. 26, 2022

Nat’l Student Legal Def. Net. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Department of Education performed adequate search for certain federal student aid-related records received from the Social Security Administration, notwithstanding department’s failure to locate two additional SSA records that the department was required by regulation to request from SSA annually.

100Reporters v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Department failed to adequately search for reports to Congress concerning vetting of foreign security personnel; (2) Department properly withheld some, but not all, vetting records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and noting that agencies are not required to trace lineage of each draft document to ensure that it has not been adopted as agency’s final position; (3) Department failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that names of foreign security officials were protected under Exemptions 6 or 7(C); (4) Department properly withheld most, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (5) Department failed to identify any authority that would authorize Court to order plaintiffs to return inadvertently released records, regardless of whether those records are protected under various exemptions, including Exemption 7(F).

Apr. 19, 2022

Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of 50 sample documents concerning Donald Trump before his presidential campaign, ruling that FBI was not required to expend “considerable” resources in order release non-exempt information because “it would result in negligible, if any, meaningful information going to Plaintiffs.”

Apr. 14, 2022

Vollmann v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was both eligible for and entitled to attorney’s fees regarding his pursuit of records concerning himself, but reducing amount of the award due to excessive time and excessive hourly rates charged.

Apr. 13, 2022

Buzzfeed Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because DOJ had been ordered to produce one email by a certain date, but that plaintiff was not entitled to fees because DOJ’s untimely response was reasonably excused by its backlog of prior FOIA requests and the breadth of plaintiff’s request.

Apr. 11, 2022

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) USCIS did not conduct adequate searches for guidance materials used for new asylum officers or concerning FOIA’s reasonable harm provision; (2) USCIS did not justify its reliance on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but other records were properly withheld under attorney work-product privilege; (3) USCIS properly withheld names of third party trainers under Exemption 6; and (4) except for one page, USCIS properly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold “sensitive techniques used by asylum officers to conduct interviews and consider applications.

Apr. 8, 2022

Matthews v. EOUSA (5th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester’s timeliness claims became moot once agencies responded to his requests.

Apr. 6, 2022

Knight First Amendment Inst at Columbia Univ. v. USCIS (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision in case related to vetting immigrants entering the country and ruling, in most relevant part, that: (1) Department of State properly withheld portions of its Foreign Affairs Manual pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (2) USCIS properly withheld terrorism-related questions pursuant to Exemption 7(E), rejecting argument that law enforcement techniques or procedures must be “special or technical” to be protected; further finding that requester did not carry its burden to show that the questions at issue were ”publicly available.”

Mar. 31, 2022

Khatchadourian v. DIA (D.D.C.) -- in dispute concerning records of task force that reviewed WikiLeaks disclosure, holding that: (1) DIA’s unprompted second-round review and production of records was not evidence of bad faith, as plaintiff asserted, but indication of agency’s commitment to FOIA compliance; (2) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024, and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege); and (3) agency was not required to unredact names of certain task force members because agency already disclosed that information on the record.

McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that ATF properly relied on Exemptions 6 & 7(C) to withhold portions of a recording of a rock concert in which 100 people died by fire, but that neglected to address whether the last 8 minutes of the recording, when no human voices are audible, was segregable or exempt.

Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient new or relevant evidence to overturn decision that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s mortgage fraud conviction; and (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s sentencing judge and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 and 7(A), among others undisputed by plaintiff; and (3) parties were required to file joint status report or proposed briefing schedule as to FBI’s processing of records concerning former government informant.

SE Legal Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Ga.) -- deciding that DOJ performed reasonable search for records of attorney misconduct in connection with Carter Page’s FISA application, explaining that DOJ’s Mail Referral Unit reasonably forwarded request to the National Security Division and that plaintiff “accepted the inherent risk that the MRU [would] send the request to fewer or none of the components that [plaintiff believed were] relevant.”

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not provide sufficient information to justify its reliance on Exemption 4 to withhold agency’s draft report that included information prepared by the State of Mississippi regarding its proposed flood control project; and (2) agency could not use Exemption 5 to withhold draft report because state agency was not a “quasi-federal” agency nor a consultant.

Jackson v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding that FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact faces of third parties and license plate numbers from videos pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest and beating by a Joilet police officer in 2012.

Magassa v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing an administrative appeal that challenged the entirety of TSA’s response, noting that he was not required to “challenge each component of TSA’s responses individually”; (2) TSA conducted adequate search for various records pertaining to plaintiff; (3) TSA properly invoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) to withhold records, as well to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records indicating whether plaintiff’s name appears on a watch list; and (4) TSA properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.

Mar. 30, 2022

Trotter v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees because plaintiff failed to identify a public benefit derived from the litigation and agency acted reasonably even though court ultimately ordered minimal disclosures.

Shapiro v. SSA (D. Vt.) -- reducing requested award of attorney fees by fifty percent because plaintiff failed to submit billing records and achieved only limited success in the litigation.

Free Sacred Trinity Church v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that IRS was required to perform search for records pertaining to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration inquiry and denying, for lack of good cause, plaintiff’s bid to expedite proceedings.

Mar. 28, 2022

Neese v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility performed adequate search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff for professional misconduct, and (2) OPR and/or FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (grand jury material), 5 (deliberative process privilege), and 6 & 7(C), but FBI failed to meaningfully explain applicability of Exemption 7(E).

Cabezas v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C) and 7(E).

Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that plaintiff’s request for certain clinical trial records was not reasonably described because it contained several latent ambiguities, and that FDA’s willingness to process broader set of records satisfied agency’s obligation to assist plaintiff.

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that multiple components of DOJ performed reasonable searches for records concerning a 2018 meeting with Associated Press reporters, but that DOJ failed to ask EOUSA to search email account of one Assistant United States Attorney who had attended meeting at issue.

Mar. 25, 2022

Sanders v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning an initiative of the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency to tackle child sexual exploitation.

Brown v. FBI (D. Or.) -- finding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning witness to 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack and declining to credit plaintiff’s allegation that shooting was episode of government-sponsored terrorism.

Cayuga Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning agency’s 2020 visit to plaintiff’s reservation; (2) BIA failed to justify withholding certain redacted portions of a “trip report” pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, or attorney-client privileges; and (3) with limited exceptions, BIA properly withheld portions of a “briefing report” pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D), but it failed to justify its deliberative process privilege claims.

Mar. 23, 2022

Cannady v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold records concerning plaintiff’s criminal co-defendant, specifically inventories of items seized from co-defendant and notes of interviews between the FBI and co-defendant.

Gun Owners of Am. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly denied two requests as unreasonably described because plaintiff’s first request embedded “a fundamental uncertainty about whose communications [were] requested,” and its second request sought “all documents related to a certain question without providing further limitations or providing the FBI with a basis to narrow its search”; and (2) plaintiff’s remaining request was reasonably described “despite using the word ‘involving’ due to its inclusion of a discrete state agency whose communications are requested, specific search terms, explicit temporal parameters, and sufficient basis for the agency to narrow which custodians it must search to find responsive records.”

Mar. 22, 2022

Castro v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that IRS performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s status as Enrolled Agent and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), (b), (e)(7).

Mar. 21, 2022

Ward v. DOJ (N.D. Tex.) -- dismissing case as moot because agency processed all records responsive to plaintiff’s request concerning his criminal case and none of plaintiff’s pleadings challenged the substance of agency’s response.

Mar. 18, 2022

Washington v. GSA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.

Washington v. OMB (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.

Washington v. NARA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records

Mar. 15, 2022

Swick v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment, determining that the Army had satisfied plaintiff’s request for her personnel records and performed a reasonable search for test results related to plaintiff’s psychiatric report.

Mar. 14, 2022

Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency did not carry its burden to show that it adequately searched for records concerning plaintiff, because it failed to invoke magic words that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched.

Pejouhesh v. USPS (D.D.C) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment that: (1) agency failed to justify using Exemption 7(C) to withhold arrest warrant affidavit, because the criminal docket for plaintiff’s prosecution appeared to contain same document in unreacted form; (2) upon ex parte, in camera review, agency properly withheld an operation plan pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (3) no evidence exists that agency failed to include any documents in its Vaughn Index.

Jackson v. DHS (D. Idaho) -- dismissing pro se prisoner’s complaint in light of the “fanciful nature of the allegations underlying his FOIA requests,” which sought “government records related to transforming inmates into zombie slaves.”

Mar. 11, 2022

Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) CBP failed to perform adequate search for various records pertaining to pilot program allowing CBP officials to conduct asylum-related interviews; (2) DHS and USCIS did not provide sufficient information to justify its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, nor did they satisfy statute’s foreseeable harm provision; and (3) government improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of CBP officers appearing on one document.

Mar. 9, 2022

S. Poverty Law Ctr. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that IRS properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold records prepared, furnished, or collected in connection with its criminal investigation of Tennessee slaughterhouse, because such records constituted return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a).

Long v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t (N.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate database search concerning “Form I-247 Requests” relating to detainers and notices of release, and that agency was not mandated to create ‘new, complex queries and new records resulting from those newly created queries.’

Mar. 8, 2022

Block v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).

Mar. 1, 2022

Braun v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff and properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact identities of law enforcement personnel.

Bagwell v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of investigations into possible child sexual abuse on Penn State’s campus, concluding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys could not categorically withhold set of records consisting of 11,648 pages of emails pursuant to Exemptions 3 (FRCP 6(e)), 6, 7(C), and 7(D); and (2) EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 3 (FRCP 6(e)) and Exemption 5 (attorney work-product) to withhold second set of records; and (3) foreseeable harm provision enacted in 2016 did not retroactively apply to request made in 2014.

Feb. 28, 2022

Naumes v. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Army performed reasonable search for records concerning online survey, but ordering agency to produce webpages available as embedded links in documents already released to plaintiff; (2) with respect to agency’s use of Exemption 4 to withhold survey questions from copyrighted sources, (a) agency failed to explain whether it copied or modified questions from the copyrighted sources; (b) agency must release withheld questions from any sources which are available publicly at no charge; (c) agency must confer with copyright holders for remaining non-public source materials about whether they treat those materials as confidential; (3) agency sufficiently showed foreseeable harm from disclosing copyrighted information.

Feb. 25, 2022

Bernegger v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EOUSA properly denied plaintiff’s fee waiver request associated with his request for access to his prosecution and conviction records.

Feb. 22, 2022

Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. of N.H. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.N.H.) -- ordering agency to file supplemental declaration addressing the scope of its search and why it found certain records to be non-responsive to plaintiff’s request, but ruling that agency’s original declaration and Vaughn Index provided court with sufficient information to evaluate agency’s segregability determinations.

Feb. 17, 2022

Graham v. DHS (E.D. Cal.) -- holding that plaintiff’s claim was not time-barred when he filed suit exactly 6 years after ICE issued its second (and final) administrative appeal response, because —in the court's view -- the agency's timely-issued remand of plaintiff's first administrative appeal prevented plaintiff from exhausting his administrative remedies and thus delayed the accrual of his claim.

Feb. 11, 2022

Graham v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment to government after finding that plaintiff failed to identify any public policy harms that would override criminal justice interests favoring enforcement of plaintiff’s voluntary waiver of FOIA rights in his plea agreement.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency did not submit sufficient information to permit court to evaluate whether agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold two categories of records concerning its handling of requests from congressional committee chairs; and (2) agency improperly redacted “simple statistics” and other factual information from weekly report that did not fall within deliberative process privilege or meet foreseeable harm provision.

Saterlee v. IRS (W.D.Mo.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed adequate search, except in one instance, for various certificate of assessments and notices of federal tax liens concerning plaintiff; (2) agency failed to prove that it properly withheld employee’s oath of office pursuant to Exemption 6, but it properly used same exemption to withhold other records from employee’s personnel file.

Feb. 10, 2022

Stonehill v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving investigatory records of plaintiff’s deceased husband’s business in the Philippines, concluding that: (1) Tax Division was permitted to amend its Answer to add res judicata defense, but rejecting agency’s defense on merits concerning request for “records from 1957-1976 concerning Mr. Stonehill”; (2) rejecting Tax Division’s res judicata defense to request concerning Philippine’s national bureau of investigations; (3) ordering agency to complete processing of request that it neglected for three years—which the court called “unacceptable”—and to justify any withholdings on renewed summary judgment; (4) Tax Division performed adequate search for records concerning government consultant, but finding agency’s earlier errors “troubling” and urging agency to take “greater care in the future”; (5) Tax Division properly relied on Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold some, but not all, records identified in the Tax Division’s opening brief and rejecting plaintiff’s assertion of government misconduct exception; and (6) Tax Division failed to justify its Exemption 5 withholdings for records located after it filed its opening brief and denying agency’s request to submit sampling Vaughn Index.

Feb. 9, 2022

Smith v. EOUSA (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s transfer between state and federal custody in 2011 and that it properly withheld grand jury records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).

Feb. 8, 2022

Junk v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search for “‘records from Maiden Lane LLC and Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC containing’ a specific nine-digit alphanumeric Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures ("CUSIP") number.”

Feb. 2, 2022

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision requiring disclosure of certain information contained in a draft summary of CIA’s former detention and interrogation program and holding that such information was protected under Exemption 1.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (D.D.C) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and 6 to withhold records concerning nomination of Gina Haspel to serve as CIA’s Director.

Feb. 1, 2022

Woodard v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of records concerning agency’s use of cell phone technology in apprehending plaintiff for capital murder, finding that agency properly redacted names of law enforcement officers under Exemption 7(C) and that its use of Exemption 7(C), 7(E), 7(D), and 7(F) to redact or fully withhold other records was justified in some instances and not others.

Jan. 30, 2022

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) DOJ failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine propriety of agency’s reliance on Exemption 5’s attorney-client, attorney work-product, and deliberative process privileges to withhold certain appellate training material; and (2) Civil Division performed adequate search for studies and analyses of the “foreseeable harm” standard of the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act.

Jan. 28, 2022

Majuc v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that with one minor exception, DOJ properly used Exemptions 4, 6, 7(A), and 7(C) to withhold records concerning criminal investigation of BNP Paribas, S.A. and its affiliates for evading economic sanctions against various countries.

Callimachi v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning certain Romanian politicians; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemptions 1 & 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning Romania’s intelligence service; and (3) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning death of former Romanian ambassador and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 7(D), and 7(E).

Jan. 27, 2022

Cause of Action Inst. v. Export-Import Bank (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, determining that: (1) agency improperly withheld email received from Vice President’s staff as non-agency records; (2) agency failed to show that certain information contained in weekly reports was “obtained from a person,” but agency’s remaining Exemption 4 withholdings were proper; (3) agency properly withheld some, but not all, disputed records under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; of note, ordering release of one of three documents sent to GAO because it was created to assist GAO and ultimately Congress and thus not an inter-agency or intra-agency record.

Jan. 25, 2022

Eddington v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ’s National Security Division properly invoked Exemptions 1, 6, 7(A), and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence and investigative records related to Amir Mohamed Meshal, a U.S. citizen who was detained by both Kenyan and Ethiopian government entities between 2006 and 2007.

Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- finding that plaintiff was entitled to $344,122.30 in attorney’s fees out of $444,314 requested and reducing award primarily due to excessive time spent on complaint and duplicative staffing; declining to discount fees merely because plaintiff did not obtain all disputed records.

Yassein v. El Paso Intelligence Ctr. (S.D. Cal.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff did not reasonably describe records sought from Drug Enforcement Administration and agency made good faith attempt to seek clarification, which plaintiff ignored.

Jan. 20, 2022

Harrington v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion seeking “immediate” production of agency’s pet-food-related records and finding that FDA’s proposed production schedule was reasonable; noting that agency’s relevant FOIA office had backlog of 336 requests, due “in no small part” to plaintiff’s “staggering 2220+ requests to FDA since 2018.”

Jan. 14, 2022

Rivera-Rodriguez v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Executive Office of United States Attorneys properly used Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) to withhold grand jury minutes, voting records, and charging instructions, and (2) agency’s undisputed withholding of grand jury forepersons also were properly withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Jan. 13, 2022

Envtl. Def. Fund v. United States v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, but reducing requested attorney’s fee award from $151,322 to $109,413 because of unreasonably high hourly rates and excessive charges.

Jan. 12, 2022

Jabar v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that agency properly segregated and released non-exempt material from plaintiff’s criminal case file and that FOIA was not proper vehicle to remedy alleged Brady violations.

Jan. 11. 2022

Am. Oversight v. DOT (D.D.C.) -- holding that DOT properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between Congressional staff and agency staff on proposed and draft legislation, because “the staffers shared a common legislative purpose” and “the communications furthered the agency’s consideration of the particulars of that common legislative purpose.”

Dec. 30, 2021

Akel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution, except for its failure to try to recover and search emails of one former prosecutor who worked on plaintiff’s case.

Dec. 28, 2021

Kalbers v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that Volkswagen AG could not intervene as of right in FOIA lawsuit involving the company’s records and holding, in most relevant part, that the factor of delay “is measured from the date the proposed intervenor knew or should have known the parties would no longer adequately protect its interests” as opposed to the date when proposed intervenor learned of the FOIA lawsuit.

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that: (1) House Appropriations Committee report concerning 1967 attack on U.S. naval intelligence ship was not an “agency record” subject to FOIA, because “the Committee clearly indicated its intent to control the report by marking it ’Not for release unless and until authorized by the Committee’”; (2) CIA failed to carry its burden with respect to its withholdings under Exemptions 1 and 3, necessitating in camera review; and (3) despite age of records, CIA could retain its Exemption 6 withholdings because plaintiff failed to articulate any public interest in disclosure.

Dec. 23, 2021

Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that the FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of investigatory records pertaining to former congressperson, Dana Rohrabacher of California.

Dec. 21, 2021

Hammond v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Walter Reed National Military Medical Center performed “reasonable and adequate” searches in response to plaintiff’s multiple requests, noting that plaintiff was not “entitled to a search of his own choosing”; (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names of individuals who requested their own medical records; (3) plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief based on agency’s use of batched FOIA tracking numbers.

Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- adopting in part and denying in part magistrate’s recommendations and holding that: (1) FEMA and NIST did not adequately explain how it searched for requested records concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001; (2) plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery from FEMA concerning 490,000 pages of WTC-related records stored at NARA, but that FEMA sufficiently explained discrepancy as to whether certain missing records might be in its regional office’s local archives.

Dec. 17, 2021

Niskanen Ctr. v. FERC (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold the full names and addresses of property owners along the route of a proposed pipeline and that only the property owners’ initials and street names could be released.

Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that DHS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 2015 Strategic National Risk Assessment and that the agency met its statutory burden to show foreseeable harm.

Dec. 16, 2021

Picardi v. U.S. Attorney's Offices (D.S.D.) -- determining that Executive Office for U.S. Attorney’s Office performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal and civil tax trials in South Dakota, and that it properly withheld grand jury material pursuant to Exemption 3 and third party information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Dec. 13, 2021

WP Co, v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment motions, ruling that: (1) SBA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold loan status information of Paycheck Protection Program recipients, noting that SBA had asked loan recipients about their customary treatment of such information and established that disclosure would meet foreseeable harm standard; and (2) SBA properly withheld employer identification numbers of businesses under Exemption 6, because agency could not reasonably segregate them from social security numbers of individual borrowers.

Villanueva v. DOJ (S.D. Fla.) -- ordering FBI to process 20,500 pages of withheld documents responsive to plaintiff’s June 2018 FOIA request at a rate of 5,125 pages per month, rejecting government’s proposed rate of 500 pages per month.

Keeping Gov't Beholden. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) two of plaintiff’s requests to FBI did not reasonably describe the records sought because those records could not be located with a reasonable amount of effort; and (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold certain emails of former FBI Director and met statute’s foreseeable harm provision under standards set forth by D.C. Circuit.

Dec. 10, 2021

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that DOJ properly withheld working draft statements of then-Attorney General Sally Yates under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and holding that agency’s declaration neglected to address “the ‘who,’ i.e., the roles of the document drafters and recipients and their places in the chain of command; the ‘what,’ i.e., the nature of the withheld content; the ‘where,’ i.e., the stage within the broader deliberative process in which the withheld material operates; and the ‘how,’ i.e., the way in which the withheld material facilitated agency deliberation.”

Dec. 9, 2021

Stevens v. U.S. Dep’t of State (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that the agency performed adequate search for records concerning foreign campuses of American universities and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 (deliberative process privilege).

Matthews v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- following government’s multiple motions for summary judgment concerning plaintiff’s request for records about himself, deciding that: (1) FBI properly redacted identities of agency support personnel pursuant to Exemption 6; (2) agency did not provide sufficient information for court to determine that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) supported withholding of names and phone numbers of certain employees, as well as victim impact statements associated with plaintiff’s criminal prosecution; and (3) FBI justified its withholding of information about an informant under Exemption 7(D).

Dec. 8, 2021

AquAlliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency performed adequate search for summaries of certain 2020 water transfers; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that agency was also required to search for underlying data, because plaintiff expressly limited its request to summaries.

W. Watersheds Project v. Nat'l Park Serv. (D. Idaho) -- granting government’s motion to change venue to Utah notwithstanding plaintiff’s principal place of business in Idaho, because case primarily involves plaintiff’s FOIA requests for documents located in Utah and how agency employees in Utah responded to those requests.

Dec. 7, 2021

Pickering v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that FBI performed reasonable search for records pertaining to convicted murderer Leonard Peltier and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5 (attorney work-product), 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Dec. 3, 2021

Surgey v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) EPA likely performed reasonable search for records concerning former Administrator’s trip to 2018 Rose Bowl game, but neglected to invoke the “magic words” that it searched all locations likely to contain responsive records; (2) EPA properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold records about the former Administrator’s family vacation, and reserving judgment as to whether the agency properly withheld records concerning security personnel’s travel and logistical coordination under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).

Elec. Privacy Info. Serv. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the IRS improperly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold tax settlement agreements between the agency and Donald Trump and businesses associated with him, and that plaintiff was precluded from accessing copies of tax returns pursuant to the same exemption.

Nov. 30, 2021

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact the identities of third parties investigated but not charged by Special Counsel Mueller, except with respect to “the information relating to individuals investigated for campaign violations, as the factual circumstances surrounding this portion of the investigation are already publicly available in the unredacted portions” of Muller’s report.

Nov. 29, 2021

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing in part and vacating in part district court’s decision and holding that: (1) “messaging documents”— i.e., records relating to agency’s decision about how to communicate its policies to people outside the agency—merit protection under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege unless they reflect “merely descriptive discussions”; and (2) “briefing documents”—i.e., records “created to brief senior agency staff about various topics”—could qualify under the deliberative process privilege even if they did not relate to a specific decision facing the agency.”

Bolze v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment to government after determining that EOUSA and FBI performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and that plaintiff declined to challenge any withholdings.

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. ICE (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that ICE did not perform adequate search for certain handbooks and training material and that agency properly withheld some portions, but not all, of its National Security Investigation Handbook pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Nov. 24, 2021

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning the names of current or former government employees who had been granting exemptions from prepublication process, ruling that CIA properly withheld certain names pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 but not Exemption 6.

Nat'l Pub. Radio v. Int'l Dev. Fin. Corp. (C.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly relied on the deliberative privilege process to withhold three categories of records concerning proposed $756 million loan to the Eastman Kodak, noting that the record constituted public messaging, not substantive policy decisions; and (2) two of three remaining disputed emails fell within the deliberative process and met the foreseeable harm standard.

Nov. 19. 2021

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that government’s proposed processing rate of 500 pages monthly was reasonable and ordering DHS to refer plaintiff’s request to two components that might have potentially responsive records.

Chavis v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that EOUSA performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and that Exemption 5 issue was moot because agency released disputed records.

Nov. 18, 2021

Buckley v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and third parties, (2) FBI failed to provide enough information to justify withholding records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Pen Register Act; (3) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).

Nov. 10, 2021

Nat’ l Pub. Radio v. U.S. Central Command (S.D. Cal.) -- finding that plaintiff’s lawsuit concerning the First Battle of Fallujah in 2004 was not substantially similar to lawsuit filed earlier in Northern District of California and denying government’s motion to dismiss.

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after concluding that plaintiff’s request “referencing or regarding in any way” eight “broadly defined immigration-related subject areas” was not reasonably described.

Nov. 8, 2021

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) EOUSA, FBI, and the Criminal Division failed to perform adequate searches for records pertaining to Bryan Carmody; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of one agent who questioned Mr. Carmody, but that name of second agency was in the public domain and could not be withheld.

Mitchell v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning insurance benefits of plaintiff’s grandfather and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Nov. 5, 2021

Donato v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider court’s decision that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in confirming to confirm or deny existence of records about investigation of third party.

Parker v. U.S. Probation Office (S.D. Cal.) -- dismissing complaint against U.S. Probation Office and federal probation officers because all are arms of the federal court and therefore not agencies subject to FOIA.

Homes-Hamilton v. FBI (D. Md.) -- ordering claims to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia because one of three plaintiffs did not reside or have principal place of business in Maryland and judicial efficiency warranted all claims remaining together.

Oct. 28, 2021

Oram v. Wilkie (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that the Department of Veterans Affairs performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6, and that plaintiff failed to establish elements of a pattern-or-practice claim.

Oct. 27, 2021

Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing claims against the State Department and CIA because pro se plaintiff failed to prosecute case after he was released from federal prison.

Oct. 22, 2021

White v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBI’s 500-page-per-month production rate was proper; FBI and U.S. Marshals Service performed reasonable searches concerning plaintiff and white-supremacist groups; FBI properly issued Glomar responses regarding third-party record requests; and plaintiff was not entitled to litigation costs.

Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of certain records pertaining to COVID-19.

Oct. 20, 2021

Ramaci v. FBI (S.D.N.Y) -- rejecting plaintiff’s argument that FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withhold records concerning death of plaintiff’s husband, Steven Vincent, in Iraq, and further finding that FBI’s undisputed withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) were appropriate.

Oct. 19, 2021

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service performed adequate search for records concerning prisoner-plaintiff; (2) USMS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly withheld records (collectively or individually ) pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6. 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F) and met statute’s foreseeable harm requirement, which it noted did not apply to Exemption 3.

Oct. 18, 2021

Cole v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim concerning his request for FBI records about the Junior Black Mafia because he failed to file an administrative appeal with DOJ’s Office of Information Policy.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of agency’s interaction with Twitter, finding that: (1) CBP properly withheld certain, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges, citing in some instances the lack of foreseeable harm; (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of “non-public-facing” employees, except for two Special Agents whose names were in public domain; and (3) CBP properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Oct. 13, 2021

Friends of Animals v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (10th Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision and holding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of individuals importing African giraffe parts or products; (2) Exemption 7(C) did not protect names of individuals importing African elephant skins and parts because names were publicly available elsewhere and prospect of harassment was “primarily speculative”; and (3) agency could not sustain its Exemption 4 withholdings using agency affidavit containing inadmissible hearsay.statements. A partial dissent argued that the majority undervalued the privacy interests of elephant importers and overvalued the public interests at stake.

Oct. 2, 2021

Stalcup v. DOD (D. Mass.) -- approving and adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation finding that DOD’s Missile Defense Agency and its Joint Staff performed adequate searches concerning TWA Flight 800, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not conduct an adequate search.

Sept. 30, 2021

N.Y Times v. HHS (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that Indian Health Service improperly withheld a third-party’s report evaluating agency’s management and administration as a “medical quality assurance record” under 25 U.S.C. § 1675.

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that FBI’s Vaughn indices were adequate and that FBI properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s capital defendant client pursuant to Exemptions 3 in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3510), 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Citizens For Responsibility & Ethics In Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons properly withheld records concerning its procurement of drugs used in federal executions, but that it could not withhold records pursuant to Exemption 7(E) because the exemption does not cover punishment phase of law enforcement.

Perioperative Servs. & Logistics v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold records identifying a third party who filed a complaint against plaintiff.

Wash. Post v. SIGAR (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, determining that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records of interviews concerning agency’s “Lessons Learned Program”; (2) agency properly used Exemption 7(D) to withhold records identifying individuals who spoke “off the record,” but it could not use the exemption for “on the record” interviews; (3) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold identifying information of various interviewees and third parties named in interviews; (4) agency properly withheld information on intelligence methods pursuant to Exemption in conjunction with the National Security Act; and (5) agency failed to justify ifs withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it justified some but not all of its withholdings under the presidential communications privilege.

Sept. 29, 2021

Byrnes v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration did not perform adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff, a private attorney who represented DEA employees in litigation against DEA; and (2) agency did not demonstrate that names of DEA attorneys were protected from disclosure under Exemption 6.

Sept. 28, 2021

Amiri v. Nat'l Sci. Found. (D.D.C.) -- finding that; (1) NSF conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and a grant he worked on; and (2) NSF properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 6, noting that agency’s inadvertent disclosure of certain unredacted pages did not waive agency’s right to use Exemption 6 to protect other material.

Sept. 27, 2021

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that DOJ properly invoked Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold records concerning various grant programs, and that it properly withheld some, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Lawrence v. SBA (E.D. Mich.) -- finding that: (1) agency’s argument that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was incorrect but not “objectively unreasonable” so as to warrant sanctions; and (2) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because his lawsuit was a contributing cause to disclosure of Paycheck Protection Program loan records, and he was entitled to a reasonable award based on the balance of relevant factors.

Hawkinson v. EOIR (D. Mass.) -- finding that agency conducted adequate search for certain Board of Immigration Appeals decisions notwithstanding omission of single document that plaintiff already possessed.

Sept. 24, 2021

Campo v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff’s complaint properly alleged that NARA improperly withheld agency records and that NARA’s factual assertions as to whether the agency retained legal custody of requested records could not support a motion to dismiss.

Cox v. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold handwritten signatures from agency employees’ oaths of office.

Sept. 23, 2021

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, denying petition for rehearing en banc and amending its December 3, 2021 opinion (but not its ultimate decision) to reverse district’s ruling as to whether Exemption 3 protected certain trace database data.

Sept. 22, 2021

Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff failed to show that its request for records concerning senior advisor Elizabeth Klein satisfied statutory standard for expedited processing.

Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that three DHS components properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to protect some, but not all, disputed records pertaining to social media surveillance.

Sept. 21, 2021

Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- concluding that Exemptions 5, 7(C), 7(D) protected some, but not all, records pertaining to DOJ’s investigation into a 1988 arson prosecution in Kansas City, Missouri.

Lewis v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D. Md.) -- finding that: (1) good cause existed to deny dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s FOIA claims on grounds of improper service; (2) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal 37 of 40 decisions by various Treasury components and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and (3) with respect to the 3 requests that plaintiff did appeal, two Treasury components provided no additional arguments for dismissal and the VA failed to adequately justify its withholdings under Exemptions 5 and 6.

Bragg v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of third parties from records concerning plaintiff, and (2) plaintiff conceded agency’s argument that she failed to administratively appeal denial of separate request for records concerning third party.

Sept. 20, 2021

Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (S.D. Ohio) -- finding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold in full records pertaining to criminal investigation of drug trafficking by third party.

Tobias v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney-client, commercial information, and attorney work-product privileges (the application of which plaintiff did not dispute), and that agency adequately demonstrated that foreseeable would result from disclosure of records related to activities of then-Secretary Zinke and other senior employees.

Waterman v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit to examine issue of segregability of documents concerning plaintiff, reaffirming that IRS properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 and expressly finding that all reasonably, segregable non-exempt records had been released.

Sept. 17, 2021

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v CDC (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) agency did not perform adequate search for records concerning communications policies about coronavirus, because it improperly interpreted scope of request, failed to use relevant search terms, and did not provide sufficient detail about its search methodology; and (2) CDC improperly relied on Exemptions 5’s presidential communications and deliberative process privileges to withhold certain documents (which were ordered to be released), and it failed to provide adequate information to permit ruling on another document (necessitating in camera review).

Webster v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of attorneys’ fees in nearly 20-year-old case; reducing requested award from $692,925 to $225,714, because plaintiffs’ attorney did not qualify for requested $1,000 hourly rate and plaintiff’s time entries contained clear recordkeeping errors and improperly included time spent on failed motions, as well as excessive time on litigating fees.

Leopold v. USCIS (D.D.C) -- (1) dismissing claims against DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and USCIS because plaintiff declined to oppose government’s motion; and (2) granting government’s motion for summary judgment with respect to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because plaintiff’s narrowed request for certain records of “any and all immigration and enforcement actions was too vague.

Sept. 16, 2021

Flyers Rights Educ. Fund v. FAA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FAA properly relied on Exemption 4 in withholding records concerning the Boeing Company’s design changes to its 737 MAX jet airplane. In reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that FAA’s public commitment to “transparency” undermined agency’s assurances of confidentiality to Boeing or that alleged “importance” or “necessity” of withheld materials to public had any relevance under Exemption 4.

Office of Fulton Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. DOJ (N.D. Ga.) -- deciding that plaintiff was eligible for and entitled to attorneys' fees and litigation costs in case involving internal investigative records of U.S.Marshals Service employees, noting that the agency’s initial reliance on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records had been unreasonable.

Sept. 13, 2021

Prot. Democracy Proj. v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that HHS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold record related to agency’s discontinuation of advertising for healthcare.gov in 2017-2017, but ordering in camera review of remaining disputed records in order to determine whether certain factual material is deliberative or not readily segregable and to determine whether other information is pre-decisional or post-decisional.

Taylor v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that IRS performed reasonable searches for records pertaining to plaintiff’s requests and that agency released all responsive records in full.

Ameen v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was not precluded from filing suit pro se, because the underlying FOIA requests “(1) indicated that counsel was requesting the documents in connection with and for use in the representation of plaintiff, and (2) contained release forms signed by plaintiff ‘authoriz[ing] and request[ing]’ the release of records to counsel.”

Shaklee & Oliver, P.C. v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- denying award of attorney’s fees in case involving plaintiff’s requests for his Alien files, because no judicial order, written agreement, or consent decree existed and USCIS provided “compelling reasons” for its delay in processing records; further deciding that plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees improperly included references to settlement discussions with USCIS.

Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y) -- determining that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold its 2018 report concerning death of Jamal Khashoggi, and denying plaintiff’s reconsideration motion that permitted government to submit a “no numbers, no list” response pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

Sept. 10, 2021

Zeigler v. USDA (D.S.C.) -- deciding that Farm Service agency performed adequate search for emails sent or received by FSA employee and that agency properly withheld certain records as “personal records” not “agency records” based on 10-factor test set forth in D.C. Circuit’s Bureau of National Affairs v. DOJ, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984),

Sept. 8, 2021

Savage v. Dep’t of the Navy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of third parties from investigative report concerning plaintiff’s racial discrimination complaints; and (2) agency did not meet its burden to show that its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege met statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.

Sept. 3, 2021

Jordan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling, in most relevant part, that: (1) EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prior FOIA litigation with the Department of Labor; (2) collateral estoppel barred plaintiff from re-litigating government’s use of Exemption 4 to withhold certain email; (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s work-product and deliberative process privileges, as well as Exemption 6, except for certain contact information that was publicly available.

Sept. 2, 2021

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE was not required to produce various fields of data pertaining to immigration removals because such production would require the creation of new records, not merely sorting a preexisting database of information.

Aug. 27, 2021

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that four intelligence agencies properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pertaining to Jamal Khashoggi. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected the appellant’s primary argument that Glomar responses were precluded by official statements made by a State Department spokesperson.

Aug. 26, 2021

Marino v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning third party, timely invoked exemptions to withhold certain records, and released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt records

Aug. 25, 2021

N.Y. Times v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that DOD properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to redact portions of a report concerning thee removal of Rear Admiral John Ring from his position as Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay.

Aug. 24, 2021

Prot. Democracy Proj. v. NSA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that NSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold in its entirety a memo documenting a telephone call between the NSA Director and President Trump, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the privilege was subject to FOIA’s segregability requirement and waived by disclosures in the Mueller Report.

Aug. 23, 2021

Aguirre v. NRC (9th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his four requests concerning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and notably joining other circuits in holding that “a requestor must exhaust his administrative remedies under FOIA so long as an agency properly responds before suit is filed.”

Aug. 20, 2021

Cause of Action Inst. v. OMB (D.C. Cir.) — affirming district court’s decision that Internet browsing histories of OMB and USDA officials did not qualify as “agency records,” because “the agencies’ retention and access policies for browsing histories, along with the fact that they did not use any of the officials’ browsing histories,” indicated that the agencies did not control the requested records.

Aug. 18. 2021

Pickard v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- deciding, in most relevant part, that plaintiff’s challenge to authenticity of a document released by the Drug Enforcement Agency was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and remedial powers to address.

Aug. 17, 2021

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act, to withhold Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s financial disclosures, recusal and divestiture obligations, and related communications with the Office of Government Ethics; (2) Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege did not apply to records exchanged between DeJoy or USPS and OGE’s ethics counsel; and (3) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 5’s deliberative process privilege, as well as Exemption 6, to withhold recusal memoranda.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring program, and that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was met despite agency’s generic explanations for certain redactions.

Aug. 16, 2021

King v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate search for audio recording made in 2003 by an informant in connection with an agency investigation of a murder.

Kovalevich v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) case was moot because plaintiff conceded that EOUSA has fulfilled its obligation to provide him with records about himself, notwithstanding redactions; and (2) pro se plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and the parties failed to adequately brief plaintiff’s request for litigation costs.

Aug. 12, 2021

Hawkinson v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- finding that: (1) ICE and DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review properly withheld certain training material and related communications pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(C); (2) plaintiff had standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to timely provide accurate estimated completion dates, but that plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits; and (3) plaintiff did not have standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to properly report their FOIA response times; and (4) DHS complied with section 552(j)(1) by publicizing the identity and contact information of its Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, who “could be readily inferred” as serving as Acting Chief FOIA Officer while the Chief FOIA Officer position was vacant.

Aug. 10. 2021

Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that with the exception of a few documents, FDA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to news embargoes between 2010 and 2014; stating that statute’s “foreseeable harm” provision did not apply to requests made before 2016, but that in any event FDA “met any applicable burden.”

Aug. 6, 2021

Envtl. Integrity Proj. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- rejecting magistrate’s recommendation that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and ruling that plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to an award in case involving reports of travel by EPA and Department of the Interior officials.

Selgjekaj v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s indictment; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), Exemption 5 (attorney work-product), and Exemption 7(C), but it did not carry its burden regarding withheld orders reflecting the commencement, termination, and extensions of the grand jury.

Aug. 3, 2021

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DEA’s Vaughn indices were adequate and that agency properly withheld records under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), except for its Exemption 7(E) withholdings pertaining to a law enforcement manual.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for Hillary Clinton’s emails and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that EOUSA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal cases and denying his request to recover litigation costs because records were sought “purely for his own benefit” and litigations delays were primarily his responsibility.

July 30, 2021

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA (N.D. Cal.) -- on remand from the Ninth Circuit following the Supreme Court’s intervening Exemption 4 decision in Argus Leader, concluding that the FDA failed to establish that egg producers customarily and actually kept certain hen housing information private and confidential.

July 28, 2021

Bonner v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold two documents related to an al Qaeda training manual, but that Exemption 5 did not protect a draft intelligence report because because “it fails to identify any agency decision-making process in connection with which the document was created.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (S.D. Ohio) -- ruling that DOJ justified withholding fewer than half of 205 pages concerning third party pursuant to Exemption 7(C), and that it was required to perform an additional search for records concerning “Operation Speakeasy.”

July 23, 2021

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that an agency may satisfy foreseeable harm standard on a category-by-category basis, consistent with D.C. Circuit’s July 2, 2021 decision in Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press v. FBI, and that DOJ met its burden with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election.

The New York Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- on remand from the Second Circuit, finding that DOJ properly reprocessed memoranda concerning CIA interrogations overseas by releasing additional information previously withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 and continuing to withhold certain names pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

July 22, 2021

The Wolk Law Firm v. NTSB (E.D. Pa.) -- determining that NTSB properly withheld certain records pertaining to aircraft accidents. including death scene photographs, autopsies, and medical case reviews, pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges.

Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj. v. USCIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking access to refugee resettlement application was not moot, because: (a) disclosure of some records by non-party Department of State in response to plaintiff’s separate request did not settle whether USCIS conducted adequate search; (b) plaintiff adequately pleaded a policy-or-practice claim regarding USCIS’s alleged refusal to search a database for refugee resettlement documents; and (2) granting plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion and finding that USCIS failed to search the relevant database for responsive agency records.

July 21, 2021

Chelmowski v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff and that it properly withheld certain records pertaining to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 6.

Chelmowski v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FCC’s search fees and its demand for advanced payment were reasonable; (2) FCC and NARA performed adequate searches concerning plaintiff; and (3) government’s withholdings under Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 7(E) were not directly challenged or undermined by plaintiff.

July 20, 2021

Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- rejecting FBI’s claim that two files pertaining to Donald Trump are categorically exempt under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) solely because they are within an informant file.

Lopez-Pena v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s summary judgment motion because plaintiff conceded that his lawsuit originated from a FOIA request that he incorrectly mailed to the wrong federal agency.

July 19, 2021

Advancement Proj. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) with limited exceptions, ICE properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning visa sanctions, including briefing materials and communications about press strategy; and (2) ICE properly withheld two categories of records under Exemption 7(E), but it did not adequately spell out how disclosure of another category of records would reveal a law enforcement technique, procedure, or guideline.

July 15, 2021

Wash. Post v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) SBA failed to show that interim loan status information was properly withheld under Exemption 4, in no small part because the agency declined to submit declarations from any loan recipients; and (2) SBA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold DUNS numbers associated with individual borrowers.

Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning five pandemic-related topics, but that it did not meet its burden of proof with respect to sixteen other pandemic-related topics.

July 12, 2021

Reporters Comm. for Freedom Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold various records concerning agency’s practice of impersonating journalists and documentary filmmakers, and noting that the foreseeable harm standard was inapplicable to that exemption; and (2) FBI failed to sufficiently explain how investigatory records concerning Cliven Bundy were protected by Exemption 7(A).

July 9, 2021

Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- concluding that plaintiff was eligible but not entitled to litigation costs because he failed to make a clear showing of substantial public benefit and was motivated by a commercial or financial interest.

July 7, 2021

Gov’t Accountability Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning the provision of nuclear technologies to countries in the Middle East, but reserving judgment with respect to unsolicited communications received by the agency.

July 2, 2021

Platsky v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records indicating whether plaintiff appeared on watch list.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming in part, reversing in part, and dismissing in part district court’s decision concerning records of FBI’s impersonation of the media and concluding that: (1) the government “properly withheld the emails in which FBI leadership deliberated about appropriate responses to media and legislative pressure to alter the FBI’s undercover tactics, as well as internal conversations about the implications of changing their undercover practices going forward;” and (2) the government “did not satisfy its burden to show either that the other documents at issue in this case were deliberative or that their disclosure would cause foreseeable harm.”

July 1, 2021

Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting part and denying in part DOJ’s motion for reconsideration and holding that Exemption 7(C) protected only the docket numbers of cases that were accidentally designated as terrorism-related, involved terrorism-related investigations but not terrorism-related prosecutions, or were categorized as terrorism-related for agency’s internal purposes with no public connection to terrorism.

June 30, 2021

Schoenberg v. FBI (9th Cir.) -- in case concerning FBI’s search warrant to recover Hillary Clinton’s emails, affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because FBI’s redactions were legally reasonable and that factor outweighed all other factors.

Murder Accountability Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s response to his request for certain unreported crime data; (2) National Park Service performed adequate and reasonable search for unreported crime data; (3) Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to explain why it did not search for records requested prior to 2014; (4) Army, Navy, and Air Force did not demonstrate the adequacy of their search, but they properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact third party names, social security numbers, and alien registration numbers.

June 28, 2021

Withey v. FBI W.D. Wash.) -- denying attorney’s fees to attorney plaintiff who pursued records in order to further his personal interests and awarding only $21,015 of $69,680 requested for other attorneys’ fees because plaintiff obtained no post-complaint relief.

Ferrera v. DHS (D.N.M.) -- determining that Exemption 6 applied to a letter that plaintiff’s ex-wife sent to USCIS withdrawing her previous immigration petition, but that agency could segregate and release information from the letter that agency had described, i.e., date, author, and withdrawal of petition.

Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Farm Service Agency improperly relied on Exemptions 3, 4, and 6 to withhold loan recipient names, addresses, and operation types; the intended use of loans; and documents FSA created during its environmental review of loans.

June 25, 2021

Okeayainneh v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that Federal Bureau of Prisons supplementally released in full all remaining records at issue and no further dispute remained.

June 24, 2021

Informed Consent Action Net. v. NIH (D. Ariz.) -- concluding that: (1) NIH performed adequate search for safety and efficacy data concerning Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, and (2) NIH failed to show that certain information, such as patients’ age or adverse events, was properly redacted under Exemption 6.

Maehr v. IRS (D. Colo.) -- ruling that agency performed adequate search for certain tax assessment documents concerning plaintiff and that plaintiff was not entitled to a court declaration that such documents do or do not exist, or have ever existed, within the IRS's record-keeping system.

June 23, 2021

Satterlee v. IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss after finding that: (1) plaintiff’s certified mail delivery receipts were sufficient evidence that IRS received plaintiff’s requests; and (2) construed liberally, plaintiff’s second request was valid despite also containing a demand for non-FOIA action.

June 22, 2021

Cole v. Olthoff (D.D.C. ) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that the National Institute for Standards and Technology properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with section 7(c) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, to withhold notes of interviews of former employees of Salomon Smith Barney regarding collapse of World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.

June 18, 2021

Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v.EPA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold in full a working draft version of a formaldehyde assessment.

June 17, 2021

Jobe v. NTSB (5th Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision and holding that “outside parties solicited by the NTSB qualify as ‘consultants’ under Exemption 5’s corollary; rejecting district court’s view that technical personnel employed by aircraft manufacturers and operators have too much “self-interest” in outcome of NTSB investigations to be regarded as consultants.

June 14, 2021

Kovalevich v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), issues that plaintiff conceded; (2) court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s claims about agency’s fee practices, because agency released all records free of charge; (3) pro se plaintiff was not eligible for attorney’s fees and he failed to argue why he was eligible and entitled to recover his litigation costs.

June 9, 2021

Odor v. USCIS (E.D. Mich.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for plaintiff’s A-file, that agency’s Vaughn index was sufficient, and that in camera review of withheld records was unnecessary.

June 7, 2021

Casillas-Prieto v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that legal visitation records concerning plaintiff’s confinement at agency contract facility were not agency records, and that USMS properly segregated non-responsive records that it voluntarily released.

June 3, 2021

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- after reviewing 30 sample documents in camera, deciding that: (1) EPA improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold discussions regarding general personnel matters and hiring plans; records concerning early employee retirement and separation programs; and responses to oversight, investigatory, and media inquiries; (2) EPA demonstrated the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and presidential communications privilege, but the agency neglected to describe any foreseeable harm that would result from disclosure; (3) EPA improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold a reporter’s business phone number and the names of restaurants frequented by Administrator Pruitt; the agency properly relied on the exemption to withhold portions of employee resignation letters; and (4) EPA was required to review all remaining responsive documents in accordance with the court’s findings.

Emuwa v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that DHS properly used Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold the analyses of asylum officers concerning applications for asylum, consistent with a 2015 D.C. Circuit decision concerning the same type of documents.

June 2, 2021

Advocates for the West v. Bonneville Power Admin. (D. Or.) -- granting partial summary judgment to plaintiff because agency violated statutory response deadlines, and ordering agency to release 5,000 responsive pages per month.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for records concerning President Obama and Secretary Clinton after case was reopened due to the Secretary’s use of a private email server; and (2) plaintiff was precluded from re-raising issues that had been settled before case was reopened.

June 1, 2021

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and concluding that: (1) DOJ improperly segmented one large electronic file into separate records and withheld portions as non-responsive; (2) plaintiff had standing to challenge agency’s practice and policy of segmenting records, but issue was unripe for adjudication.

Corley v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBI properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s trafficking and child pornography convictions pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights Act,” 18 U.S.C. § 3509.

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- granting agency’s request for reconsideration of court’s decision that Exemption 7(C) did not protect names of agents tasked with providing protection to former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler as part of his Personnel Security Detail.

May 28, 2021

Pitts v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Federal Bureau of Prisons was not required to create records indicating the cost of keeping plaintiff in its custody (data that BOP did not maintain), and that BOP fully discharged its FOIA obligation by releasing cost data related to the institution in which plaintiff is held.

May 24, 2021

Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- denying agency’s motion for reconsideration of court’s ruling that certain records were not properly withheld as “return information” pursuant to Exemption 3 and 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); declining to consider agency’s new argument that disputed records were also protected under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(b)(2)(A).

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion to consolidate three cases concerning records about the attack on the U.S Capitol on January 6, 2021, because the overlap in agencies and documents was limited and consolidation would not necessarily be more efficient.

May 21, 2021

Porup v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) plaintiff’s “policy and practice” claim was moot because after plaintiff filed suit, CIA changed its policy of refusing to process requests seeking information related to conduct that CIA believes would be unlawful, and (2) CIA performed adequate search for certain operational files concerning use of poison for covert assassination, and it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with National Security Act of 1947.

May 18, 2021

Blixseth v. FBI (D. Nev.) -- granting government’s motion to transfer venue to the District of Columbia despite plaintiff’s residence in Nevada because plaintiff’s attorney is in D.C., plaintiff has at least one other FOIA action pending in D.C., and agency’s records and witnesses are in D.C.

May 14, 2021

Kilmer v. U.S Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) except in one minor respect, CBP performed adequate search for records concerning its interactions with Canadians seeking entry to participate in 2017 Women’s March; and (2) CBP’s broad explanations for its use of Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) did not permit the court to meaningfully review withholdings.

May 13, 2021

Rutigliano v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5 to withhold a “prosecution declination memorandum.”

May 11, 2021

Xanthopoulos v. IRS (D. Minn.) -- finding that IRS properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to redact agency’s Internal Revenue Manual and declining to decide whether the “foreseeable harm” provision imposes a heightened showing by the government.

May 10, 2021

Pub. Justice Found. v. Farm Serv. Agency (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 8791 (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008), to withhold various records concerning applicants to agency’s farm loan program, except for specific earmarks by FSA for approved loans; (2) Exemption 4 was inapplicable because FSA failed to provide express implied assurance of confidentiality; and (3) agency could not use Exemption 6 to withhold loan payment information, but it properly withheld sensitive personally-identifiable information such as social security numbers, bank account information, personal assets, etc.

May 7, 2021

Pavement Coatings Tech. Council v. U.S. Geological Survey (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold modeling data related to agency’s coal tar sealant studies; affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld information concerning study participants pursuant to Exemption 6.

May 4, 2021

Ballow v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that EOUSA conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s extradition from Mexico and that it properly withheld all records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 7(C), and 7(D).

May 3, 2021

Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (S.D. Ohio) -- determining that: (1) DEA performed adequate search for records organized under “Operation Speakeasy”; and (2) DEA could not rely on Exemption 7(C) to categorically withhold investigatory records pertaining to third party, because privacy interest interest was outweighed by public interest—namely shedding light on DOJ’s decision not to prosecute the highest elected law enforcement official in a Kentucky county for obstruction of justice.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency’s denial of plaintiff’s request for expedite processing was moot issue; and (2) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft legal analysis prepared by an OLC attorney concerning Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation; and (3) DOJ failed to show that OLC’s signed memorandum to Attorney General Barr was pre-decisional for purposes of Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege or that it was protected under the attorney-client privilege, noting that DOJ affidavits were “so inconsistent with evidence in the record, they are not worthy of credence.”

Besson v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following supplemental release of material, concluding that government properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold remaining disputed portion of agreement between NIH and a private telecommunications company.

Apr. 30, 2021

Farah v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- following in camera review of disputed documents concerning plaintiff’s prosecution, ruling that: (1) EOUSA that properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges, except with respect to portions of two pages that contained non-exempt material; and (2) EOUSA properly redacted correspondence pursuant to Exemption 7(C) in all respects.

Apr. 29, 2021

Prop. of People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of FBI documents pertaining to Donald Trump through 2015, deciding that: (1) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); intercepted communications could not be withheld under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Title III of the Omnibus Control and Safe Street Act of 1968, but sealing orders issued by another court would prevent disclosure if still in effect; (2) DOJ properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(D), but failed to show that disclosure of surveillance logs from more than 20 years ago would cause harms protected by Exemption 7(E).

Apr. 28, 2021

Nat’l Pub. Radio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- on reconsideration under Rule 60(b), finding that FBI justified its use of Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to withhold videos depicting ballistics tests of certain types of ammunition.

Chavis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DEA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s murder conviction and properly refused to search for records concerning plaintiff’s co-defendants on privacy grounds; and (2) DEA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Apr. 27, 2021

Stoufer v. FBI (D. Alaska) -- concluding that multiple DOJ components conducted reasonable searches concerning plaintiff and that the Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact names of employees and third parties who handled plaintiff’s complaints.

Gutierrez v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that EOUSA conducted reasonable search for records concerning plainitf’s conviction for producing child pornography.

Apr. 26, 2021

Sartori v. U.S. Army (11th Cir.) (unpublished) -- granting summary affirmance to Army because plaintiff abandoned his appeal and because the district court’s decision was proper on the merits.

Apr. 25, 2021

NY Times v. Def. Health Agency (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for a preliminary junction to compel production, on an expedited basis and by a date certain, extensive data regarding the government’s effort to distribute coronavirus vaccines.

Apr. 23, 2021

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment concerning edited video of press briefing , ruling that: (1) agency justified redaction of one email pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; (2) agency properly redacted second email pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff conceded agency’s Exemption 5 withholdings; and (3) agency failed to show that email chain about press guidance and strategy related to Iran was properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communication privilege.

Apr. 21, 2021

Am. Small Bus. League v. OMB (N.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s motion to sever plaintiff’s FOIA claims against OMB and the Small Business Administration because plaintiff’s requests sought different types of records from each agency.

Apr. 20, 2021

Woodward v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service did not adequately justify its reliance on Exemption 7(E) to withhold records regarding agency’s use of cellphone tracking technology during its investigation of plaintiff, and (2) court would review in camera all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C) in light of plaintiff’s status as death row inmate.

Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold assessments created by agency contractor in preparation for agency’s ”implementation of the congressionally mandated Market Area Health System Optimization . . . analysis, part of a broader national plan to improve the delivery of health care to veterans.”

Apr. 16, 2021

Poulsen v. DOD (9th Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, reversing district court’s decision that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and remanding case for a determination concerning plaintiff’s entitlement to such fees. Here, the majority concluded that plaintiff substantially prevailed under 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(E)(ii)(I), because the district court issued a scheduling order when the government agreed to process documents following an intervening declassification order from President Trump. The dissent argued that plaintiff was ineligible for fees because he failed to show that his lawsuit “was a substantial cause (or indeed any cause at all) of the relief he obtained.”

Apr. 12, 2021

N.Y. Times v. BOP (S.D.N.Y.) -- ordering in camera review of documents pertaining to the death of Jeffrey Epstein, which BOP withheld under Exemption 7(A).

Apr. 9, 2021

Greene v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s untimeliness claim was moot because EOUSA responded to plaintiff’s request, which sought statistical information about grand juries, after plaintiff filed his Complaint; (2) plaintiff constructively exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the adequacy of EOUSA’s search, but granting summary judgment in agency’s favor.

Apr. 6, 2021

Cox. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- dismissing claim because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from Internal Revenue Service’s responses to his requests.

Apr. 5, 2021

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DHS (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that DHS improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees from certain civil settlement agreements.

Apr. 2, 2021

Aguiar v. DEA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DEA was not required to use GPS data spreadsheets to recreate map images that had been used in plaintiff’s criminal trial but no longer existed.

Mar. 31, 2021

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that government properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold biological evaluations and biological opinions on certain pesticides under the Endangered Species Act, but failed to identify segregable material in two records.

Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI performed inadequate search for records relating to the documentary film “Cowspiracy,” the term “ag-gag,” and certain pieces of enumerated legislation.

Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part EPA’s summary judgment motion relying on Exemption 5 to withhold twelve documents pertaining to agency’s non-acquiescence to Eighth Circuit’s decision in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA.

Burnett v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that DEA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal prosecution and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Mar. 30, 2021

Shem-Tov v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, determining that the U.S. National Central Bureau properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff provided by a foreign law enforcement entity.

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Navy (W.D. Wash.)

Mar. 29, 2021

Smith v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that USMS conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, but that EOUSA’s search was inadequate because it failed to explain its use of inconsistent search terms across multiple electronic searches.

N.Y. Times Co. v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that agency had failed to justify its invocation of Exemption 4 to withhold a variety of records pertaining to electronic cigarette manufacturer. Of note, the court sidestepped the application of the “foreseeable harm” requirement and rejected plaintiff’s suggestion to adopt a public interest exception or balancing test.

Humane Soc'y Int'l v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed briefing following the Supreme Court’s intervening Exemption 4 decision in Food Marketing Institute, holding that agency improperly withheld disputed records concerning wildlife import and export. In reaching its decision, the court found that many third-party declarations objecting to disclosure constituted inadmissible hearsay and that the remaining declarations failed to show that disputed records were customarily and actually treated as private. The court also considered that the government had a history of releasing the disputed records.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that GSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold three categories of records concerning renovation of FBI headquarters, but that agency failed to justify use of same privilege to withhold two other categories of records.

Barry v. Haaland (D.D.C.) -- dismissing FOIA claim because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from agency’s denial of access to any Inspector General records concerning plaintiff’s former supervisor.

Mar. 26, 2021

Stahl v. DOJ E.D.N.Y.) -- finding that BOP properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F) to withhold certain segments of video that identified employees involved in force-feeding inmate, but rejecting agency’s use of Exemption 7(E) and rejecting agency’s argument that it could not edit video to segregate and release non-exempt portions.

Protect Democracy Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of memo concerning a 2020 airstrike against an Iranian general to determine whether any portion of memo was officially disclosed by the government.

Mar. 25, 2021

Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. APHIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold revenue, sales volume, and license fee information of animal dealers, as well as animal care instructions appearing in one photograph; (2) agency properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold certain records pertaining to facility inspection, but failed to show that all of its deliberative process privilege claims were proper; (3) plaintiff did not assert a valid policy-and-practice claim because Congress enacted legislation to address the polices and practices disputed by plaintiff.

Flete-Garcia v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his request for discovery material from his criminal case; (2) agency failed to demonstrate that it did not receive three of plaintiff’s requests for various records concerning his criminal case, noting that plaintiff proved that two of those requests were received at agency’s screening location for processing mail; and (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), to withhold certain grand jury records, but it failed to show that orders reflecting the commencement, extension, and termination of specified grand juries were exempt.

Mar. 24, 2021

White v. FBI (7th Cir.) (nonprecedential opinion) -- concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal and affirming district court’s decision to deny plaintiff request for the immediate processing of 55,000 pages of records instead of FBI’s pace of 500 pages per month.

Flete-Barcia v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) agency’s supplemental search for records about plaintiff was adequate in most respects, but agency’s declaration indicated that it might have used incorrect spelling of plaintiff’s name; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

Allen v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- on sixth renewed summary judgment (which plaintiff did not oppose), ruling that BOP properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identification information used by employees to log into agency’s network.

Mar. 22, 2021

Huggans v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI, ATF, DEA, and EOUSA properly refused to search for records pertaining to third-party informant because the responsive records were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(C).

Stonehill v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency erroneously relied on doctrine of res judicata to deny request for records related to agency’s processing of plaintiff’s earlier FOIA request.

Mar. 19, 2021

A.B. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between the Attorney General’s office and the Office of Legal Counsel regarding her asylum case.

Mullane v. DOJ (D. Mass.) -- deciding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the Securities and Exchange Commission performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff, whose legal internships were terminated and rescinded by EOUSA and SEC, respectively, due to an incident with a federal judge; (2) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, and it properly withheld unsigned draft records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege; the agency improperly withheld email with University of Miami, however, and failed to adequately explain other deliberative process privilege claims; (3) both agencies properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 6, which plaintiff did not dispute.

Mar. 18, 2021

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that IRS performed adequate supplemental search for records pertaining to plaintiff.

Legal Eagle, LLC v. Nat'l Sec. Council Records Access (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) National Security Council and its components were not agencies subject to plaintiff’s FOIA request, which sought records related to prepublication review of John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened; (2) multiple federal agencies properly denied plaintiff’s request for expedited processing because plaintiff failed to demonstrate why requested records were time sensitive.

Mar. 17, 2021

Moeller v. EEOC (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for certain records concerning employment advertisements, and (2) agency failed to adequately support its withholding claims under Exemption 5, 6, and 7(C), and failed to articulate “a specific foreseeable harm that is adequately connected to the underlying materials.”

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment that: (1) DOJ adequately performed supplemental search for communications and agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding persons prohibited from purchasing firearms; (2) DOJ improperly withheld portions of two congressional reports as “non-responsive,” but rejecting plaintiff’s APA claim challenging validity of DOJ’s guidance on definition of a record; and (3) DOJ properly withheld memorandum pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Mar. 16, 2021

Rifle Remedies, LLC v. IRS (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for records pertaining to its audit of plaintiff and policy documents or guidance pertaining to marijuana vendors; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 I.R.C. § 6103, and Exemptions 5, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E).

DaVita Inc. v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid did not adequately explain how it performed certain aspects of its search for 36 public comments received in responsive to a rule proposed in 1990 and finalized in 1995.

Mar. 15, 2021

Hucul v. HHS (S.D. Cal.) -- granting summary judgment to government because plaintiff declined to oppose two of three requested items and because agency reasonably interpreted scope of plaintiff’s remaining request and performed adequate search for responsive records.

Mar. 12, 2021

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Secret Service properly relied on Exemptions 7(E and 7(F) to withhold hotel room rates paid by the government to Trump resort in Scotland, as well as the estimated amount the Secret Service spent on meals and incidental expenses at the resort, because “releasing the requested data could help outsiders predict the size of future Secret Service details, which could render the Secret Service more vulnerable to circumvention and increase the risk of physical harm to agents and protectees alike.”

Mar. 11, 2021

Judicial Watch v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving government’s acquisition of human fetal tissue for research, concluding that: (1) government improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold names and addresses of laboratories because it failed to adequately explain how such information qualified as “commercial” information; and (2) government improperly withheld unit prices and line-item amounts pursuant to Exemption 4, because plaintiff demonstrated that such information was in the public domain. Lastly, the court noted that Exemption 4 could not be used to protect illegal business practices and that there was reason to believe that the government’s transactions with a laboratory were unlawful, but the court found it unnecessary to reach a decision on that issue,

Mar. 10, 2021

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. ICE (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that ICE was not required to create and substitute unique identifiers for alien numbers maintained in database, notwithstanding agency’s prior practice of providing different identifiers to other FOIA requesters.

Mar. 9, 2021

Kwoka v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- vacating denial of request for fees and holding that the district court abused its discretion by weighing several factors in the entitlement analysis against the requester; directing the district court to “evaluate the reasonableness of the IRS’s” argument that, at the time of the initial request, it believed segregating exempt and non-exempt materials would impose an unreasonable burden; further directing the district court to re-balance the factors of the fee entitlement analysis.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. BLM (D.D.C.) -- denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment concerning adequacy of the agency’s search for records responsive to a pair of requests about E.O. 13783 and Secretary’s Order 3338; noting the requester’s belief that certain draft records, which were missing from the agency’s production, exist “carries more than just speculative weight,” and calling alternative theories advanced by the agency “implausible and, if true, deeply troubling”; describing much of the agency’s supporting declaration as conclusory and deficient; directing the agency to request that former Secretary Zinke “search his own [personal] files for any agency records they may contain, to detail ‘its best efforts’ to retrieve records from the former Secretary, and to provide ‘any further evidence it is able to obtain’”; further directing the agency to seek the former Secretary’s assistance with accessing two work-issued cell phones, and to better describe efforts to obtain records from the phones; and requiring clarification from the agency with respect to records reflecting communications with the Trump Transition Team.

Mar. 8, 2021

Glennborough Homeowners Ass'n v. USPS (E.D. Mich.) -- dismissing FOIA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because requests were submitted by another party and made no reference to plaintiff.

Mich. Immigrant Rights Ctr. v. DHS (E.D. Mich.) -- finding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in case concerning records of agency searches and seizures in Michigan, but requiring parties to confer on recoverable amount based on court’s conclusion that certainly hourly rates and billing entries were improper.

Shapiro v. SSA (D. Vt.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s clarified request was unreasonably broad and burdensome because it contained no time limitations or custodian limitations (among other things) and implicated approximately 1.5 million responsive pages, which would take the agency at least 193,211 hours of work to process; (2) agency improperly charged fees for its untimely initial response; and (3) plaintiff’s request for costs was “a close call” and could not be adjudicated until agency justified its withholdings in connection with its initial response.

Mar. 5, 2021

Berryhill v. Bonneville Power Admin. (D. Or.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees because plaintiff was unable to show that agency’s discretionary disclosure of additional material was triggered by his lawsuit, and because agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Mar. 4, 2021

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club (U.S.) -- in 7-2 decision, ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft biological opinions that were prepared by lower-level staff and never approved by decisionmakers or sent to EPA as it requested per Endangered Species Act.

Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable for records pertaining to Village at Wolf Creek project and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 4, 5, and 6. Of note, agency telephone conference line numbers and access codes were held to be protected under Exemption 5’s “commercial” privilege.

Farmworker Justice v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of agency’s H-2A visa program, determining that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold company CEO’s views on proposed legislation, because the same information was shared with an organization with membership of 265,000 people; (2) agency’s declaration and brief were too conclusory to justify Exemption 5 claims, and agency failed to articulate a specific foreseeable harm connected to the redacted records.

Mar. 2, 2021

Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) (en banc) -- holding that: (1) “consultant corollary” doctrine applied to documents prepared for agency by outside consulting firm and affirming district court’s decision that two of three disputed documents were protected by Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege; (2) agreeing with three-judge panel that FAA was not required to search outside consultant’s files and that agency did not adequately justify the adequacy of search of its own files.

Sabra v. U.S Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to any declaratory or injunctive relief where agency failed to meet statute’s response deadlines, and deferring decision as to whether agency performed adequate search or properly withheld records.

Feb. 26, 2021

Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife (D.D.C.) -- rejecting agency’s deliberative process privilege claims, ordering release of final agency’s final scientific report pertaining to status of certain deer on endangered-species list, and permitting agency to renew its arguments for withholding draft reports and related commentary.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of certain communications pertaining to renovation of FBI headquarters that GSA had withheld under Exemptions 5 and 7(E), and requiring agency to file supplemental Vaughn Index addressing portion of those records.

Feb. 23, 2021

Cause of Action Inst. v. Export-Import Bank (D.D.C.) — following in camera review, (1) affirming an agency’s use of the deliberative-process privilege to withhold certain internal records, such as property risk-management reports and communications with the Executive Office of the President about political nominees; (2) rejecting the use of the deliberative-process privilege to withhold portions of senior staff reports and materials provided to GAO; (3) rejecting the use of the deliberative-process and attorney-client communication privileges to withhold an internal email concerning the requester’s blog activity; (4) affirming the use of Exemption 6 to withhold White House email addresses; (5) remanding the majority of records to the agency for renewed motion on summary judgment, including portions of an email chain withheld as “non-agency records,” other records provided to GAO, and cybersecurity recommendations; (6) postponing consideration of the agency’s Exemption 4 claims; and (7) warning agency that in camera review called into question “whether the Bank has adequately complied with FOIA’s segregability mandate,” and otherwise highlighting multiple times the agency’s failure to account for records in its Vaughn index and its inaccurate description of records in its submissions.

Feb. 22, 2021

Gellman v. DHS (D,D.C.) -- in case involving plaintiff’s request for records about himself, finding on renewed summary judgment that: (1) Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to redact records and noting that agency was not required to disprove that redacted language was not later adopted as agency policy; (2) Office of Information Policy properly withheld draft statements to the media pursuant to Exemption 5, as well as email from public affairs official about how to respond to news article; and (3) OIP properly withheld certain news clips as “unresponsive” to plaintiff’s request even though they were were contained in compilations that included responsive items.

Feb. 18, 2021

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. FBI (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that the FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records pertaining to death of two American citizens in Papua Province, Indonesia, noting that the government has secured an arrest warrant and intends to prosecute the murder suspect once he is released from foreign prison.

Feb. 13, 2021

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (D.D.C.) --

Feb. 9, 2021

Leopold v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court’s order that the CIA confirm or deny the existence of records concerning “payments to Syrian rebels,” and rejecting the requester’s argument that a tweet from President Trump “officially acknowledged” the “government’s intelligence interest in the broader categories of records . . . requested” because that tweet was “subject to several plausible interpretations,” may have “fabricated facts,” and did not actually “reveal the existence of Agency records about the alleged [payment] program.”

Feb. 8, 2021

Trotter v. Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Serv. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that CMS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold domain portions of email addresses associated with registered healthcare providers, except for domain names that CMS already releases for participants in a digital records-sharing program.

Feb. 5, 2021

Accurso v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff’s prosecution for distributing child pornography.

NY Legal Assistance Grp. v. Bd. Immigration Appeals (2nd Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, vacating and remanding district court’s decision that agency was not required to affirmatively publish its non-precedential opinions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2).

Feb. 4, 2021

Renewable Fuels Ass’n v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- holding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold the names and locations of oil refineries that applied for relief from the agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program, except for a small number of refineries that did not appear to customarily treat all of its applications as private. Notably, the court stated that a government assurance of privacy was not required under binding D.C. Circuit law in order for information to qualify for Exemption 4. The court further stated that even if it was able to ignore binding precedent, it believed that the “better approach would be that privately held information is generally confidential absent an express statement by the agency that it would not keep information private, or a clear implication to that effect (for example, a history of releasing the information at issue).”

Bd. of Comm'rs of Clermont Cnty. v. EPA (S.D. Ohio) -- finding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records about a closed hazardous waste dump.

Feb. 3, 2021

N.Y. Times v DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ordering in camera review of independent monitor’s report pertaining to intervenor-Volkswagen AG’s compliance with a 2018 plea agreement, rejecting claims by government and intervenor that withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemptions 4 and 5.

Feb. 2, 2021

Sea Shepherd Legal v. NOAA (W.D. Wa.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records about the Māui dolphin, except for internal discussions about the content and timing of a Federal Register notice; (2) agency properly withheld identifying information about New Zealand government officials pursuant to Exemption 6; and (3) agency met foreseeable harm requirement for both exemptions under the criteria enunciated by the D.C. Circuit in Machado Amadis v. U.S. Department of State.

Albaladejo v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency failed to show that it performed adequate search for records concerning air transportation of noncitizen detainees with certain medical conditions, especially in light of internal agency documents that suggested ICE overlooked specific locations of responsive records.

Jan. 28, 2021

Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Serv. v. ICE (W.D. Tex.) -- awarding plaintiff more than $52,000 in attorney fees and costs after considering, among other things, that agency “failed to establish even a colorable basis . . . to support the adequacy of its search” and “gave no reasonable basis” for its Exemption 5 withholdings.

Stylianos v. USCIS (D. Mass.) -- ruling that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold plaintiff’s marriage certificate maintained in his estranged wife’s A-file, but chiding the parties for not considering alternative resolutions.

Jan. 27, 2021

Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that government properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning 2015 proposal to integrate women in all Marine Corps occupational specialties, and that agency met the foreseeable harm requirement.

Jan. 26, 2021

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service, Treasury, and DHS performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff; and (2) USMS and DHS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act), 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- deciding that: (1) IRS performed reasonable search for records pertaining to a private letter ruling; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, except for a few redactions, and it met the foreseeable harm requirement.

Jan. 25, 2021

Mertes v. IRS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that agency’s full disclosure of Form 709 that plaintiff requested did not moot case because agency failed to process a related document (Form 706) and both forms constituted a single “record” under DOJ’s guidance.

Eddington v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff failed to rebut agency’s sworn declaration that it had not received any of fourteen requests reportedly sent by plaintiff via email.

Jan. 21, 2021

WP Co. v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- awarding litigation costs and all but around twenty percent of attorney fees in case involving loans approved pursuant to COVID-19 relief programs. In reaching its decision, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to fees even though government had a reasonable basis for initially withholding requested data.

White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- declining to hold U.S. Marshals Service in contempt or to award plaintiff litigation costs, but stating that: (1) agency’s delay in responding to plaintiff’s 2013 request was “appalling”; (2) it was “inexcusable” that agency was unprepared for “foreseeable and regular complications”; and (3) USMS “must upgrade its FOIA processing protocols to avoid such delinquencies in the future.”

Jan. 14, 2021

Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold a report prepared for the President, except for portions of the report directly quoted in a presidential proclamation.

Jan. 13, 2021

N.Y Times v. HHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) Indian Health Service improperly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 25 U.S.C. § 1675, to withhold consultant’s report about sexual abuse of agency patients, because agency failed to show that the report constituted a medical quality assurance record; and (2) agency demonstrated that the report fell within the deliberative process privilege, but if failed to comply with the foreseeable harm requirement; and (3) agency could redact information protected by Exemption 6 before producing report to plaintiffs, who reserved the right to challenge redactions.

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 4 and 8 to withhold an independent monitor’s report concerning a bank’s anti-money laundering policies, but that DOJ’s segregability analysis was too brief to warrant summary judgment. Notably, in its discussion of Exemption 4, the court considered the alleged harms from disclosure identified by the government and found that they satisfied the foreseeable harm provision.

Jan. 6, 2021

Rich v. EOIR (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) pro se attorney-plaintiff was not eligible for attorney’s fees, consistent with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to litigation costs because production delays were caused by COVID-19 and plaintiff’s lawsuit was not necessary to trigger agency’s response.

Jan. 5, 2021

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency’s searches for records pertaining plaintiffs’ multi-billion-dollar tax-shelter scheme were adequate with “relatively minor exception” of its failure to search certain employee emails.

Ballow v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that pro se prisoner-plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies after agency demonstrated that it had not received plaintiff’s request.

Dec. 30, 2020

Rocky Mountain Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to certain property that it had considered for oil and gas leasing in 2018.

Dec. 23, 2020

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. ATF (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and holding that data requested from agency’s Firearms Trace System was protected from disclosure pursuant to a congressional rider even though that rider did not specifically cite Exemption 3 per the OPEN FOIA Act.

Berryhill v. Bonneville Power Admin. (D. Or.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s property and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

Dec. 21, 2020

Rich v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for award of attorney fees because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her lawsuit caused agency to release requested documents.

Dec. 17, 2020

Nightingale. v. USCIS (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that USCIS, ICE, and DHS “have a pattern of unreasonable delay in responses to A-FIle FOIA requests,” and permanently enjoining defendants from failing to adhere to statutory deadlines for adjudicating A-File FOIA requests; further ordering defendants to make determinations on all A-File FOIA requests in backlog within 60 days.

Dec. 14, 2020

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. CEQ (W.D. Va.) -- following in camera review, ruling that agency failed to meet statute’s “foreseeable harm” requirement, which agency asserted was a "foreseeable harm of chilling speech and stifling frank and open discussions" and a general "risk of public confusion."

Dec. 9, 2020

WP Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees because: (1) legal relationship between the parties was not changed by court’s issuance of “a routine scheduling order” imposing deadline on agency to make a final determination on plaintiff’s request; and (2) plaintiff failed to show that its lawsuit was “necessary” to or “caused” production of documents.

Dec. 8, 2020

Sierra Club v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- declining to order plaintiff to destroy records that EPA alleged were protected by Exemption 6 and erroneously released in response to plaintiff’s FOIA request

Open Soc'y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that Office of the Director of National Intelligence was required to produce a Vaughn Index concerning a tape of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and that the CIA was required to produce a Vaughn Index for the agency’s report on the killing, because the government officially acknowledged existence of both records.

Dec. 3, 2020

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, reversing and remanding district court’s decision and holding that a rider to Consolidated Appropriations Acts did not qualify as an Exemption 3 statute; further ruling that ATF had not demonstrated that requested weapons information was incapable of being extracted from its Firearms Tracing System database.

Samuel v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.S.C.) -- summarily adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of “Cuba Condition” records.

Werth v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, which plaintiff did not oppose, concluding that U.S. Marshals Service performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s property and properly redacted names of law enforcement officials pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Dec. 2, 2020

Humane Soc’y of the United States v. U.S Fish & Wildlife Serv. (4th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) plaintiff’s “reading room” claim was moot because agency posted all requested records online; (2) agency was not obligated to post future-generated records on rolling basis; and (3) agency properly indexed its posted records, but even if it hadn’t, plaintiff was not entitled to prospective relief.

Nov. 30, 2020

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order in government’s favor regarding plaintiff’s request for his and his family’s tax records, noting that plaintiff failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)’s “as justice requires” standard. In a separate ruling, the court denied plaintiff’s request to supplement plaintiff’s “already-supplemented, thrice-amended Complaint.”

Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- determining that Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology: properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request concerning 7 World Trade Center, performed a reasonable search, and properly withheld records pursuang to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 7301.

Nov. 27, 2020

Telematch, Inc. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly withheld farm numbers and tract numbers pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2), as well as customer numbers pursuant to Exemption 6.

Nov. 25, 2020

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Commerce properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications during the Obama Administration.between a NOAA scientist and the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly redacted FBI interviews of Bruce Ohr pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(D), and 7(E).

Nov. 24, 2020

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that EPA failed to show that it properly withheld four documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and that it properly disclosed all reasonably segregable, non exempt information from 74 other records.

Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- ordering additional round of summary judgment briefing because neither party addressed whether agency’s withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege met foreseeable harm standard.

WP Co. v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s request for stay of court’s disclosure order regarding “the names, addresses, and precise loan amounts” for certain loan borrowers following the pandemic outbreak.

Nov. 23, 2020

Contreras v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- denying award of attorney’s fees after finding plaintiff failed to show that its lawsuit was “reasonably necessary” or “substantially caused” agency’s disclosure of requested records.

Nov. 20, 2020

W. Res. Legal Ctr. v. NOAA (D. Or.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal from any of agency’s six interim responses or from agency’s final determination issued after plaintiff filed suit; (2) agency did not perform adequate search for records underlying technical guidance pertaining to marine mammals; and (3) agency’s Vaughn Index was insufficient to justify documents withheld in full, but sufficient with respect to redacted documents.

Immerso v. DOL (E.D.N.Y.) -- determining that email provided by company’s outside to counsel to agency’s Administrative Law Judge in connection with workers compensation proceeding was protected as privileged under Exemption 4, consistent with decisions of other courts regarding same email.

Nov. 19. 2020

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Navy (W.D. Wash) -- finding that: (1) agency performed adequate search for records concerning training exercises on or above Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, and Olympic Peninsula; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client, attorney work-product, and deliberative process privileges; (3) agency’s withholdings under Exemption 3, in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 130e, could not be upheld absent written determination from Secretary of Defense; and (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identities of records custodians and junior-ranking Navy personnel, but could withhold name of three project managers and needed to provide additional information about Navy personnel and contractors who developed certain environmental records.

Nov. 18, 2020

Junk v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (S.D.N.Y) -- on remand from Second Circuit, ruling that agency performed adequate search for particular CUSIP number allegedly associated with Maiden Lane LLCs created during 2008 financial crisis.

Nov. 12, 2020

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Def. (S.D.N.Y.) -- on renewed summary judgment, and following in camera review ordered earlier this year, ruling that defendant agencies properly withheld certain military orders pursuant to Exemption 1; there was no official acknowledgment because the records at issue were “clearly more specific than any information previously disclosed by the Government.”

Nov. 9, 2020

Swick v. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that Army performed adequate search for plaintiff’s psychiatric evaluation but not for her personnel file, which Army averred was maintained by the National Personnel Records Center.

Nov. 5, 2020

Smart-Tek Servs. v. IRS (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that IRS performed adequate search for plaintiffs’ employment, corporate, and partnership tax returns, and holding that records of alter ego companies—which were commingled with plaintiffs’ records during FOIA processing and withheld by IRS under Exemption 3—were not responsive to plaintiffs’ requests.

WP Co. v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- determining that SBA failed to demonstrate that Exemptions 4 and 6 protected the names of loan recipients and amounts borrowed from the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Disaster Loans program. In reaching its decision, the court noted that the SBA had notified loan applicants that such information would be disclosed upon request.

Oct. 30, 2020

Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law v. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- granting in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and ordering agency to process three items of plaintiff’s request regarding the 2020 U.S. census and to produce Vaughn indices by January 11, 2020.

Prot. Democracy Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting in part plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and ordering DOJ to confer with plaintiff on schedule to produce agency communications with the United States Postal Inspection Service regarding USPIS’s participation in any voting fraud task force.

Oct. 28, 2020

Schneider v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on third round of summary judgment, deciding that CIA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 7(e) to withhold one document pertaining to plaintiff’s employment application.

Oct. 27, 2020

Connell v. U.S. Southern Command (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 130b, to withhold names of individuals assigned to military unit in Guantanamo Bay; (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold personally identifying information of military personnel below the rank of Major, Lieutenant Colonel, or Colonel, but that neither party was entitled to summary judgment on any records withheld about military personnel at those ranks or their GS equivalents.

Oct. 26, 2020

Am. Small Bus. League v. SBA (N.D. Cal.) -- deferring ruling on plaintiff’s summary judgment motion regarding Paycheck Protection Program loan information until District of Columbia decides two cases seeking same information.

Oct. 20, 2020

Spadaro v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that the Department of State properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with section 222(f) of Immigration and Nationality Act, to withhold records about government’s revocation of plaintiff’s visa. In a separate summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that the FBI properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges.

Oct. 15, 2020

Petrucelli v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining on renewed summary judgment that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys performed adequate search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case.

Whittaker v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding on renewed summary judgment that FBI properly withheld results of plaintiff’s “National Agency Check” pursuant to Exemption 7(E),

Block v. FTC (D. Mass.) -- ruling that: (1) agency failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether records pertaining to agency’s 2019 settlement with Facebook were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 4; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identifying information of Facebook employees and of individuals “of investigative interest,” except for CEO Mark Zuckerberg, whose investigation was officially acknowledged by two FTC Commissioners.

Oct. 9, 2020

Freedom of Press Found. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records relating to surveillance of news media and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E); and (2) DOJ’s Criminal Division improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold training slide and official instruction form.

Long v. ICE (N.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that ICE failed to establish that it performed adequate search for certain records pertaining to agency’s use of detainers and notices of release, and that it failed to establish that search for requested information would require creating new records or would be unduly burdensome.

Oct. 8, 2020

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request to reconsider court’s July 2, 2020 opinion, noting that plaintiff failed to identify a legal basis for its motion and concluding that none existed.

Oct. 7, 2020

Pichardo-Martinez v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s detainment and medical treatment and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and 7(E).

Oct. 6, 2020

Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y) -- concluding that FDA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records pertaining to its accelerated approval of a muscular dystrophy drug; noting that statute’s foreseeable harm provision applied to Exemption 4 and was met in this case.

Yanofsky v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency did not sufficiently establish that it either provided plaintiff with requested data files or that it did not maintain those files.

Oct. 5, 2020

Pub. Justice Found. v. Farm Service Agency (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that agency’s declarations were too conclusory to show that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to its FOIA policies and directives.

Council on American-Islamic Relations v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) agency failed to show that it conducted reasonable search for records pertaining to heightened screening instructions issued by Seattle Office in January 2020; (2) agency improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold discussions of “public-facing” statement; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold employee email addresses and names of lower-level officials, but was required to release names of two senior officials who implement policy at issue; (4) agency did not provide sufficient details to permit court to evaluate its Exemption 7(E) claim and ordering in camera review of disputed documents.

Bragg v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiff failed to respond to government’s motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds.

Oct. 1, 2020

Peak v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI performed reasonable search for DNA records pertaining plaintiff’s first-degree murder conviction.

Sept. 30, 2020

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- after reviewing Mueller Report in camera and holding ex parte hearing with DOJ, ruling that: (1) DOJ properly withheld grand jury information and intelligence sources and methods pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the National Security Act of 1947, respectively; (2) DOJ properly withheld FBI file names and serial numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(A), identifying information about third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C), and FBI investigative techniques and procedures pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (3) DOJ improperly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, because disputed information was not predecisional.

Sept. 29, 2020

Nat’l Immigration Proj. of the Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE properly redacted draft version of investigations handbook pursuant Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, noting that agency met foreseeable harm standard under D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in Machado Amadis v. U.S. Dep’t of State.

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI’s initial declarations failed to adequately explain how disclosure of draft talking points related to investigation of Hillary Clinton would harm interests protected by the deliberative process privilege.

Sept. 25, 2020

Catholic Legal Immigration Network v. USCIS (D.Md.) -- determining that government properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to adjudication of “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status” classification, with exception of a subset of documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege.  

Sept. 24, 2020

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s death-row client and properly withheld third-party records pursuant to Exemption7(C); and (2) FBI also performed adequate search, but its Vaughn Index did not provide court with sufficient information to evaluate agency’s withholdings.

Sept. 23, 2020

Boundaoui v. FBI (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff’s motions to find FBI in contempt for violating court’s previous orders, but instructing FBI to increase its rate of document production to 1000 pages per month and to search an electronic surveillance database in response to plaintiff’s request for records pertaining to government surveillance of Muslim Americans in Chicago area in the 1990s

James Madison Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records regarding agreements with President Bush and two corporations, but that agency’s declarations were too conclusory to permit evaluation of whether agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C), or whether the agency has disclosed all reasonably segregable materials.

Sept. 21, 2020

Michigan Immigration Rights Ctr. v. DHS ( E.D. Mich.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for monetary sanctions against government for missing court-ordered production deadlines, because plaintiff failed to show that government acted in bad faith.

Sept. 18, 2020

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold four drafts of Acting Attorney General Yates’ January 30, 2017 memorandum regarding Executive Order 13,769.

Lindsey v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records pertaining to arrest of Lebanese-American businessman at Dulles Airport in 2003; and (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of any other records concerning same individual pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(C).

Sept. 16, 2020

Coleman v. Dep't of Navy (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for video footage related to murder conviction of plaintiff’s client.

Sept. 15, 2020

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold legal memorandum that consisted of subordinate officials views on legal questions raised concerning Paris Climate Agreement.

Wash. Post v. SIGAR (D.D.C.) -- deciding, in most relevant part, that Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction performed adequate search for interviews related to agency’s Lessons Learned Program, that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(A), 7(E), and 7(F), and that more information was required for court to evaluate withholdings under Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7(C).

Sept. 14, 2020

Nat'l Day Laborer Org. Network v. ICE (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) with the exception of one record, ICE improperly relied on attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges to withhold records concerning DHS’s “Priority Enforcement Program”; (2) ICE did not justify its withholding of memoranda under deliberative process privilege and DHS neglected to explain how disclosure of deliberative memoranda would reasonably cause harm; (3) government properly withheld some but not all records categorized as talking points, emails, and draft documents.

Houser v. HHS (D D.C.) -- ruling that HHS performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff'-prisoner’s former nursing homes and that agency properly withheld third-party records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Sept. 13, 2020

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. DHS (S.D.N.Y. ) -- denying government’s request for reconsideration of court’s September 13, 2019 determination that ICE’s search was inadequate, and clarifying that its September 23, 2019 decision required government to disclose certain records to plaintiff promptly.

Sept. 11, 2020

Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- rejecting plaintiff’s allegation that all legal opinions of Office of Legal Counsel must be affirmatively disclosed under FOIA’s “reading-room” provision, but concluding that OLC opinions “that resolve disputes between agencies” plausibly qualify for disclosure.

Rossmann v. SSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal agency’s response to his FOIA/PA request for records concerning Supplemental Security Income benefits.

Sept. 10, 2020

Watson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal response of Executive Office of United States Attorneys regarding his request for records about himself; and (2) FBI conducted adequate search for records about plaintiff and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Sept. 9, 2020

Schoenberg v. FBI (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of Special Agent who signed search warrant pertaining to laptop computer of former Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Sept. 8, 2020

Perez v. ICE (S.D.N.Y) -- adopting in full magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that: (1) plaintiff was bound by agreement with government that was “so-ordered” by magistrate to narrow scope of litigation; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold in full two witness statements regarding investigation into plaintiff’s allegations of unethical misconduct and mismanagement by agency employee; and (3) agency properly found that eight categories of collected records were not responsive to plaintiff’s request.

Ramcharan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s unopposed summary judgment motion concerning plaintiff’s request for records associated with his criminal trial, noting that plaintiff had conceded sufficiency of DEA’s search and that DEA had sufficiently explained its withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), (7)(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Sept. 3, 2020

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and presidential communications privileges to withhold interviews reports related to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. presidential election.

Sept. 2, 2020

Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment briefing, finding that, with minor exceptions, U.S. Customs & Border Protection properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold records concerning reference manuals used for inspection and admission process into the United States.

Jurdi v. U.S. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that:DEA properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) to categorically withhold records about third party who testified at plaintiff’s criminal trial, and that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of similar records.

NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- concluding that Office of Community Oriented Policing Service properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft assessment of North Charleston, South Carolina Police Department.

Aug. 31, 2020

In re: Clinton (D.C. Cir.) -- reissuing opinion of August 14, 2020 with nonsubstantive revisions.

Aug. 30, 2020

Stanco v. IRS. (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiffs failed to administratively appeal from agency’s adverse determination, but granting plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to include allegations that they timely appealed agency’s response to a subsequent, duplicate request.

Aug. 28, 2020

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOD properly withheld communications concerning agency’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6; and (2) and DOD properly relied on deliberative process, attorney-client, and presidential communications privileges to withhold records, with the exception of certain redactions on five documents.

Nova Oculus Partners. v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that SEC properly relied on Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold records concerning agency’s investigation of plaintiff.

Bryan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Civil Rights Division performed reasonable search for records pertaining to third-party informant who testified at plaintiff’s trial.

Nat’l Pub. Radio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI performed reasonable search for videos depicting ballistics tests of certain types of ammunition, but that agency failed to justify withholding videos under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).

Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that GSA failed to perform reasonable search for agency’s communications with Trump Organization, because agency misconstrued plaintiff’s request and did not justify its decision to limit search to emails.

Aug. 27, 2020

Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) performed adequate search for interviews concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City; (2) NIST properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 7306 to withhold interviews of emergency response personnel; and (3) NIST failed to clearly show that it could not segregate non-exempt information from Exemption 6-protected information included in interview of private individual.

Aug. 25, 2020

Farah v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- concluding that incarcerated pro se plaintiff constructively exhausted his administrative remedies even though Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys allegedly issued partial determination before plaintiff filed suit, because plaintiff alleged that he never received EOUSA’s determination and EOUSA failed to respond to plaintiff’s telephone messages regarding the status of his request.

White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- denying in part plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s summary judgment determination, and ordering hearing with respect to plaintiff’s motion to hold U.S. Marshals Service in contempt for delinquency and misrepresenting the Court.

Aug. 21, 2020

Machado Amadis v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) State Department and DEA performed reasonable searches for records concerning their processing of plaintiff’s prior FOIA requests; (2) Office of Information Policy properly declined to process certain DEA and FBI documents contained in plaintiff’s OIP appeal files because plaintiff’s request asked for only records “memorializing or describing the processing” of plaintiff’s prior appeals; (3) OIP properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold portions of staff’s appeal recommendation forms; (4) OIP reasonably explained why statute’s foreseeable harm provision was satisfied, noting that agency had considered "information at issue’” and concluded that disclosure “‘would’ chill future internal discussions”; and 5) plaintiff was not excused from administratively appealing “no records” responses issued by DEA and FBI merely because agencies offered to perform additional searches if plaintiff supplied additional information.

Aug. 14, 2020

In re: Hillary Clinton (D.C. Cir.) -- finding that district court clearly abused its discretion in authorizing depositions of Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills, and granting the former’s petition for mandamus but not the latter’s because Ms, Mills had other means to attain relief.

Whitaker v. Dep’t of Commerce (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that : (1) the First Responder Network Authority, an independent entity within the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), was not subject to FOIA; and (2) DOC and NTIA properly declined to search for requested records because such searches would have been futile, adopting D.C. Circuit’s standard.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. U.S Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Department waived use of deliberative process privilege because it disclosed disputed records to third party and took no steps to rectify the disclosure; and (2) Department properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records provided under implied assurance of confidentiality.

Aug. 13, 2020

James Madison Proj. v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of the Comptroller of the Currency properly relied on Exemption 8 to withhold its final conclusions of its examinations of forty banks with respect to their sales practices.

Arab Am. Inst. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- concluding after in camera review of disputed documents that OMB properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft recommendations and proposals concerning use of “Middle Eastern and North African” as race category in 2020 Census.

Aug. 12, 2020

Wattleton v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that plaintiff failed to show that DOJ or OIP received his administrative appeal, which was improperly addressed, and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to excuse his improper mailing.

Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold email distribution lists constructed primarily by individual users who voluntarily signed up to receive agency updates.

Stelmaszek v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency released in full all records in response to one of plaintiff’s requests, and that agency was not responsible for processing second request that plaintiff sent to wrong address.

Aug. 11, 2020

Nat’l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- ruling that: (1) district court properly decided that CIA was not required to disclose list of FOIA requesters by fee category, because agency’s FOIA database did contain such information; (2) affirming district court’s decision that request to CIA seeking all records about IBM supercomputer named “Watson” imposed unreasonably burdensome search; and (3) DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel was not required to release additional portions of two agency legal opinions, rejecting argument that attorney-client privilege had been waived.

Boyd v. Trump (D.D.C.) -- finding that incarcerated pro se plaintiff improperly named various government individuals as defendants and failed to show that he submitted FOIA requests to any Executive Branch agency.

Langston v. DHS (D. Ariz.) -- concluding that DHS properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with National Security Act, in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records about plaintiff.

Abakporo v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- upon government’s unopposed renewed summary judgment, determining that EOUSA properly searched for and disclosed all records pertaining to specific grand jury records of interest to plaintiff.

Aug. 10, 2020

Osen LLC v. U.S. Cent. Command (2nd Cir.) -- reversing and vacating district court’s decision that DOD had previously disclosed--and thus had improperly withheld pursuant to Exemption 1--certain classified images of terrorist attacks in Iraq.

Carlborg v. Dep’t of the Navy (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s involuntary separation from the military and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 and 6.

Aug. 7, 2020

Lukas v. FCC (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff failed to allege that FCC had “policy or practice” of failing to respond to FOIA appeals; (2) plaintiff forfeited his challenge to district court’s dismissal of his claim seeking declaration that Universal Service Administrative Company was not an agency for FOIA purposes, because he failed to address issue in his opposition brief; and (3) summarily affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 4, but sidestepping issue of whether disputed records were “agency records.”

Aug. 6, 2020

Ctr. for Public Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- deferring ruling on government’s exemption claims and ordering government to submit for in camera review certain records pertaining to the “Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative” that were withheld under Exemption 5.

Abdulkader v. Trump (D.D.C) -- dismissing case because plaintiff sued wrong defendants and failed to show that any federal agency received proper FOIA request.

Whitey v. FBI (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(D) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records indicating whether deceased individual was agency informant, and denying plaintiff’s request for discovery or in camera review.

Aug. 5, 2020

Besson v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that: (1) agency failed to demonstrate that names of contractor’s employees qualified as “commercial” information under Exemption 4; (2) agency properly withheld agreement with contractor pursuant to Exemption 4, except for portion of Statement of Work that might appear in public domain; (3) agency failed to establish that contractor’s names were protected under Exemption 6.

Frank LLP v. CFPB (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold agency transcripts of third-party testimony associated with certain enforcement actions.

Aug. 3, 2020

Butt v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff except for excluding U.S. Attorney from search, and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege.

Liounis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from the D.C. Circuit, ruling that government performed reasonable search for grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case.

July 31, 2020

Day v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because he was unable to demonstrate that his request was received by IRS, which averred that it never received it.

July 30, 2020

Eakin v. DOD (W.D. Tex.) -- granting plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint to include FOIA request for additional Individual Deceased Personnel Files of World War II service members even though scheduling order’s amendment deadline in pending lawsuit lapsed three years ago.

July 29, 2020

Gonzalez v. USCIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that government performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).

July 27, 2020

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, which plaintiffs did not dispute, ruling that Department of the Army had justified its use of deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold one document concerning involvement of medical professionals in designing and implementing interrogation tactics.

Aguiar v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for litigation costs because plaintiff did not obtain judicial relief or demonstrate that his lawsuit “substantially caused” agency to respond to his FOIA requests. In analyzing “catalyst theory” prong, the court noted that EOUSA had been in contact with plaintiff before his lawsuit, worked with him to narrow requests, and produced some documents.

July 24, 2020

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) National Security Agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to unmasking of Trump campaign official by five Obama Administration officials; (2) State Department’s similar Glomar response was invalid as to unmasking requests from Susan Power regarding Michael Flynn because Office of the Director of National Intelligence officially acknowledged their existence; (3) NSA’s search for certain communications referring to Donald Trump or campaign officials was partially inadequate because search terms used regarding Cheryl Mills were too limited; (4) State Department properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold various communications sent or received by Susan Power.

July 22, 2020

Am. Oversight v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- holding that Treasury properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between Treasury officials and Congress pertaining to potential tax code legislation. Of note, the court found that Treasury had solicited advice from Congress and, therefore, disputed communications qualified as “inter-agency” or “intra-agency” under consultant corollary doctrine.

Democracy Forward Found. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency was required to search Commerce Secretary’s personal email account for government-related communications because record showed that he used personal email account for official business.

July 20, 2020

Manatt v. DHS (E.D. Pa.) -- finding that: (1) USCIS failed to show that it performed adequate search for records relating to government’s so-called ‘Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry”; (2) plaintiffs did not muster enough evidence to show that USCIS has pattern or practice of violating FOIA, but stating that court “suspects that USCIS does, in fact” have one; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold deliberations about communications with press, public, and Congress, but that other withholdings were unclear; and (4) ordering senior DHS official to appear before court to explain why agency ignored court’s order to process records by certain date.

July 15, 2020

Philips v. Dep’t of the Navy (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s murder trial and that it properly withheld records about third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Greenlaw v. Scalia (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that Department of Labor’s properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold certain third-party information from documents she maintained on her work computer.

Moujtahid v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold records from A-files of third parties, as well as Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of individuals under investigation, notwithstanding asserted public interest that disclosure would assist in discovering potential plaintiffs in civil RICO action.

Madel v. DOJ (D. Minn.) — ruling that Drug Enforcement Administration’s declaration was “devoid of specificity” and “patently insufficient” to justify agency’s reliance on Exemption 4 to withhold records provided by Cardinal Health about distribution of oxycodone.

July 14, 2020

Price v. DOJ (D.D.C.) - - finding that: (1) Office of Justice Programs conducted adequate searches in response to only three of ten requests related to child pornography investigations and prosecutions; Criminal Division performed reasonable searches for organizational chart and operating manual; (2) ordering agencies to submit ex parte declarations explaining whether they relied on any exclusions, as referenced in their response letters, and to justify their use if so; (3) OJP failed to provide sufficient information for court to evaluate its withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(E), and 7(F); (4) Criminal Division properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), and 7(E), but did not demonstrate that Exemption 2 was properly used.

July 13, 2020

Talley v. DOL (W.D. Mo.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff’s claims were barred by res judicata because D.C. Circuit previously held that disputed records were properly withheld and plaintiff was serving as proxy for, and was in privity with, plaintiff in D.C. Circuit case; and (2) even if res judicata did not bar plaintiff’s claims, agency properly withheld records as privileged under Exemption 4.

Campo v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- ruling that: (1) DOJ properly declined to search for third-party records in absence of subject’s written consent or proof of his death because records were protected by Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that public interest in disclosure outweighed subject’s privacy interests; (2) even if Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not apply, requested records were protected as privileged under Exemption 4.

July 9, 2020

Hohner v. DOJ (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that Immigration & Customs Enforcement properly withheld records that were subject to a 1998 sealing order issued by federal court.that later clarified that sealing order was intended to prohibit disclosure.

The New York Times v. CIA (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that that CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records of covert program of arming and training rebel forces in Syria, and that statements by President Trump and a U.S. Special Operations Commander did not undermine agency’s Glomar response.

July 7, 2020

Buffalo Field Campaign v. U.S Dep’t of the Interior (D. Mont.) -- concluding that National Park Service improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to redact records pertaining to bison population in Yellowstone Park, except with respect to one draft document that met foreseeable harm requirement.

July 6, 2020

Snarr v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff, a death row inmate, did not have standing to bring lawsuit for third party records because his legal defense team submitted the requests and failed to identify their client in the request or in any other correspondence with the agency; (2) plaintiff could not amend his complaint to substitute a new party in order to create jurisdiction.

Am. Immigration Council v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- explaining four factors that led court to grant plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunctive release, resulting in timetable for government to process records pertaining to its response to COVID-19 pandemic.

Malone v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (W.D. Ky.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claims against the IRS because he failed to administratively appeal from any of 15 requests he submitted to IRS.

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) -- concluding that Occupational Safety and Health Administration improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold illness and injury data about Amazon, noting that the company actually and customarily treated information as non-confidential and that government did not assure confidentiality at time information was submitted.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Me. Found v. DHS (D. Me.) -- concluding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to redact most—but not all—records regarding the location, method of operation, and purpose of immigration checkpoints. 

July 2, 2020

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to show that the FBI had a policy or practice of not complying with plaintiff’s requests until plaintiff filed suit, because the three requests cited by plaintiff were “of strikingly different subject matter and scope” and FBI’s actions across the three requests were not uniform.

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) collateral estoppel or issue preclusion barred plaintiff from litigating certain records and that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to several requests; and (2) IRS performed reasonable search for all but one remaining disputed record.

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in 107-page opinion addressing 83 requests submitted to FBI and ATF between 2005 and 2012, determining that: (1) plaintiff failed to demonstrate need for discovery; (2) FBI and ATF performed adequate search for records pertaining to animal rights activism; (3) based on sampling of disputed records, FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), but improperly relied on Exemption 4 in withholding two pages from a copyrighted book; (4) FBI’s processing error rate of 16 percent was not high enough to justify warrant complete reprocessing of withheld records; (5) ATF failed to demonstrate that it properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold records submitted to a grand jury or that it properly withheld records pertaining to Macy’s department store pursuant to Exemption 4, but properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 7(D), and 7(E).

Swick v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- deciding that Army did not perform adequate search for plaintiff’s psychological evaluation records or for electronic records associated with plaintiff’s employment f

June 29, 2020

Amin v. Trump (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff's claims against multiple components of the Department of Justice because plaintiff, a pro se prisoner seeking his criminal records, failed to show that DOJ received any of his requests.

June 26, 2020

Von Chase v. BIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Bureau of Indian Affairs conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and properly redacted third-party information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), issues that plaintiff conceded; (2) agency’s post-litigation release of records did not necessarily entitle plaintiff to litigation costs, because agency explained that end of post-conviction proceedings triggered release of records; (3) even if plaintiff were eligible for costs, he was not entitled to them because records conferred no benefit to the public and agency’s actions were reasonable.

June 25, 2020

Lotero-Diaz v. USCIS (S.D. Fla.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s FOIA claim was moot because agency produced all responsive records, albeit after the litigation commenced, and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Administrative Procedure Act claim because FOIA provided adequate remedy.

June 23, 2020

Freeman v. Fine (11th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that: (1) plaintiff’s FOIA claim was moot because Defense Department produced requested documents, and (2) FOIA did not provide plaintiff or court with authority to demand that agency investigate his whistleblower complaint.

June 16, 2020

Tremaine v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (W.D. Wash.) -- concluding that agency failed to perform reasonable search for records about agency’s policies or practices of finding aliens inadmissible for entry to the United States based on their involvement in foreign cannabis businesses.

June 12, 2020

Risenhoover v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that State Department performed adequate search for a directive issued to de facto Embassy of the United States in Taiwan and properly withheld cables pursuant to Exemption 1.

Sai v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- issuing technical amendments to its May 29, 2020 memorandum opinion and order

June 11, 2020

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion for summary judgment because affidavits failed to: (1) identify information withheld from each document with reasonable specificity; (2) provide reasonably detailed justification for exemptions invoked; (3) connect claimed justification with specific information withheld; and (4) discuss consequences of disclosing requested information for each withholding.

Grey v. Cuccinelli (D.S.C.) -- finding that DHS failed to show that it performed adequate search for emails pertaining to plaintiff’s immigration matter and failed to explain why redacted information fell within ambit of Exemption 7(E)

June 10, 2020

Samuel v. FBI (D.S.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s case as moot because FBI released all records in response to one request and plaintiff did not appeal response in which certain information was redacted pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

June 5, 2020

Am. Small Business League v. DOD (N.D. Cal) -- following in camera review, concluding that: (1) agency’s Exemption 4 redactions from government’s compliance reports remained overbroad, specifically “most of the government’s analysis”; and (2) agency was improperly relying on Exemption 5’s common-interest doctrine to withhold communications predating its joint-defense agreement with Sikorsky Aircraft.

June 4, 2020

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) Department of Labor improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain work-related injury form received by OSHA from employers, because agency failed to show that records were both customarily and actually treated as private by owners and provide to the government under an assurance of privacy; (2) OSHA performed adequate search for other work-related injury and illness records, which agency did not start collecting during requested time period.

June 3, 2020

Cal. Air Res. Bd. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration performed adequate search for records pertaining to fuel-efficient vehicle rulemaking and properly withheld two documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and (2) EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold two email threads and two draft reports.

June 2, 2020

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- following evidentiary hearing, ruling that: (1) ICE properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in denying full disclosure of databases pertaining to undocumented immigrants, but that ICE may have neglected to disclose reasonable segregable, non-exempt materials; and (2) ICE made no effort to show that a 9-page document met the law enforcement threshold of Exemption 7 and therefore must be disclosed subject to previously-approved Exemption 6 redactions.

June 1, 2020

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) National Institutes for Health performed reasonable search for emails concerning certain animal experiments even though additional search terms were used for one custodian; (2) NIH adequately explained why it excluded as “non-responsive” 119 pages that it initially processed; (3) NIH properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold private email account, personal travel plans, and identifying information of unpaid outside consultants; and (4) NIH failed to show that deliberative process privilege applied to agency communications about how to respond to plaintiff’s request for a meeting.

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Justice Management Division (JMD) performed adequate search for records mentioning two Bureau of the Census employees or eight census-related terms, but Civil Rights Division (CRT) did not; (2) CRT and Office of Information Policy (OIP) failed to show that records were properly withheld pursuant to presidential communications privilege; (3) CRT and OIP properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withheld only a few contested categories of records, and JMD failed to provide sufficient information to justify its deliberative process claims; and (4) OIP improperly relied on attorney work-product privilege to withhold draft responses to interrogatories from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights..

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Drug Enforcement Administration conducted reasonable search pertaining to third party’s prosecution, but that deficiencies in DEA’s Vaughn Index did not enable court to assess validity of agency’s withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(C) 7(D),7(E), and 7(F).

May 29, 2020

Cvijanovich v. U.S. Secret Serv. (8th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision granting summary judgment to agency concerning plaintiff’s request for records about himself.

NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that agency failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for records concerning proposed inclusion of citizenship status question on 2020 decennial census.

Sai v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that: (1) agency demonstrated that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 5 (deliberative process privilege); (2) agency failed to demonstrate that it searched all reasonable locations or employed reasonable search terms and proper time frame; (3) agency was not required to organize records into discrete PDF files,but that agency failed to show how it would be unduly burdensome to create “irreversible redactions within fully digital, non-rasterized PDFs” outside of FOIAExpress program that agency typically used.

May 27, 2020

Am. Immigration Council v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S Customs & Border Patrol improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold full birth dates of apprehended individuals, because agencies failed to show that disclosure of birth month and year of anonymous individuals could be used to identify them; (2) ICE did not perform adequate search for unique identifiers of apprehended individuals, and CBP improperly withheld unique identifiers pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold locations where individuals were apprehended; and (4) ICE was not required to create a codebook or glossary of the terms and acronyms contained in responsive spreadsheets, but it was required to search for definitions within agency databases.

May 26, 2020

Citizens for Responsibility in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Information Policy performed adequate search for records concerning a 2017 meeting with reporters to share private text messages sent during 2016 presidential campaign by two former FBI investigators on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team; and (2) OIP and Office of Inspector General properly withheld as “non-responsive” individual emails and texts from whole threads because conversations veered into unrelated topics, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that FOIA defines a “record” by the manner in which it is maintained by the agency.

Glawson v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that EOUSA performed reasonable search for certain grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution in 2008.

May 25, 2020

Shem-Tov v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Interpol, U.S. National Central Bureau and the Department of Homeland Security performed adequate searches for records concerning their assistance to Israel’s criminal prosecution of plaintiff; (2) USNCB and DHS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E), but that government’s evidence and briefing was too sparse with respect to Exemption 7(D).

May 21, 2020

Statton v. Fla. Fed. Judicial Nominating Comm’n (11th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission, which was created by two U.S. Senators from Florida, was not a federal agency subject to FOIA.

May 20, 2020

Rodriguez v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s unopposed summary judgment motion after concluding that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Rutila v. DOT (N.D. Tex.) -- accepting findings and recommendations of magistrate judge that FAA performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

May 19, 2020

Citizens United v. U.S Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that with the exception of relatively minor redactions on two documents, State Department justified its withholdings to Christopher Steele-related documents pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff failed to reasonably describe requests sent to FBI, ATF, and U.S. Marshals Service for records relating to white supremacist groups; (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning other white supremacist groups or was reasonably producing records at rate of 500 pages monthly; (3) FBI, ATF, and USMS properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records concerning third-party individuals; (4) USMS was processing or had already processed records concerning plaintiff despite initial delay and court would not retain jurisdiction over claim; and (5) BOP performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).

Hutchins v, EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA performed adequate search for grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s drug conspiracy conviction in 1996.

May 18, 2020

Doyle v. DHS (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that that visitor logs for White House and President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home are not “agency records” of the U.S. Secret Service, relying on D.C. Circuit’s 2013 opinion in Judicial Watch v. U.S. Secret Service.

District of Columbia v, ICE (D.D.C.) -- ruling that ICE properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact personal identifying information from records generated by agency’s arrest of twelve individuals in July 2018.

LaVictor v. Trump (D.D.C.) -- dismissing claims against three DOJ components because plaintiff offered no evidence that he had submitted requests, and dismissing claim against Federal Bureau of Prisons because plaintiff failed to appeal from agency’s 2016 adverse determination.

May 14, 2020

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, which plaintiffs did not dispute, ruling that: (1) Department of the Army properly relied on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records concerning involvement of medical professionals in designing interrogation tactics; (2) Defense Intelligence Agency properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5 to withhold summary of trip taken to assess interrogation operations at Guantanamo Bay; and (3) Joint Task Force Guantanamo properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

May 11, 2020

Reyes v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (S.D. Cal.) -- concluding that: (1) Bureau of Indian Affairs performed adequate search for tribal membership and genealogy records concerning deceased family member; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning its processing of plaintiff’s FOIA request; and (3) plaintiff arguably asserted “policy-and-practice” claim, but neither party moved for summary judgment on that issue.

May 7, 2020

Buzzfeed Inc. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold its supplementary background investigation file of Brett Kavanaugh, and that the privilege was not waived when file was shared with Senate Judiciary Committee.

May 1, 2020

Aguirre v. U.S. Nuclear Reg. Comm’n (S.D. Cal.) dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint because plaintiff failed to show that he had appealed agency’s initial adverse response.

Apr. 30, 2020

NY Times v. FCC (S.D.N.Y) -- finding that agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold certain server log data associated with electronic submission of public comments regarding agency’s proposal to repeal “net neutrality” rules; further finding that agency failed to demonstrate that producing requested information was unreasonably burdensome.

Rodriguez v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records of grand jury that indicted plaintiff, but that agency’s Vaughn Index did not provide sufficient information for court to determine propriety of agency’s use of Exemption 3 to withhold all records.

Apr. 28, 2020

Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) denying plaintiff’s request for discovery because plaintiff failed to follow applicable discovery rules, failed to show any bad faith by the agency, and the request was overbroad, vague in part, and fell outside scope of limited discovery sometimes permitted in FOIA cases.

Zavalunov v. BOP (M.D. Pa.) -- ruling that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search for requested ICE detainer and properly redacted third party information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Strahan v. NOAA (D. N.H.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for six of seven of his requests, and that agency was not required to create excel spreadsheet containing information that was publicly available on website.

Colgan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- remanding matter to FBI after finding that: (1) agency failed to perform reasonable search in response to plaintiff’s 30-part request; and (2) agency’s Vaughn Index lacked sufficient detail to permit review of claimed exemptions and sampled documents had 64 percent error rate.

DBW Partners v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- determining that USPS properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act to withhold large portions of Inspector General report concerning USPS’s resellers program and negotiated service agreements, but ordering release of certain portions after performing in camera review.

Apr. 23, 2020

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (9th Cir.) (unpublished)-- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that Exemption 4 did not protect intervenor’s information regarding importation and exportation of wildlife, because U.S. Supreme Court decided Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media while case was pending on appeal.

Apr. 22, 2020

Rocky Mountain Wild. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning specific lease sale, except with respect to its use of search cut-off date; (2) agency’s Vaughn index did not permit court to determine whether agency properly withheld records pursuant to attorney-client privilege or released all non-exempt segregable material.

Apr. 21, 2020

Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning a “nonacquiescence decision,” because the court erroneously resolved inferences about the predecisional nature of records against plaintiff instead of requiring EPA to conclusively demonstrate that the threshold was met.

Apr. 20, 2020

Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that General Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Office of Information Policy failed to conduct reasonable searches for records concerning White House meetings relating to consolidation of FBI Headquarters

Reyes v. Dep’t of the Interior (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily finding that agency performed adequate search for records, but ordering in camera review of records withheld by agency pursuant to Exemption 6.

Apr. 18, 2020

Hardway v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and his former colleagues who worked on congressional committee that investigated assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Of note, holding that it was reasonable for the CIA to use the date it commenced the multistep “search process” as the search cut-off date instead of the date the agency executed searches in agency databases.

Apr. 16, 2020

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide v. USPTO (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that U.S. Patent & Trade Office performed adequate search for records concerning agency’s misconduct investigation of one of plaintiff’s attorney, and that agency properly withheld all disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege or Exemptions 6 and 7(C); in dicta, cautioning USPTO to prepare complete and accurate Vaughn indices because even inadvertent errors can seriously prejudice FOIA plaintiffs.

Apr. 14, 2020

Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA conducted adequate search for background investigation records concerning various Trump administration candidates, but improperly redacted their names pursuant to Exemption 6; (2) FBI properly interpreted plaintiff’s request for agency’s security clearance procedures, but nonetheless failed to perform adequate search; (3) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from DOD HQ’s “no records” response; DOD’s Defense Manpower Data Center properly interpreted plaintiff’s request and demonstrated that performing search would be futile; (4) DOJ failed to show that its Mail Referral Unit properly referred request; (5) plaintiff was not required to appeal from of Office of Personnel Management’s “interim” responses; OPM properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold personally identifying information, but court lacked information to evaluate other contested records; (6) ODNI performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, but its segregability analysis was insufficient; (7) Department of Education failed to show that it would be futile to search for security clearance records concerning Betsy Devos; (8) Department of State did not provide court sufficient information to determine whether it properly withheld records concerning Rex Tillerson pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Apr. 10, 2020

Smith v. DOT (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery or costs.

Apr. 8, 2020

Stevens v. DHS (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that: (1) Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) performed adequate search for records concerning its detainee volunteer work program; (2) ICE properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege, but improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold “messaging communications”; and (3) Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not protect names of federal employees mentioned in emails.

Vietnam Veterans of America v. DOD (D. Conn.) -- ruling that DOD properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of service members who were tested for plutonium contamination related to 1966 Palomares nuclear accident, including names of deceased veterans.

Canning v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- on third round of briefing, finding that State Department properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 and properly withheld draft letters from President Obama to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pursuant to Exemption 5.

Apr. 7, 2020

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Office of Solicitor and National Park Service properly invoked the deliberative process privilege in withholding records, but failed to demonstrate that statute’s foreseeable harm standard had been met.

Flete-Garcia v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency’s “barbones declaration” failed to demonstrate that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prison transportation; and (2) agency properly withheld records concerning third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- after evaluating six factors, declining to seal law firm’s billing records filed in connection with its motion for attorney’s fees in FOIA case.

Apr. 6, 2020

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) DOJ properly withheld certain questions to and responses of congressional witnesses as “non-responsive” even though all material appeared in a single document, but that agency could not treat sub-questions and responses thereto as distinct records; (2) plaintiff did not have standing to challenge legality of Office of Information Policy’s guidance on definition of a “record.”

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold background papers associated with “Nuclear Posture Review;” (2) agency properly withheld names of contractors pursuant to Exemption 6, but domain email addresses were not similarly protected; (3) agency properly withheld information relating to security at nuclear facilities pursuant to Exemption 7(F); and (4) based on court’s in camera review, government did not previously disclose any information requested by plaintiff.

Apr. 3, 2020

Lewis v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that government properly withheld records concerning an Andorran bank pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 7(A), and 7(D).

Apr. 1, 2020

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and ordering release of one component of EPA computer program after finding that it did not fall within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Argus Leader v. USDA (D.S.D.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial and ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees following U.S. Supreme Court’s Exemption 4 decision involving same parties and same records.

Mar. 31, 2020

Am. Oversight v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- concluding that OMB failed to perform adequate searches for agency’s communications with the White House concerning the FBI headquarters building and the Old Postal Office Pavilion, and that OMB properly withheld some, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege.

Webster v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff Carl Oglesby, and the government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Mabie v. EOUSA (S.D. Ill.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claims as sanction for using profane, belligerent, and abusive language when speaking to opposing counsel, leveling unfounded accusations and threatening opposing counsel, insulting the judge and Court employees, and impugning the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Mar. 30, 2020

Williams v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiff conceded agency’s supplemental motion for summary judgment.

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment for government as to plaintiff’s claims relating to three of his FBI requests; twenty-one of his BOP requests; all six of his EOUSA requests; both of his OIP requests, and his single USMS request; denying summary judgment for plaintiff’s claims relating to twelve of his FBI requests; twenty-seven of his BOP requests; and all four of his OIG requests; and dismissing claims relating to plaintiff’s CIA requests.

Democracy Forward Foun. v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that agency demonstrated that consultant corollary applied to emails of third-party consultant and that it met its burden to segregate and release all non-exempt records.

Mar. 27, 2020

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D. Ariz.). -- concluding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of costs and attorneys’ fees, but reducing fee award from $88,889.93 to $76,928.80 because of insufficiently detailed time entries, excessive time billed on assorted communications, and for time spent on unsuccessful motion.

Mar. 26, 2020

Pub. Citizen v. U.S Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev. (D.D.C.) -- deferring decision as to whether HUD properly withheld records as “non-responsive” because agency had not completed its document production; stating, however, that court was “skeptical” that the government could justify treating “a single bullet point from a PowerPoint slide or a single email in a chain (or subdivision thereof)” as a separate record “outside extraordinary circumstances.”

Mar. 25, 2020

Ramdeo v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s incarceration and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (ACP), 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Civil Rights Division failed to adequately describe its search for requested records concerning State compliance with voter registration list laws; (2) agency properly withheld three categories of emails pursuant to Exemptions 5 or 7(A), but did not provide sufficient information about fourth category of records to permit court to determine whether withholdings under those same exemptions were proper.

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that IRS did not perform reasonable search for records concerning its correspondence with third parties about plaintiffs’ tax liabilities, but that it properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to a confidential informant.

Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for an exhibit originating from plaintiff’s criminal case and for the interview notes of Ramzi Yousef.

Hall v. Stoneman (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of victim from grand jury testimony and that agency’s disclosure of copies of documents instead of originals was “irrelevant.”

Mar. 24, 2020

Goldwater Inst. v. HHS (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- vacating and remanding district court’s opinion and finding that FDA improperly relied on agency regulations to categorically withhold entire contents of Investigational New Drug file instead of evaluating whether specific records in file fell within Exemption 4.

Trent v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that USPS tracking notice was insufficient to establish that DHS received plaintiff’s administrative appeal letter, which was sent to address listed in DHS’s response letter instead of address listed in DHS regulations.

Reclaim Records v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold two databases concerning deceased beneficiaries, rejecting agency’s argument that categorical withholding was warranted because it would be too burdensome to segregate commingled data of living individuals; further noting that one database had been released nine years earlier and remained in public domain; and (2) additional briefing was required on data field for “cause of death.”

ACLU v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed inadequate search for records concerning its participation in National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) conference in 2019, and granting plaintiff limited discovery concerning search; (2) draft conference agenda created and shared by NSA did not meet threshold requirement of Exemption 5 ; (3) draft talking points and related emails did not not fall within deliberative process privilege as interpreted by First Circuit.

Mar. 23, 2020

Nat’l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications exchanged between the Attorney General and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation or the Solicitor General regarding certain immigration proceedings, rejecting appellant’s argument that such communications were ex parte and outside bounds of Exemption 5.

The Prot. Democracy Proj. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communication privilege to withhold memorandum that memorialized ”advice solicited by, and provide to, the President that directly related to presidential decision-making with respect to foreign relations and intelligence-gathering activities.”

Muhammad v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s conviction for transportation of a minor for prostitution under Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney work product privilege).

Freedom Watch v. Robert S. Mueller III (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ performed adequate search for medial-related records concerning Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).

Rocky Mtn. Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- ordering BLM to perform supplemental search for records concerning certain land agency offered for oil and gas leasing, but denying plaintiff’s request for discovery and agreeing that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney-client, and commercial privileges.

Mar. 20, 2020

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ (D.D.C) -- holding that: (1) plaintiffs’ claims were not barred by doctrines of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel because exemptions and/or documents at issue were new (2); FBI properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records related to FBI’s impersonation of media.

Gellman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records about plaintiff, concluding that: (1) Office of Information Policy properly withheld records as non-responsive, including portions of email chains; (2) Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemption 1 to withheld all but one category of records; (3) National Security Agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 in conjunction with the National Security Act; (4) ODNI properly withheld the formatting, design, and organization of commercial entity’s new bulletins pursuant to Exemption 4; but that text of individual articles mentioning plaintiff’s name must be released; (5) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5 (DPP) to withhold discussions about investigative techniques and how to respond to press inquiries, but it did provide adequate information for court to assess withholding of agency reactions to news articles; and (6) FBI properly wiitheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and 7(E).

Petrucelli v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (2) EOUSA did not sufficiently describe how it performed its search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution.

Mar. 19, 2020

Butt v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was not entitled to waiver of duplication fees because his request for records from the FBI about his criminal prosecution would not serve public interest.

Katchadourian v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Defense Intelligence Agency properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records concerning task force that conducted damage assessment from Wikileaks, and that it also performed adequate search; (2) DIA properly determined that all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 1 were classified, but that it failed to demonstrate that it performed adequate segregability analysis; (3) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024; (4) DIA failed to show that records withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 were predecisional or deliberative; and (5) DIA was entitled to summary judgment regarding its use of Exemption 7(C) because plaintiff did not challenge it.

Mar. 17, 2020

White v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (S.D. Ill. 2020) -- ruling that: (1) FBI’s processing rate of 500 pages per month was reasonable given the “large volume and complexity” of responding to plaintiff’s requests and because plaintiff “failed to articulate any real public interest in the records he seeks”; (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (3) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of alleged informants pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E); (4) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on requests that he either failed to reasonably describe or failed to appeal; (5) FBI did not improperly withhold records that Federal Bureau of Prisons refused to accept delivery of due to security concerns; and (6) plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on request for records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A) because FBI agreed to recheck the request when the status of the investigation is likely to have changed to closed; and (7) FBI performed adequate searches on remaining requests.

Mar. 16, 2020

Dillon v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to agency’s anthrax investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins, and that it properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold portions of FBI’s “Interim Major Case Summary.”

Porup v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s “pattern-or-practice” claim was mooted by new agency guidance instructing officials not to decline requests solely because they pertain to matters outside of CIA’s primary mission; (2) CIA performed adequate search for records about its use of poison for covert assassinations, and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act.

Mar. 13, 2020

Burton v. Wolf (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that DHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold information referencing plaintiff in his estranged wife’s alien file.

Mar. 12, 2020

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Exemption 7(C) protected docket numbers of terrorism cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals, but not cases that resulted in convictions.

Pronin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that BOP performed adequate search for staff lists at three facilities where plaintiff was incarcerated and that agency’s withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemption 6.

Mar. 11, 2020

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Exemption 7(C) protected docket numbers of terrorism cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals, but not cases that resulted in convictions.

Pronin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that BOP performed adequate search for staff lists at three facilities where plaintiff was incarcerated and that agency’s withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemption 6.

Mar. 10, 2020

Evans v. BOP (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff did not reasonably describe his request for records pertaining to a screwdriver used in a prison attack against him, and reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency properly withheld security camera footage in full pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

White Coat Waste Proj. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 to withhold names of principal investigators who conducted animal research at agency facilities; and (2) agency properly withheld the title of a research protocol pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 3710a, which protects confidential information within cooperative research and development agreements.

Mar. 9, 2020

James v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the handwritten signatures and initials of an Assistant United States Attorney and other third parties.

Mar. 6, 2020

Eddington v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his request seeking government plans to detain individuals in event of war or national emergency was not reasonably clear.

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing prisoner-plaintiff’s FOIA claim against FBI because agency averred that it never received the request and plaintiff offered “no evidence beyond his own say-so.”

KXTV v. USCIS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that government properly withheld records concerning extradition of Omar Abdulsattar Ameen pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and (7(E), but not 7(A).

Protect Democracy Pro. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera inspection of memorandum memorializing telephone conversation between President Trump and former NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers, which NSA asserts is protected in full under the presidential communications privilege.

Bales v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records relating to visas requested by or issued to seven Afghan witnesses who testified at plaintiff’s court martial.

Day v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s imprisonment in Mexico and that it properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).

Mar. 5, 2020

Okeayainneh v. DOJ (N.D. Tex.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the National Personnel Records Center conducted reasonable searches for records about government lawyers associated with plaintiff’s criminal case, and sanctioning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, for filing frivolous complaint.

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report because, in court’s view, Attorney General Barr——and by extension DOJ—lacked credibility about this matter.

Lukas v. FCC (D.D.C.) -- in most relevant part, determining that FCC properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact company’s pricing strategy, negotiating positions, and sales history.

Rosenberg v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- on second renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) DOD properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold certain emails sent by Marine General John Kelly, except for information DOD publicly acknowledged; and (2) DOD’s justified its use of the deliberative process privilege and met the reasonable foreseeable harm requirement for most, but not all, disputed records.

Mar. 3, 2020

James Madison Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records concerning an application made to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding Carter Page, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that a White House press release constituted a declassification order from President Trump.

Wattleton v. Berryhill (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff failed to rebut Social Security Administration’s claim that it never received his undated and unsigned request for records concerning himself, and that his subsequent Privacy Act claim for the same records failed to provide information about himself required by agency policies.

Mar. 2, 2020

Immerso v. DOL (E.D.N.Y.) (Mag. J.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of email withheld by agency under Exemption 4 because disputed document was pending in camera review by the district court judge.

Karam v. HHS (D. Ariz.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation to grant government’s summary judgment motion after finding that agency performed reasonable search and justified its use of exemptions, and that plaintiff primarily disputed only the agency’s delay in responding to her request.

Feb. 28, 2020

Protect Our Defs. v. DOD (D.Conn.) -- denying government’s motion for reconsideration of court’s July 12, 2019 decision because supplemental declaration and case law cited by government would not have altered court’s conclusion that government failed to meet its burden with respect to Exemptions 5 & 6.

Feb. 27, 2020

Urban Air Initiative v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiffs were eligible and entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs notwithstanding having some commercial interest in making their request, but reducing award from the $189,288.40 plaintiffs requested to $75,400 because of excessive hourly rates and excessive hours spent on certain aspects of the litigation.

Feb. 25, 2020

Schoeffler v. USDA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery.

O'Neill v. DOJ (W.D. Wis.) -- concluding that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives conducted adequate searches for certain records pertaining to the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, and that plaintiff failed to show that he was entitled to injunctive relief for future FOIA requests based on defendants’ alleged history of FOIA violations.

Ojeda v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D. W.Va.) -- dismissing claim because plaintiff conceded that he failed to administrative appeal agency’s decision before filing lawsuit.

Feb. 24, 2020

Withey v. FBI (W.D. Wash.) -- denying plaintiff’s discovery requests after finding that FBI’s declarations were sufficient for court to determine whether agency conducted an adequate search and properly withheld information concerning the murders of labor activists Gene Viernes and Silme Domingo.

Feb. 21, 2020

Jordan v. DOL (8th Cir.) (per curiam) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision to dismiss some of plaintiff’s claims as duplicative of pending litigation.

Feb. 19, 2020

Aguirre v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n (S.D. Cal.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for one request because he failed to pay advanced fee, inform agency that he believed he was not required to pay that fee, or request a fee waiver; (2) for second request, plaintiff ignored agency’s request for clarification about scope of request and thus failed to “perfect” request before filing suit.

Feb. 18, 2020

Leopold v. Office of Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence (D.D.C.) -- ruling that ODNI, CIA, and State properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, including agency discussions about making public statements on same subject.

Vizcarra Calderon & Castenda Sanchez v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- holding that Department of State properly withheld records concerning plaintiffs’ visa denials pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Aguirre v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (S.D. Cal.) -- finding that plaintiff filed lawsuit before expiration of agency’s 20-day response deadline and that plaintiff’s arguments as to why court should waive the requirements of exhaustion of administrative remedies were “borderline ridiculous.”

Feb. 12, 2020

Husch Blackwell LLP v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) EPA failed to perform adequate search for communications between agency and two organizations concerning the herbicide gyphosate; (2) EPA properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold talking points prepared for congressional testimony or press inquiries; (3) EPA failed to describe with sufficient particularity how two withheld records qualified for protection under the attorney-client privilege; and (4) EPA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee’s email of a purely personal nature with an acquaintance of family member , including that individual’s email address.

Feb. 7, 2020

Almeda v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Department of Veterans Affairs properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold emails (including names of email authors) discussing inter-agency working group focused on Filipino veterans of World War II; and (2) plaintiff failed to support his allegation that Department of Education did not process attachments to responsive emails.

Feb. 5, 2020

Gunter v. U.S. Secret Serv. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff, who sought records concerning himself, failed to administratively appeal the agency’s Exemption 7(A) denial before filing his lawsuit.

Jan. 31, 2020

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C) — determining that: (1) plaintiff was not required to file administrative appeal before filing lawsuit contesting agency’s denial of plaintiff’s expedition request; and (2) DOJ’s one-sentence assertion that plaintiff expedition request did not meet regulatory standard was entitled to “little deference” and “did not stand up to judicial review.”

Jan. 29, 2020

Allen v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons: (1) properly refused to release plaintiff-inmate’s pre-sentence investigative report, but that she could review it and take notes; (2) properly withheld information from disciplinary reports pertaining to another inmate, Special Investigative Supervisors (SIS) Report, and from SIS Manual under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F); (3) properly withheld Program Statement 1380.09 in full under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F); and (4) properly withheld plaintiff’s Security Threat Group and Security Threat Profile from Counter Terrorism Unit memo under Exemption 7(E).

Jan. 28, 2020

Shaerr v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) FBI, NSA, CIA , State Department, DOJ, ODNI properly issued Glomar responses pursuant to Exemptions 1 and/or 3 for requests seeking records of “unmasking” and “upstreaming“ of twenty-one named individuals; (2) FBI, NSA, and DOJ failed to perform adequate searches for policies, procedures, and reports concerning unmasking, but State, ODNI, and CIA performed adequate searches.

Jan. 27, 2020

Pichardo-Martinez v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency’s declaration failed to provide sufficient facts to allow court to determine that an adequate search had been conducted.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y) -- ruling that Defense and/or State Departments properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold five of six categories of records pertaining to U.S. military raid in Yemen, but requiring in camera review of certain military orders to determine whether any information contained therein had already been officially acknowledged by the government.

Jan. 24, 2020

McDonald v. Barr (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that the Department of Justice conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s alleged reinstatement to his job with the U.S. Postal Service, whom plaintiff had previously sued for employment discrimination.

Jan. 23, 2020

Smith v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Personnel Management failed to perform adequate search for names and titles or occupations of employees of Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and that OPM raised exhaustion argument too late for court to consider it; (2) Treasury properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of non-senior Treasury employees who perform law enforcement functions, as well as the cell phone numbers of all Treasury employees; (3) Treasury improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold office telephone numbers of FinCEN employees, as well as telephone numbers of Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence employees; and (4) Treasury properly invoked Exemption 1 to withhold names, titles, and phone numbers of non-leadership Office of Intelligence and Analysis employees.

Baldwin v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff, a former DOE employee; and (2) agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges), as well as cell phone numbers and conference call phone number pursuant to Exemption 6.

Jan. 22, 2020

Grey v. Cuccineli (D.S.C.) -- denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Vaughn Index after concluding that it would be more appropriate to wait until after summary judgment briefing to determine necessity of the index.

Jan. 17, 2020

Grand Canyon Trust v. Bernhardt (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester was ineligible for attorney’s fees because its lawsuit did not cause a voluntary or unilateral change in agency’s position; further ruling that the proper standard of review for causation was “clear error,” not de novo. In a concurring opinion, Judge Randolph stated that FOIA’s 2007 amendment did not restore the “catalyst theory” because the amended provision “requires only correlation not causation.”

Jan. 16, 2020

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. FDA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- in light of U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Food Market Inst. v. Argus Leader, vacating and remanding district court’s decision that FDA improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold four categories of inspection report information concerning egg production facilities.

Ullah v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold records about the disposition of detainee’s body after he died in agency’s overseas detention facility.

Jan, 15, 2020

Singh v. U.S. Dep’t of State (W.D. Was.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning denial of visa for plaintiff’s wife, and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States.

Niskanen Ctr. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.D.C.) -- concluding that names and addresses of private homeowners affected by pipeline were protected from disclosure under Exemption 6, and accepting government’s offer to release the initials of homeowners and the street addresses (but not house numbers).

James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) CIA properly withheld records pertaining to John Kiriakou pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 (attorney-client, attorney work product, and deliberative process); (2) FBI, EOUSA, and Nat’l Sec. Div. properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1; (3) FBI properly withheld its entire investigative file concerning Mr. Kiriakou pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Jan. 14, 2020

Bixseth v. U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enf't (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and 7(E).

Jan. 9, 2020

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Bernhardt (W.D. Va.) -- determining that plaintiff set forth sufficient allegations to establish standing to pursue claim that Department of the Interior unlawfully delays FOIA responses, in part, by employing polices and practices associated with an "Awareness Process Memorandum" issued by DOI on May 24, 2018, a "Deliberative Process Memorandum" issued to the Fish and Wildlife Service on September 6, 2018, and a "Foreseeable Harm Memorandum" issued by DOI on December 29, 2017.

Stevens v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't. (N.D. Ill.) -- ruling that: (1) ICE failed to perform adequate search for correspondence pertaining to U.S. citizenship claims; (2) ICE failed to show that it properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to redact “statement of the case" and "facts" sections of U.S. citizenship claims memoranda.

Jan. 8, 2020

Mich. Immigrant Rights Ctr. v DHS (E.D. Mich.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for award of interim fees after finding, among other things, that plaintiff would not suffer financial hardship or be unable to continue litigation, which was nearing its conclusion.

Jan. 6, 2020

Knight First Amendment Inst. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the the Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of certain records concerning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, notwithstanding State Department’s public statement about the matter.

Jan. 3, 2020

Bell v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to four murder victims and that it properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withheld certain information pertaining to living third parties.

Dec. 31, 2019

Flippin v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- dismissing action against U.S. Capitol Police because it is not an agency subject to FOIA, and dismissing action against DOI because plaintiff filed his suit on the same day he submitted his request, thus failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly withheld certain records concerning related to border fence/border wall contract proposals pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not contest; (2) agency failed to establish that Exemption 5 applied to withheld records or that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was met; and (3) agency failed to demonstrate that information withheld under Exemption 4 was customarily treated as confidential by particular submitters, provided under assurance of confidentiality, or met statute’s foreseeable harm standard.

Dec. 20, 2019

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision after finding that FBI failed to satisfactorily explain: (a) why files listed on search slip were not responsive to plaintiff’s request, or (b) how it confirmed that listed files had been destroyed.

Dec. 19, 2019

Freeman v. Exec. Office of US Attorneys (D. Colo.) -- concluding that EOUSA properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to withhold transcript of plaintiff’s cross examination before grand jury; noting that federal rule permitting witnesses the right to “review” their grand jury testimony is inapplicable to FOIA claims.

Pavement Coatings Tech. Council v. U.S. Geological Survey (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold various scientific research pertaining to coal tar sealants, and that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identifying information about volunteers participating in agency’s study.

Tokar v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- (1) declining to order briefing on plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs following DOJ’s mid-litigation decision to release emails previously withheld as “non-responsive”; (2) ruling that DOJ failed to establish that it properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of individual clients of corporate compliance monitors.

Dec. 17, 2019

Eakin v. DOD (W.D. Tex.) -- finding that: (1) Department of Defense properly declined to produce as “non-responsive” copies of FOIA requests embedded within thousands of Individual Deceased Personnel files of World War II soldiers; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold information about individuals who are alive; (3) court lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure of digital records that did not exist at time plaintiff submitted his request.

Dec. 16, 2019

Pendell v. U.S. Secret Serv. (N.D.N.Y.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal conviction and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Inter-Coop. Exch. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D. Alaska) -- ruling that: (1) government performed reasonable search for records concerning proposed crab price arbitration system standards, which included search of official’s social media and personal cell phone for texts and voicemail; (2) government properly redacted information from emails pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Smith v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't. (D. Colo.) -- permanently enjoining ICE from applying its standard operating procedure for denying FOA requests of fugitive aliens, rejecting agency’s argument that such withholdings are justified by Exemption 7(A).

Blixseth v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Coast Guard’s search for records concerning the interception of his yacht in 2010 was “impressive in its comprehensiveness” and that the agency “should be commended for . . . diligent efforts.”

Dec. 10, 2019

Ctr. for Investigating Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that Department of Labor improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold federal contractors' employment diversity reports (known as EEO-1 reports) because: (1) records did not meet threshold of “commercial or financial” information; (2) agency did not carry burden to show that all withheld records were confidential, as certain information was in public domain; and (3) agency did not demonstrate that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was satisfied.

Dec. 9, 2019

Williams v. DOJ (D. Utah) -- concluding that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility properly withheld in full certain documents concerning plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim pursuant to deliberative process privilege, but other documents included segregable non-exempt information; (2) OPR properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of “unnoteworthy individual witnesses, low-level governmental employees, and other obscure individuals,” but improperly withheld in full all “outlines, notes, and transcripts related to those individuals”; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records about third parties who were subjects of criminal investigation and ultimately not prosecuted; (4) dismissing as moot plaintiff’s request for Criminal Division’s records about Thomas Pickard because plaintiff did not dispute adequacy of agency’s search, which yielded no records.

Dec. 6, 2019

Khine v, DHS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision to dismiss suit because plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal with DHS before filing its lawsuit.

Climate Investigation Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency’s search for records concerning a clean-coal technology power plant should have included the Office of the Secretary; and (2) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold seven documents, but it neglected to perform segregability review.

DocuFreedom Inc. v. DOJ (D. Kan.) -- determining after in camera review that: (1) DOJ properly relied on attorney work-product privilege to withhold agency briefing papers, practice guides, training manuals, and commentaries on a variety of litigation issues'; and (2) DOJ properly withheld names and telephone numbers of Civil Division employees pursuant to Exemption 6.

Dec. 4, 2019

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) draft financial disclosure forms of former Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker were not protected by the deliberative process privilege, and (2) Exemption 6 protected certain financial information that Mr. Whitaker disclosed but which was not required to be reported.

Dec. 3, 2019

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Nat'l Sec. Comm'n (D.D.C.) -- holding that the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence is an “agency” subject to FOIA, and denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s expedition claim against the Department of Defense.

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't (D.D.C.) -- ruling that ICE properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of detainees from ICE arrest records on categorical basis.

Dec. 2, 2019

Satterlee v. Comm'r (W.D. Mo.) -- granting Treasury Department’s motion for reconsideration and dismissing lawsuit because plaintiff failed to present any evidence contradicting Treasury’s declaration that it never received plaintiff’s FOIA request.

Nat'l Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying EPA’s motion for reconsideration of court’s decision of August 30, 2019, because EPA sought to relitigate issues already carefully considered and decided.

Nov. 27, 2019

Smith v. Nat’l Archives & Records Admin. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Presidential Records Act precluded judicial review of NARA’s Glomar response to plaintiff’s FOIA request for letters from President George W. Bush to Israel regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and (2) NARA’s properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of letters sent by President Clinton to Israel regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Democracy Forward Found. v. Ctr. for Medicaid Serv. (D.D.C.) -- rejecting agency’s deliberative process privilege claims to withhold three categories of records about agency’s Affordable Care Act outreach efforts, because agency failed to demonstrate that it released all segregable information or that certain communications fell within consultant corollary principle.

Mattachine Soc.of Wash. D.C. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $178,448 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with its litigation against FBI for records concerning Executive Order 10450, noting that FBI’s search was “highly unreasonable and extremely suspicious.”

Nov. 26, 2019

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI improperly issued Glomar response pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C regarding communications between FBI and private attorney, because FBI publicly testified before Congress that such communications occurred.

Nov. 25, 2019

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash v. HUD. (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss after finding that plaintiffs’ complaint sufficiently alleged that, “as a matter of policy or practice, HUD denies [fee] waivers without giving them adequate consideration, particularly when the request’s subject may reflect poorly on the agency or its senior officials”

Ctr. for Public Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ordering DOD and OMB to process Ukraine-related records by certain dates after finding that the balance of hardships and the public interest weighed in favor of expediting the production of documents.

Nov. 24, 2019

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD (N.D. Cal.) -- see summary here.

Nov. 19, 2019

Shaw v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Criminal Division properly withheld emails between employee and former law firm colleagues as non-agency records because they were created and used for purely personal reasons unrelated to DOJ activities or plaintiff; and (2) agency properly redacted certain personal information pursuant to Exemption 6, which was not overcome by plaintiff’s bare allegations of government misconduct.

Nov. 18, 2019

Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that FBI improperly issued Exemption 7(E) Glomar response to portion of request regarding FBI’s acquisition of “any product or service that searches, filters, monitors, or collects content on any social media network” in the contexts of immigration and transportation.

 Jobe v. NTSB, No. 18-10547 (E.D. La.) -- even though 5th Circuit recognizes the consultant corollary, ruling that inter- or intra-agency threshold not satisfied by documents submitted by aircraft manufacturers to NTSB in connection with air crash investigation because those parties represent “the epitome of ‘self-interested’ individuals”; further ruling that documents created by NTSB and sent to manufacturer and leasing company were not covered by the deliberative process privilege “because they do not constitute “disinterested” consultants under the “consultant corollary.”    

Nov. 15, 2019

Cause of Action Inst. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- holding that Internet browsing histories of certain OMB and USDA officials were not “agency records” after finding that agencies did not make use of them in any way.

Am. Immigration Council v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that EOIR performed reasonable search for “non-emergency stay” immigration case records, but that it failed to adequately search for training material for immigration court judges.

Nov. 12, 2019

Roberson v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit after finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s final determinations on his three requests.

Nov. 7, 2019

Kanam v. Office of Benton Peterson (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because he sent FOIA request to an Assistant United States Attorney instead of to the FOIA office that maintains the records or to DOJ’s mail referral unit, as required by DOJ regulations.

Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA improperly refused to confirm or deny -- pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 — the existence of records referring to payments (in general, not by CIA specifically) to Syrian rebels fighting Assad, because tweet from President Trump officially acknowledged that “U.S. government had some knowledge of some payments to Syrian rebels.

Nov. 5, 2019

Hardimon v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (E.D. Mo.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for plea agreements associated with multiple criminal cases.

Nov. 4, 2019

Singh v. FAA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- affirming district court’s decision that FAA properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for flight records over specified street address and surrounding neighborhoods and that agency performed reasonable search.

Nov. 1, 2019

Inst. for Justice v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency performed reasonable search or properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records contained in “Asset ForfeitureTracking and Retrieval System”; (2) reversing district court’s decision that agency properly redacted information pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and that plaintiff failed to challenge any of agency’s Exemption 7(F) withholdings; and (3) affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

Oct. 29, 2019

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in dispute over records concerning involvement of medical professionals in interrogation programs, finding that: (1) Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense properly withheld four documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but failed to show that privilege applied to fifth document generated in part by non-government entity; (2) U.S. Navy properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) U.S. Army properly withheld all but six documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege and properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold two documents, but it failed to justify most withholdings that were based on various combinations of Exemption 5 privileges and failed to establish that it released all segregable, non-exempt records; (4) U.S. Special Operation Command failed to show that comments by former prisoner of war on were protected by deliberative process privilege; (5) Defense Intelligence Agency failed to explain how Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 justified withholding document in full; (6) U.S. Central Command properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 1; and (7) Joint Task Force Guantanamo failed to justify its withholdings under Exemption 7(E).

Oct. 28, 2019

DBW Partners v.. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) USPS improperly issued Exemption 6 Glomar response to request for ethics investigatory records of agency’s Chief Customer and Marketing Officer; and (2) Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act to redact report concerning agency’s partnership programs, but if failed to demonstrate that it released all segregable non-exempt information.

Oct. 22, 2019

Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) -- (1) affirming district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 2 to withhold minimum passing score for assessment test used to hire air traffic controllers; plaintiff’s assessment score; and applicant information for a particular air traffic controller opening; (2) affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact personal email addresses of FAA employees from emails sent or received by FAA employee suspected of misconduct; (3) vacating and remanding district court’s ruling that certain emails sent or received by FAA employee were not agency records; declining to fully embrace D.C. Circuit’s four-factor test to determine whether agency “controls” records and holding that a court may consider “a range of evidence.”

Oct. 18, 2019

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s motion to transfer case challenging EPA’s FOIA regulations to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Oct. 16, 2019

Heffernan v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) HHS performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to 2007 review of agency’s Department of Spiritual Ministry, and (2) HHS properly withheld draft press release exchanged with third party pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, in conjunction with the consultant corollary doctrine. The court’s initial opinion is here.

Oct. 15, 2019

Robert v. CIA (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision concerning Iran-Contra Affair and rejecting appellant’s argument that district court erred in relying on agency declarations or failed to properly consider Executive Order 13526.

Nightingale v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (N.D. Cal.) -- granting class certification to plaintiffs seeking access to immigration files, specifically Alien Registration files, citing government’s “systematic failure of making timely determinations” on their FOIA requests.

Oct. 4, 2019

Scott v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin. (11th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that TIGTA properly withheld — pursuant to Exemption 6 — certain investigatory records concerning plaintiff’s complaint against IRS employee.

Sept. 30, 2019

Gwich’in Steering Comm v. U.S Dep't of the Interior (D. Alaska) -- granting government’s motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which is already adjudicating a similar case between overlapping parties.

Highland Capital Mgmt. v. IRS (N.D. Tex.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for records concerning 2008 audit of plaintiff; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (in conjunction 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a)) and Exemptions 6 and 7(E); (3) agency’s withholdings under the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges were proper in part and improper in part; and (3) agency failed to justify withholdings under Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7).

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) Veterans Affairs properly relied on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records pertaining to Brady Act regulations; (2) FBI conducted adequate search for various records concerning regulation of firearm ownership and it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); (3) Office of Attorney General failed to perform adequate search for requested records; and (4) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly withheld internal talking points pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Sigler v. HHS (C.D. Cal.) -- finding that agency conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s HIPAA complaints and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 4, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

O'Brien v. DOJ (E.D. Pa.) -- dismissing case against FBI because agency averred that it did not receive plaintiff’s requests, all of which were misaddressed.

Osen v. U.S. Central Command (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that plaintiff was barred by collateral estoppel from challenging redactions of names and identifying information of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in attacks on Americans in Iraq; alternatively holding that government’s redactions were proper pursuant to Exemption 6.

Sept. 29, 2019

Barton v. U.S. Geological Survey (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiffs $61,619.81 in attorneys fees and costs for substantially prevailing in case involving research report about Rock Creek Park; deducting $44,000 from amount requested by plaintiffs after concluding that their attorneys’ hourly rates were too high and that their “fee on fees” request was excessive.

Judicial Watch v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records concerning investigation of Michael Flynn; (2) Glomar responses of Treasury Department and CIA were not undermined by public statements of President Trump or White House.

Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) court did not have sufficient information to resolve question whether certain emails were Army, EOP, or both Army and EOP records; and (2) Army properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names of Army personnel below the rank of Colonel and civilian personnel below the GS-15 pay grade who did not otherwise interact with the media.

Sept. 28, 2019

Schneider v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI conducted adequate search for background investigation records pertaining to plaintiff and that it properly withheld contested records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Brady Ctr. To Prevent Gun Violence v. DOJ (D.D.C.) --finding that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives failed to perform adequate search for records concerning 2017 White Paper about reducing firearm regulations; and (2) ATF properly withheld email attachments wholly unrelated to subject of request as “out of scope.”

Sept. 27, 2019

NY Times v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- concluding that Attorney General Holder’s public statements waived attorney work-product privilege with respect to portion of only one of five memoranda regarding CIA treatment of detainees overseas, reversing in part and affirming in part district court’s decision that Holder had “expressly adopted” contents of all memoranda.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Army Corp of Engineers and U.S. Customs & Border Protection performed adequate search for records provided to President-elect Trump’s Transition Team about construction of wall on southern border, and (2) all disputed withholdings were justified under Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(E).

Sept. 25, 2019

S. Entl. Law Ctr. v. Mulvaney (W.D. Va.) -- determining that Office of Management and Budget failed to perform adequate search for agency reform plans and did not provide court with sufficient information to determine whether OMB properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Cvijanovich v. U.S. Secret Serv. (D. N. Dak.) -- ruling that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5, 7(A), 7(E), and 7(F).

Sept. 24, 2019

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ failed to meet its burden to detail the reasonably foreseeable harms that would occur if agency disclosed emails of Sally Yates, which DOJ withheld under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).

Prop. of People, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI needed to submit Vaughn Index in order for court determine whether FBI properly issued partial Glomar response under Exemptions 6 & 7(C) to protect certain records about Congressman Dana Roherbacher; and (2) FBI did not perform adequate search for other records pertaining to Congressman Rohrabacher.

Sept. 23, 2019

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting in part and denying in part government’s use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold records concerning the government’s authority to deport individuals from the United States based on their speech, beliefs, or associations.

Broward Bulldog, Inc. v. DOJ (11th Cir.) -- (1) affirming district court’s decision that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning 9/11 Review Commission and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and 7(E); and (2) reversing district court’s decision that FBI improperly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and that FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

Sept. 20, 2019

Morris v. SEC (D.D.C) -- ruling that agency was not required to perform search for requested records concerning child custody proceedings in Texas state courts, because agency sufficiently explained why it would not possess such records and plaintiff offered no contrary evidence.

Sept. 19, 2019

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff failed to file administrative appeal with respect to request for FBI’s investigatory records concerning former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email account, noting that FBI’s letter and two dozen interim productions and representations from two virtually identical lawsuits with same counsel constituted final determination to comply with plaintiff’s FOIA request.

Sept. 17, 2019

Shepherd v. CFPB (D.D.C. ) -- ruling that CFPB improperly relied on Exemption 6 to redact certain telephone numbers from records of Leandra English, because agency failed to demonstrate that the numbers belonged to private individuals.

Sept. 15, 2019

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD (N.D. Cal.) -- granting plaintiff’s request to depose Lockheed Martin declarants in Exemption 4 dispute, because declarants provided contradictory statements as to whether the company customarily keeps requested records confidential.

Sept. 13, 2019

Majuc v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ failed to show that Exemption 7(A) protected records of criminal investigation into company that pleaded guilty in 2014 for evading economic sanctions against Sudan, Iran, and Cuba.

Silbaugh v. Pizzella (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that Department of Labor performed reasonable search for records responsive to plaintiff’s multiple requests and that it did not withhold any records.

Knight First Amend. Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. DHS (S.D.N.Y) - -

Sept. 12, 2019

Heartland All. for Human Needs & Human Rights v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed adequate search of field offices but not its program offices for records concerning detention beds and bond amounts for detainees; (2) agency did not justify its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 5 and failed to provide Vaughn Index for disputed bond-related records; and (3) OMB properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege

Sept. 11, 2019

Barry v. Koskinen (D. N.J.) -- determining that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from IRS denial of his request for oaths, qualifications, and bonds of certain agency employees.

Sept. 10, 2019

Wen Dong Zhao v. U.S. Dep't of State (2nd Cir.) -- summary order affirming district court’s decision that agency performed reasonable search for research documents that plaintiff allegedly provided to the United States Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand in 2003.

Long v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- of note, holding that CIA had not demonstrated that writing new computer code to locate responsive records in its FOIA database or compiling resulting records would constitute creation of new records or be “extremely burdensome.”

Sept. 6, 2019

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff’s claim concerning family company’s tax return was precluded by prior decision issued by another federal court; and (2) agency performed adequate searches for documents associated with plaintiff’s grandfather and the estate of plaintiff’s father.

Sept. 5, 2019

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly redacted national security-related events mentioned on former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s calendars, with one possible exception, pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege.

Sept. 3, 2019

Dorsey & Whitney v. USPS (D. Minn.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation that Postal Service failed to demonstrate that it properly refused to confirm or deny existence of negotiated service agreements between USPS and private parties pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2) ("good business” exception).

Aug. 30, 2019

Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. (D.D.C.) -- determining that Dep’t of Defense did not provide sufficient information to permit court to uphold agency’s Exemption 7(D) redactions on two pages of plaintiff’s employment background investigation.

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration of court’s interlocutory order even if he did not receive DOJ’s motion for summary judgment; (2) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable searches for records concerning three criminal cases'; and (3) following in camera review, Federal Bureau of Prisons properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 7(F).

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) EPA performed reasonable search for records about chemical office’s deputy assistant administrator; (2) EPA properly withheld certain documents pursuant to attorney-client privilege; (3) EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold drafts of agency rules, formal guidance, scoping documents, issue papers, reports, and documents, but it improperly withheld certain “messaging,” briefing and program documents. In reaching its decision, the court determined that EPA had satisfied the statute’s independent foreseeable harm standard.

Aug. 29, 2019

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. USDA (9th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, holding that statute authorized courts to order agencies to comply with “reading room” provisions (in this case, online posting of “frequently requested” records generated by the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service), and remanding to district court to determine whether plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies.

Junk v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that records concerning three loans issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York do not constitute agency records of the Board.

White Coat Waste Project v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold name of principal investigator on animal research protocol, and that agency failed to provide it with sufficient information to determine whether principal investigator's name was properly withheld under Exemption 6.

Aug. 27, 2019

Satterlee v. Comm'r of IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- dismissing action against IRS because plaintiff did not send request to appropriate official or address, but finding that request to Treasury used address “very similar” to address provided in agency regulations and should have been forwarded to appropriate office for processing.

Aug. 22, 2019

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold modeling computer program that evaluates cost and effectiveness of certain emission-reduction technologies. In reaching its decision, the court found that EPA had satisfied the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.

Aug. 21, 2019

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD. (D. Mont.) -- determining that: (1) Army Corps of Engineers failed to perform adequate search for records concerning anticipated protests at Keystone XL pipeline and that if failed to justify withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(A); (2) Bureau of Land Management properly withheld information pursuant to attorney-client privilege, but failed to justify deliberative process privilege withholdings ; and (3) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pursuant to Exemption 7(A).

Aug. 20. 2019

Smith v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- vacating its earlier opinion and finding that CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of intelligence budget, specifically line items supporting Israel from 1990 through 2015.

Aug. 19, 2019

Prop. of People, Inc. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- ruling that OMB properly withheld calendar entries related to National Security Council meetings pursuant to presidential communications privilege of Exemption 5.

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. ATF (S.D.N.Y) -- holding that: (1) appropriations rider prohibiting expenditure of funds to release firearms trace information in response to FOIA requests does not qualify as Exemption 3 statute because it does not cite that statutory provision as required by 2009 FOIA amendments; and (2) request for various statistical information concerning firearms used in suicides or attempted suicides would not require creation of new records.

Aug. 15, 2019

Humane Soc'y Int'l v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) names of names of individual wildlife importers and exporters were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C); and (2) parties were required to readdress whether disputed information was properly withheld under Exemption 4 in light of Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating National Parks test.

Behar v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that U.S. Secret Service Service properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of law enforcement personnel from records concerning Donald Trump’s meetings as presidential candidate and as president-elect, but that declarations did not sufficiently address privacy interests of other third parties.

Aug. 14, 2019

The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D. Conn.) -- ruling that agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to redact names of subject matter experts working on disability claims pertaining to contaminated water at Marine base Camp Lejune,

Aug. 13, 2019

Higgs v. U.S. Park Police (7th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that FBI did not justify its use of Exemption 7(C) to withhold records about third parties involved in plaintiff’s triple-murder conviction. The Seventh Circuit found that even though record was not fully developed as to varying interests of third parties, plaintiff’s public interest arguments -- namely that disclosure would reveal government misconduct and educate public about DOJ’s execution of its law-enforcement duties -- could not not overcome those privacy interests.

N.Y. Legal Assistance Grp.. v. Bd. of Immigration Appeals (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that neither FOIA nor Administrative Procedure Act permitted the court to order agency to publish requested material in electronic reading room.

Aug. 12, 2019

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. USDA (9th Cir., 2019) -- affirming decision that district court had jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim that USDA had policy or practice of denying plaintiff’s requests for expedited processing, and also affirming district court’s decision that threats to safety of animals do not fall within statute’s expedited processing provision -- nor, in dicta, within Exemption 7(F).

Cable New Network v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- denying FBI’s motion to reconsider prior opinion granting access to FBI declaration, rejecting argument that FBI had “effectively” invoked Exemption 3 despite never mentioning it in briefs or declarations.

Aug. 8, 2019

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- deciding that Commerce and U.S. Office of Government Ethics submitted deficient Vaughn indices and failed to demonstrate that they released all segregable, non-exempt information -- in particular the authors, recipients, dates, and subject fields of emails, letters, and memoranda, which government claimed had no informational value.

Aug. 7, 2019

BuzzFeed v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- ordering agency to reprocess records pertaining to sexual harassment investigations after finding that agency applied Exemptions 6 and 7(C) too broadly.

Aug. 6, 2019

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold two categories of records concerning the Hemisphere Project, a program that collects daily data on telephone calls.

Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- determining that: (1) DOJ failed to perform adequate search for records pertaining to government’s investigation into its prosecution of arson case; (2) DOJ failed to submit adequate Vaughn Index; and (3) privacy waivers of third parties submitted by plaintiff would override DOJ’s assertions of Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Open Soc'y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying government’s motion to reconsider court’s order that Department of State and Department of Defense each process 5000 pages per month in case concerning death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Aug. 2, 2019

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, determining that: (1) FBI needed to provide more detailed showing in order to rely solely upon Exemption 7(C) to withhold material sought by grand jury; (2) Office of Professional Responsibility properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6; and (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), as court had ruled in earlier opinion.

Aug. 1, 2019

Flores v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to speeches given by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and that disputed withholdings pursuant to Exemption 6 were proper.

July 31, 2019

Gatson v. FBI (3rd Cir.) (not precedential) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBO properly withhold records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) or, in the alternative, Exemptions 3, 5. 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(F).

Buckovetz v. Dep't of Navy (S.D. Cal.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that: (1) agency has improper policy and practice of closing duplicative requests from same requester as moot; and (2) agency failed to provide all records in response to a duplicative request.

Inst. for Policy Studies v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency improperly construed definition of a “record” and ordering agency to process entire six-page intelligence report even though the subject of request was mentioned in only one portion of report.

July 30, 2019

Sauter v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that U.S. Air Force, and CIA performed adequate searches for records concerning Korean War pilot, shot down in 1951, and that Defense Intelligence Agency properly determined that any responsive records would be maintained by Department of Defense’s POW/MIA Accounting Agency.

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of Information Policy performed adequate search for records concerning U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation into claims of FBI misconduct and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery notwithstanding DOJ’s initial mistakes in earlier declaration.

James Madison Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that government had not justified its reliance on Exemptions 1, 3, 7(D), and 7(E) to redact FISA applications concerning Carter page in light of White House press release stating that President had directed government to declassify those records.

July 29, 2019

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that GSA failed to perform adequate search for communications between agency and White House concerning renovation of FBI headquarters..

Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights v. DHS (D.D.C. 2019) -- ordering government to: (1) release location-identifying data in all produced records concerning Secure Communities program, (2) re-produce an earlier production in native format, and (3) release two Identifier codes in all produced records, which court found did not fall within Exemption 7(E).

July 26, 2019

Mora-Villalpando v. ICE (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) ICE performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, an undocumented immigrant and anti-ICE activist; (2) ICE failed to perform reasonable search for certain records concerning ICE enforcement operations against other immigration activists; and (3) plaintiff’s request for I-213 forms of other immigrations activists was not reasonably described in light of agency’s record system.

July 25, 2019

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that statute’s “foreseeable harm” standard “does impose an independent and meaningful burden on agencies” and rejecting “generic, across-the-board articulations of harm provided by the EPA as to a broad range of document types -- that "[r]elease of the withheld information would discourage open and frank discussion" and "have a chilling effect on the Agency's decision-making processes" -- does not sufficiently "explain how a particular Exemption 5 withholding would harm the agency's deliberative process."

Braun v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI and CIA performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and his father; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny whether plaintiff’s name appeared on any watch lists; and (3) CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of responsive classified records.

July 24, 2019

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- following remand from D.C. Circuit, concluding that FBI properly redacted two-page document pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) on reconsideration of earlier decision, Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not protect names of lawyer(s) who represented confidential source because they had “little or no privacy interest in their ‘representational capacity’ as counsel;” and (2) name of law firm that represented confidential source likewise was not exempt from disclosure.

Satterlee v. Comm’r of IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- determining that Bureau of the Fiscal Service performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and did not withhold any responsive documents.

July 22, 2019

N.Y. Times Co. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records pertaining to Paul Manafort, Richard W. Gates, and Michael Flynn even though the existence of some investigations regarding those individuals are publicly known.

July 19, 2019

Brooks v. Trump (D. Nev.) -- ruling that pro se prisoner improperly named President Trump as defendant in case in which Department of Justice allegedly failed to respond to plaintiff’s FOIA request.

July 18, 2019

Charnock v. Barr (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ’s Civil Rights Division performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s disability complaint against the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Silbaugh v. Acosta (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s discovery request concerning Department of Labor’s search was premature because agency had yet not filed affidavits or declarations.

July 17, 2019

Cause of Action Inst. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- holding that court had subject-matter jurisdiction to consider whether records exchanged between IRS and U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation were agency records.

July 15, 2019

Animal Welfare Inst. v. USDA (W.D.N.Y. ) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff’s “reading room” claim regarding non-compliance records was sufficient to survive motion to dismiss; and (2) agency failed to show that transferring venue to District of Columbia was warranted.

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ordering parties to re-brief applicability of Exemption 4 to contractors’ nuclear testing site records in light of Supreme Court’s decision in Argus Leader, and to provide additional briefing on applicability of consultant corollary theory to withhold records pursuant to Exemption 5.

Ctr. for Popular Democracy v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (E.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency failed to conduct adequate search for records concerning Board and Reserve Bank leadership, and upholding agency’s uncontested withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6.

July 12, 2019

Rocky Mounty Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- ordering plaintiff to return, delete, or permanently destroy certain privileged records that agency inadvertently produced in response to FOIA request.

Prot. Our Defenders v. DOD (D. Conn.) -- finding that: (1) Air Force did not satisfactorily explain its searches for records concerning the agency’s “diversity team”; (2) Air Force properly withheld certain records pursuant to attorney-client and deliberative process privileges, except with respect to recommendations contained in “Talking Paper" on diversity efforts; (3) four DOD components and the Coast Guard improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold non-purely personal information from Staff Judge Advocate biographies; and (4) names of military personnel redacted from other requested records did not fall within Exemption 6 because the records did not constitute "personnel and medical files and similar files."

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was entitled to public interest fee waiver for request concerning his criminal case, because disclosure would “educate the public about a larger pattern of prosecutorial misconduct in the Eastern District of North Carolina.”

July 11, 2019

Reinhard v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that U.S. Coast Guard provided sufficient justification for invoking Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff’s firing, except for witness interview and notes.

July 10, 2019

Civil Beat Law Ctr. for the Pub. Interest v. CDC (9th Cir.) -- ruling that: (1) dispute over agency’s withholding of letter detailing regulatory violations at University of Hawaii’s bio-laboratory was moot because agency released letter while appeal was pending; (2) reversing and remanding district court’s judgment that agency properly withheld all references to University of Hawaii’s bio-laboratory pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002; and (3) affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld names and contact information of CDC employees who performed inspection of bio-laboratory.

July 9, 2019

N.Y. Times v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that with two minor exceptions, agency properly relied on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold two chain emails concerning Transportation Secretary Chao’s planned trip to China in 2017.

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that “government-misconduct” exception did not apply to records withheld by EOUSA pursuant to deliberative process privilege and that agency otherwise met its burden of producing responsive records.

July 8, 2019

Welenc v. DOJ (D.D.C. ) -- determining that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6.

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency’s Glomar response was improper because agency failed to identify which FOIA exemption it was relying upon.

July 3, 2019

Davis v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI and Secret Service performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff; (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Bank Secrecy Act, and Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E); and (3) Secret Service properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Pichardo-Martinez v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency failed to demonstrate the adequacy of its search for records concerning plaintiff and failed to justify its application of Exemption 7(C) and 7(E).

July 2, 2019

Democracy Forward Found. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that electronic communications of President-elect Trump’s transition team were not agency records subject to FOIA.

July 1, 2019

Jordan v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for relief from judgment, which had been affirmed by D.C. Circuit, that agency properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withheld one email concerning plaintiff’s litigation against third party.

June 30, 2019

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold draft talking points prepared for Attorney General concerning FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s email use and the Attorney General’s meeting with President Clinton at Phoenix airport in June 2016.

June 28, 2019

Johnson v. CIA (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision and holding that agency did not waive Exemptions 1 and 3 by sending information to three reporters.

June 25, 2019

Nikaj v. U.S. Dep't of State (W.D. Wash.) -- concluding that agency properly withheld certain records concerning plaintiff’s unsuccessful visa applications pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Immigration & Nationality Act), 6, and 7(C).

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI properly relied on attorney-work product privilege to withhold agent interviews of President Obama and his advisors concerning former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

June 24, 2019

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (S.Ct.) -- reversing Eighth Circuit’s decision and holding that commercial and financial information is “confidential” under Exemption 4 when it is customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy,

June 21, 2019

Whittaker v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI failed to explain with reasonable specificity how Exemption 7(E) categorically protects the results of its “National Agency Check.”

Poulsen v. DOD (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees notwithstanding government’s partial withdrawal of Glomar responses following two intervening public acknowledgments relevant to plaintiff’s request.

June 18, 2019

McGehee v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to reconsider summary judgment ruling in case concerning FBI’s investigation of Jonestown massacre, because plaintiff failed to show change of controlling law, availability of new evidence, or clear error or manifest injustice, as required by FRCP 59(e).

Wolk Law Firm v. NTSB (E.D. Pa.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to withhold records concerning multiple accident investigations, including cell phone video of airplane’s cockpit. The court further held that FOIA did not compel production of actual airplane wreckage, as it falls outside meaning of “agency record.”

June 17, 2019

Jenkins v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s state criminal case, noting that EOUSA was not required to retrieve records from any other DOJ component, e.g., FBI.

June 14, 2019

DiBacco v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.C. Cir.) — affirming district court’s decision that: (1) U.S. Army performed adequate search for records concerning Nazi general Reinhard Gehlen; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with National Security Act of 1947 and CIA Act of 1949.

Sluss v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) DOJ failed to provide sufficient information for court to determine whether deliberative process privilege applied to memoranda concerning plaintiff’s request to be transferred to Canadian prison; (2) with respect to Exemption 7(F) withholdings, DOJ failed to show that disclosure would reasonably endanger plaintiff’s life, as agency alleged, but ordering documents to be released to and maintained by plaintiff’s counsel only; (3) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold information pertaining to third parties; and (4) DOJ failed to demonstrate that it performed adequate search for records concerning penal treaty between Canada and the United States.

June 12, 2019

AquAlliance v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmosphereric Admin. (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for $41,000 in fees and costs because agency acted reasonably in processing “massive amount” of documents once the lawsuit was filed.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part agency’s use of attorney-client and deliberative process privileges to withhold records concerning agency’s use of personal email by or under Secretary Clinton.

June 7, 2019

Cable News Network v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with the National Security Act of 1947, to redact information from James Comey’s memos concerning his meeting with President Trump; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 1 with respect to 12 of 20 redactions from Comey’s memos.

Daily Caller News Found. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- denying FBI’s request for an Open America stay because agency failed to show “exceptional circumstances” or that it made sufficient progress in reducing its backlog; denying plaintiff’s request for FBI to process 1200 pages per month instead of FBI’s usual rate of 500 pages per month.

June 3, 2019

Humane Soc'y of U.S. v. Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold narrative portion of inspection reports, among other items, noting that privacy exemptions do not protect “details about a business’s compliance with regulations and statutes;” further noting that government failed to demonstrate that disclosure would likely invite harassment and stigma; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold licensee addresses and contact information from the inspection documents, as well as third-parties’ names, images, and personally identifying information.

May 31, 2019

Kopp v. U.S. Secret Serv. (N.D. Cal.) -- awarding $21,692.66 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with request for records concerning Donald Trump, Jr.’s trip to India, rejecting government’s argument that two of plaintiff’s requests were overly broad and vague.

May 30, 2019

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. NSA (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that six intelligence program documents were exempt from disclosure under Exemptions 1 and 3, and that a DOJ/Office of Legal Counsel memorandum was protected pursuant to Exemption 5. Notably, the Circuit rejected appellant’s arguments that the government’s Exemption 5 withholdings were undermined by the doctrines of “working law,” “express adoption,” or “incorporation by reference.”

May 23, 2019

Satterlee v. Comm’r of IRS (W.D. Mo., 2019) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to three of his four requests, which sought various records concerning tax liens; (2) plaintiff’s fourth request was improper because it sought the creation of a records or the answer to a question; and (3) plaintiff was not entitled to expedited processing or to the litigation costs he incurred.

May 22, 2019

Pub. Citizen. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records pertaining to agency event, notably including the name of agency attorney from whom advice was sought.

Amadis v. DOJ (D.D.C. ) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to responses issued by DEA and FBI, notwithstanding those agencies’ offers to perform additional searches; (2) DEA performed adequate search for records pertaining to agency’s processing of plaintiff’s earlier FOIA request; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold search slips and case notes pertaining to its processing of plaintiff’s earlier FOIA request; (4) DOJ’s Office of Information Policy reasonably interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request and properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 to withhold information from its appeal “blitz” forms; (5) Department of State performed adequate search for records pertaining to its processing of plaintiff’s earlier FOIA request.

May 17, 2019

Proctor v. NARA (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) to withhold plaintiff's 1998 deposition transcript regarding Monica Lewinsky, except as to the identities of the prosecutors, the court reporter, and plaintiff; and (2) court did not have inherent authority to release remaining deposition transcript; that authority belonged to the Eastern District of Virginia, under whose supervision the transcript was produced.

May 16, 2019

Humane Soc'y v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (E.D. Va.) -- concluding that: (1) agency released copies of all requested African elephant and lion trophy permits, which mooted plaintiff’s claim; and (2) FOIA’s reading room provision did not obligate government to publish permitting records created in the future on a continuous basis.

Willis v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld name of agency employee pursuant to Exemption 6.

May 10, 2019

Scott v. U.S. Attorney Offices (D. Md.) -- dismissing lawsuit after determining that plaintiff failed to appeal EOUSA’s initial response to his request and that EOUSA released all responsive records.

May 8, 2019

Chetal v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (N.D. Cal.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for sanctions after finding that government produced records ordered to be released.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Me. Found. v. DHS (D. Me.) -- upholding in part DHS’s Exemption 7(E) redactions to records concerning immigration investigations in which government officers stopped bus passengers to ask whether they are United States citizens.

May 1, 2019

Yagman v. Haspel (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- (1) reversing district court’s decision that plaintiff failed to reasonably describe his request for records pertaining to torture and that plaintiff was not entitled to costs for prior, successful appeal; (2) affirming district court’s decision to deny plaintiff’s motion to disqualify judge.

Apr. 30, 2019

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- in a 2-1 opinion, affirming district court’s decision to dismiss plaintiff’s claim seeking all formal written opinion of Office of Legal Counsel, as well as indices of those opinions, under so-called “reading-room” provision. The dissent argued that the majority erroneously placed burden on plaintiff to request records that were not exempt, and that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive motion to dismiss.

Brennan Ctr. for Justice at N.Y. Univ. Sch. of Law v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) DHS and OMB performed inadequate search for records pertaining to President Trump’s voter integrity commission; and (2) government was required to determine whether relevant custodians maintained responsive records on their personal email accounts, because plaintiff produced evidence that two agency employees maintained such records.

Willis v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D.D.C.) -- finding that NSA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of intelligence records pertaining to plaintiff under Exemptions 1 and 3, and that it performed adequate search for non-intelligence records.

Apr. 29, 2019

Am.. Oversight v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that EPA maintains a policy or practice of refusing to process any request for communications records unless a requester provides a subject matter or keyword for the search.

Apr. 28, 2019

Hardway v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) CIA performed adequate search for only one of four categories of records concerning plaintiffs, who participated in congressional investigations of assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King; and (2) CIA properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. § 3507, to redact CIA employees’ names and signatures that appeared on the two non-disclosure agreements.

Apr. 27, 2019

Minkovski v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (E.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that Treasury performed adequate search for records concerning Sheryl Sandberg in her role as chief of staff to Secretary Larry Summers.

Apr. 24, 2019

Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s opinion and finding that: (1) FAA failed to demonstrate the adequacy of its search for records concerning employment test; and (2) “consultant corollary” principle relied upon by FAA was “contrary to Exemption 5’s text and FOIA’s policy of broad disclosure, and its legal foundation . . . is tenuous at best.”

Apr. 22, 2019

Statton v. Fla. Fed. Judicial Nominating Comm'n (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that entity formed by U.S. Senators Nelson and Rubio to recommend federal judges to President did not constitute “agency” for FOIA purposes, nor did its individual chairperson.

Apr. 19, 2019

Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge EPA’s policy or practice of threatening to deem FOIA requests as “voluntarily withdrawn” when: (a) the agency concludes on an initial review that the request does not “reasonably describe” the records sought and so notifies the requester, and (b) the requester fails to contact the EPA within ten days regarding the asserted deficiency in the request; and (2) neither party had sufficiently explained whether plaintiff had statutory standing or could obtain injunctive or similar relief.

Apr. 18, 2019

Kriemelmeyer v. U.S. Dept. of State (W.D. Wis.) -- concluding that: (1) DOJ’s National Security Division performed adequate search for Foreign Agent Registration records and was under no obligation to inform plaintiff that he could have searched pubic database for same records; (2) Department of State properly denied plaintiff’s request for records pertaining to his passport application because plaintiff failed to certify his identity in accordance with agency regulations.

Apr. 17, 2019

Elec. Frontier Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning agency’s use, training, and recruitment of informants at computer repair facilities; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain records concerning use of informants at Best Buy; (3) FBI failed to provide sufficient information to allow court to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protected name of criminal convicted on evidence obtained from Best Buy in Kentucky; (4) FBI did not sufficiently explain grounds for invoking Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to categorically withhold informant files for eight confidential informants acknowledged in criminal case.

Apr. 15, 2019

Rose v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive had no record of receiving of plaintiff’s request, which was addressed to a facility that moved ten years ago.

Apr. 12, 2019

Rose v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive had no record of receiving of plaintiff’s request, which was addressed to a facility that moved ten years ago.

Apr. 11, 2019

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold third-party information from three criminal case files, but that it failed to adequately explain its search for emails.

Poitras v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees after finding that: (1) plaintiff had self-interested motives to seek records concerning her repeated border and airport detentions; and (2) withholdings by agencies were proper, let alone reasonable.

Apr. 10, 2019

Wessler v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that U.S. Marshals Service improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold medical records of federal pretrial detainees who died in the agency’s custody.

Apr. 9, 2019

Wolk Law Firm v. NTSB (E.D. Pa.) -- concluding that: (1) cell phone video of airplane cockpit was protected by Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 1114(c)(1); (2) agency was required to produce documents concerning the chain-of-custody of airplane wreckage; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 2, 4, 5, and 6.

Jordan v. DOL (W.D. Mo.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after finding that the agency disclosed to plaintiff the “very documents he sought in one of the formats he sought.”

Rogers v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s civil forfeiture settlement agreement with IRS barred FOIA plaintiff’s request to Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for related records and declining to extend D.C. Circuit’s 2017 holding regarding validity of FOIA waivers set forth in criminal plea agreements.

Apr. 8, 2019

Siegelman v. DOJ (N.D. Ala.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to a “modest award of fees and costs,” not $72,820 as requested, after the Office of Professional Responsibility released 37 pages pertaining to the prosecution of plaintiff’s father, Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama.

Apr. 4, 2019

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s request for nearly $104,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with request for assassination records concerning Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that court should abandon D.C. Circuit’s four-factor entitlement test and concluding that CIA acted reasonably in response to plaintiff’s request.

Apr. 3, 2019

Gizmodo Media Grp. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that DOJ’s National Security Division properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to alleged wiretaps of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, notwithstanding President Trump’s statements on the subject.

Apr. 1, 2019

Hohman v. IRS (6th Cir.) (unpublished)-- concluding that appellant offered no compelling reason for failing to appeal magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to district court, and thus affirming district court’s decision that government properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records from Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration concerning agency misconduct.

Mar. 31, 2019

Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1)(a) FBI performed reasonable search for handwritten notes pertaining to interview of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef; (b) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys failed to sufficiently describe its search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case; (c) CIA conducted adequate search in response to plaintiff’s request for a court-filed exhibit, but failed to even respond to plaintiff’s second request; and (2) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with National Security Act of 1974.

Matthews v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution for wire and bank fraud; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); Exemption 5 (deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges), and Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), except for agency’s use of Exemption 6 to withhold Federal Tort Claims Act file and its use of Exemption 7(D) regarding certain informants; and (3) plea agreement that prohibited plaintiff from requesting FBI’s investigatory files was unenforceable because it would serve no “legitimate criminal justice interest.”

Mar. 30, 2019

Am. Oversight v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that HHS and Office of Management & Budget improperly redacted as “non-responsive” portions of email chains between agencies and Congressional Republicans concerning the Affordable Care Act, and that they also improperly withheld records based upon “consultant corollary” theory to deliberative process privilege.

Mar. 29, 2019

Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records related to alleged program of CIA payments to Syrian rebels; and (2) CIA performed adequate search for records pertaining to President Trump’s tweet and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6.

Palmarini v. IRS (E.D. Pa.) -- concluding that: (1) IRS conducted adequate search for plaintiffs’ tax audit records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7(E), except for disk password provided by financial institution.

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning role of medical professionals in interrogation tactics, determining that: (1) government properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold all but seven documents, (2) government properly withheld Guantanamo Bay interrogation log pursuant to Exemption 1; and (3) government failed to justify use of Exemption 6 to withhold government email domain addresses or its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Corley v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys properly relied on Exemptions 3, 6 and 7(C) to withhold four documents pertaining to arrest of third-party minor

Mar. 28, 2019

Mo. Coal. for Env't v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- declaring that agency employed unlawful policy and practice of withholding Clean Water Act permit records pursuant to Exemption 5, but declining to issue injunction requested by plaintiff.

Mar. 27, 2019

Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- reserving judgment on most Exemption 4 withholdings pending Supreme Court’s decision in Food Market Inst. v. Argus Leader, but ordering agency to release information already in public domain.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that EPA performed reasonable search for records pertaining to its assessment of a new pesticide and that it properly withheld records pursuant to attorney-client and deliberative process privileges, except with respect to certain factual information contained in PowerPoint slides.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to agency’s revisions to water quality criteria for the heavy metal cadmium. In reaching its decision, the court found that EPA’s consultations with its outside contractor did not undermine agency’s Exemption 5 withholdings and that factual material was protected from disclosure because it was deliberatively culled from larger body of information.

Mar. 26, 2019

Kapende v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly withheld portions of assessment memoranda concerning plaintiffs’ asylum applications pursuant to deliberative process privilege, even though agency ultimately followed memoranda’s recommended decisions.

Mar. 25, 2019

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of fees in connection with requests concerning Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus, but reducing requested award by one-third because of plaintiff’s overstaffing and inefficiencies in case that required no substantive briefing. Of note, the court ruled that plaintiff “substantially prevailed” by virtue of the issuance of judicial orders establishing document production schedules.

Crisman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that properly redacted portions of documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege, but only after FBI had supplementally released information from those documents upon applying reasonable foreseeable harm standard set forth in FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

Mar. 21, 2019

Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Ga.) -- denying award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff who substantially prevailed before Eleventh Circuit, because public benefit of obtaining duplicate documents was “very limited” and agency’s actions were not unreasonable.

Judge Rotenberng Educ. Ctrv. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly withheld information as “non-responsive” by reclassifying documents as distinct records midway through litigation; (2) plaintiff conceded agency’s attorney-client privilege claims by failing to reply to agency’s counter-arguments; (3) agency’s Vaughn Index inadequately described certain deliberative process privilege withholdings, e.g., by failing to identify decision-making authority of authors and recipients of agency communications, but agency properly withheld draft documents; (4) agency failed to properly identify privacy and public interests of third parties whose identities were withheld pursuant to Exemption 6.

Mar. 20, 2019

Chetal v. U.S. Dep't of Interior  (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that U.S. Bureau of Land Management performed adequate search and released all responsive records pertaining to ownership of certain mineral rights in Wyoming, except for information on online database that court ordered government to produce.

Mar. 15, 2019

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) reversing district court’s decision that plaintiff had failed to challenge agency’s redactions on records re-posted to its website and remanding for adjudication on merits; (2) affirming district court’s mootness dismissal as to research reports, but remanding for further agency clarification as to agency’s plans to posting inspection reports and lists of entities licensed under Animal Welfare Act.

Highland Capital Mgmt. v. IRS (N.D. Tex.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for records concerning Chief Counsel’s memorandum about agency’s audit of plaintiff; (2) 26 U.S.C. § 6110 was exclusive method for obtaining certain records sought by plaintiff; (3) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), as well as Exemption 7(A); and (4) IRS failed to provide sufficient information with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings under the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of individuals who were carbon copied on email that reached the Attorney General regarding formation of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

Mar. 13, 2019

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of communications between Samantha Power, former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, and U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Pinnicchia v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D. Conn.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold name and identifying information of individual who falsely accused plaintiff of misconduct.

Mar. 11, 2019

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI failed to conduct adequate search for records concerning Peter Strzok’s assignment to and from Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, noting that FBI neglected to use reasonable search terms or to search records of senior staff.

Buzzfeed v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not protect identities of U.S. Attorney and Supervisory AUSA who openly engaged in improper relationship that impacted operations of entire office, but did protect identity of third party connected with separate, unsubstantiated allegation of U.S. Attorney’s misconduct.

Mar. 8, 2019

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD (N.D. Cal., 2019) -- ruling that: (1) DOD performed reasonable search for contracting records and communications between government and contractor in earlier FOIA litigation; (2) agency improperly relied on Exemption 3 (Procurement Integrity Act ) to withhold subcontracting performance and compliance records relating to contracts that were already awarded; (3) neither party established absence of material facts regarding applicability of Exemption 4 to subcontracting plans; (4) DOD release all communications that were not legitimately made pursuant to a joint defense agreement (unless protected by another FOIA exemption); and (5) agency properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6, which plaintiff did not challenge.

Niro v. IRS (D. Mass.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for audit records concerning plaintiff’s tax returns and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(E).

Mar. 7, 2019

Beagles v. DOL (D.N.M.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal withholdings from certain records concerning his former employer; (2) DOL properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6; and (3) plaintiff was neither eligible nor entitled to attorney’s fees, despite agency’s five-year delay in adjudicating his administrative appeal.

Mar. 6, 2019

Seife v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) State Department performed adequate search for “on background” press briefing transcripts produced by agency, but inadequately searched for joint press briefing transcripts produced by other agencies; and (2) agency’s reliance on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6 was proper in part and improper in part.

Mar. 5, 2019

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that information about FBI’s headquarters building could not be withheld from agency’s “Findings and Determination” document pursuant to deliberative process privilege because the information was not pre-decisional.

Abakporo v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that government improperly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to withhold “dates on which the term of the grand jury that returned an indictment against [plaintiff] was extended, as well as any court orders relating to those extensions.”

Jackson v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6.

Gizmodo Media Grp. v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that FBI conducted adequate search for records about Roger Ailes, founder of Fox News, by performing index search of its Central Records System.

Cochran v. DHS (D. Md.) -- finding that FEMA conducted reasonable search for certain records pertaining to security clearance of plaintiff, a former FEMA employee.

Mar. 4, 2019

McGehee v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning the Jonestown Massacre and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 7(C).

New Orleans Workers’ Ctr. for Racial Justice v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- ruling that government failed to perform adequate search for records concerning agency’s “Criminal Alien Removal Initiative, ” and that it failed to provide sufficient information to allow the Court to evaluate the propriety of its withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Mar. 1, 2019

Pronin v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency failed to adequately justify its searches and/or withholdings in response to plaintiff’s three requests for complete lists of names and titles of agency staff at three prisons.

Reporters Comm. for Freedom Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- holding that FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny records concerning its impersonation of filmmakers, reasoning that FBI’s investigative technique was well known to the public and that the effectiveness of FBI’s technique would not be impaired by confirming or denying existence of records.

Feb. 28, 2019

Animal Welfare Inst. v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. (D.D.C.) -- finding that NOAA properly relied on attorney-client and work-product privileges to withhold draft legal memorandum concerning enforcement of permitting rules for orca whale known as Tilikum; noting that those privileges were not waived when NOAA shared memorandum with other agencies because they shared common legal interests.

Feb. 27, 2019

Protect Democracy Project v. HHS (D.D.C.) — ruling that HHS failed to justify its use of the deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning the discontinuation of advertising on government healthcare website, but that it properly withheld records pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

Feb. 26, 2019

Pena-Martinez v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI did not justify Glomar response to request for alleged informant records because it failed to address facts indicating that the alleged informant testified as government witness during plaintiff’s trial and was referred to as an informant.

Feb. 19, 2019

Krocka v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- (1) reserving decision on whether agency performed adequate search for criminal records concerning plaintiff, because agency failed to “say the ‘magic words’ that it “searched all locations likely to contain responsive documents”; (2) finding that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (FRCrP 6(e)); 5 (attorney work-product); 7(C), and 7(D),

Brick v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly withheld records concerning Eleanor Roosevelt’s travel to Soviet Union pursuant to Exemption 3 (Nat’l Sec. Act of 1947) and Exemption 7(E).

Stein v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that SEC performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that its reliance on Exemption 7(A) was proper because plaintiff’s criminal and civil cases were on appeal.

Feb. 12, 2019

Mabie v. USMS (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that Marshal’s Service performed adequate search for records pertaining to surveillance system installed at federal courthouse and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).

Edelman v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees even though plaintiff substantially prevailed in underlying litigation, because agency’s actions were reasonable and no other entitlement factors favored plaintiff.

Feb. 8, 2019

Allen v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted reasonable search for plaintiff’s prison records and properly relied on Exemptions 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F), except for use of Exemption 7(F) to withhold Central Inmate Monitoring information.

Feb. 7, 2019

Lynn v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency rightfully withheld CIA-generated records pertaining to the Grombach Organization pursuant to Exemption 1 and 3.

Feb. 6, 2019

Winn v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly construed scope of plaintiff’s three requests to be limited to records concerning plaintiff, and that agency performed adequate search and segregability review.

Curran v. USPS (E.D. Wis.) -- ruling that: (1) internet usage records of agency employees constituted agency records and were required to be released absent personally identifying information; (2) agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold “supervisor observation logs,” which generally describe what was occurring in agency computer lab and hallway; and (3) agency properly withheld records of investigation and discipline of low-level agency employee.

Feb. 5, 2019

Blakeney v. FBI (D.D.C.) — finding that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys conducted adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and properly relied on Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); and (2) plaintiff’s claim against FBI was barred because plaintiff failed to pay FBI’s FOIA processing fees.

Det. Watch Network v. ICE (S.D.N.Y) -- ruling that plaintiffs were eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs incurred during appellate litigation over immigration detention contracts, and that government was responsible for paying those fees even though third-party intervenors litigated at appellate levels.

Feb. 4, 2019

Story of Stuff Project v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 4, 5, and 9 to withhold records pertaining to operations of Nestlé Waters in San Bernardino National Forest, but that names of company employees who submitted permit-related reports were not protected by Exemption 6. Of note, the court determined that records pertaining to the company’s “boreholes” constituted “wells” for purposes of Exemption 9.

Jan. 31, 2019

Amadis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff, who was denied visa to U.S. due to drug arrest, was required but failed to appeal timely responses of DEA and FBI, notwithstanding that agencies offered to perform additional searches if plaintiff submitted more information; (2) DEA performed adequate search for records pertaining to its processing of one of plaintiff’s requests; (3) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold FOIA processing records pertaining to agency’s Glomar response to plaintiff’s earlier request; (4) Office of Information Policy properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request and it properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 to withhold records concerning its processing of plaintiff’s appeals; (5) State Department conducted reasonable search for records pertaining to its processing of plaintiff’s earlier request.

Jan. 30, 2019

Friends of the Earth v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (W.D. Wash.) -- ordering agency to release biological evaluation prepared by consultant to British Petroleum (BP) after determining that: (1) “consultant corollary” doctrine of Exemption 5 was inapplicable because: (a) documents were not agency records (presumably referring to inter- and intra-agency communications threshold); and (b) BP and its consultant were not acting on behalf of agency; (2) deliberative process privilege was inapplicable because documents were not pre-decisional; and (3) agency waived any privilege by sharing document with BP.

Linder v. Exec. Officer for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- ruling that EOUSA properly withheld grand jury testimony pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Jan. 29, 2019

Spataro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding on renewed summary judgement motion that: (1) FBI conducted adequate search by virtue of recovering records concerning criminal investigation of plaintiff that had been damaged by Hurricane Sandy; (2) FBI performed proper segregability review of remediated records and justified its use of Exemption 3 and 7(D) to withhold other records.

Jan. 25, 2019

Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that the presidential communications privilege protected in full five memoranda that “memorialized advice to the President and his top national security advisers when the President was considering whether to order a military strike on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan.”

Jan. 24, 2019

Sandoval v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on government’s second renewed motion for summary judgment, ruling that DOJ, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and U.S. Attorney’s Office for Central Illinois performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff-inmate.

Jan. 22, 2019

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- reducing plaintiff’s requested fee award from $14,765 to $10,765 because time that plaintiff spent reviewing responsive records was not exclusively for purposes of litigation strategy, and because plaintiff’s “fee-on-fee” charges were unreasonably high.

Jan. 17, 2019

Dillon v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) FBI failed to sufficiently address why it did not produce three known emails pertaining to investigation of Bruce Ivins, who killed himself before being indicted for anthrax attacks in 2001; and (2) in camera review was warranted for requested excerpts of FBI’s interim 2006 case report, which agency claimed was entirely exempt pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Jan. 16, 2019

Rocky Mountain Wild v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo., 2019) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s claim concerning agency’s untimely response became moot once agency fully responded; (2) plaintiff’s claim seeking referral to Special Counsel was an invalid cause of action; and (3) plaintiff failed to establish that agency has pattern-or-practice claim of FOIA violations.

Jan. 10, 2019

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiffs failed to present new evidence or show that court erred in deciding that agency had properly issued Exemption 7(D) Glomar in response to request for whistleblower records.

Jan. 9. 2019

Democracy Forward Found. v. White House Office of Am. Innovation (D.D.C.) -- ruling that White House Office of American Innovation is not an “agency” subject to FOIA requests because it is “an entity within the White House Office which does not exercise substantial authority independent of the President.”

Grynberg v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Switzerland.

Jan. 8, 2019

Ariz. Family Health P'ship v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- declining to issue injunction pending plaintiff’s appeal of court’s decision permitting agency to release redacted versions of plaintiff’s Title X grant applications.

Jan. 4, 2019

Freedom Watch, Inc. v. FBI (D D.C.) -- dismissing suit after finding that plaintiff’s request, which sought records “that refer or relate in any way to collaboration and/or communication by and between the [FBI] and Southern Poverty Law Center” since 2008, was not reasonably described.

Jan. 2, 2019

Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Ga.) -- on remand from 11th Circuit, which had held that agency could not refuse to process plaintiff’s duplicate request, ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s claim was not precluded by res judicata, (2) agency performed adequate and good faith search for records; and (3) plaintiff substantially prevailed and would be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

Dec. 26, 2018

Phillips v. DOJ (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that plaintiff had failed to submit any new evidence warranting reconsideration of court’s earlier decision that plaintiff failed to meet statute’s six-year statute of limitations, and noting that state trial court judge’s statement about plaintiff’s federal records did not override FOIA’s statute of limitations.

Dec. 24, 2018

Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (9th Cir.) -- on government’s appeal, affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision that government improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold certain records generated during EPA rulemaking process concerning cooling water intake structures. A dissenting panelist noted that the Second Circuit had recently permitted the government to withhold similar records as deliberative.

Anguiano v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) -- on ICE’s renewed motion for summary judgment, finding that: (1) ICE’s supplemental search for records was adequate; (2) ICE improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portion of handbook on "The Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure for Immigration Officers"; and (3) ICE properly withheld portions of its “Enforcement and Removal Operations” training manual.

Dec. 21, 2018

Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (9th Cir.) -- on government’s appeal, affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision that government improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold certain records generated during EPA rulemaking process concerning cooling water intake structures. A dissenting panelist noted that the Second Circuit had recently permitted the government to withhold similar records as deliberative.

Anguiano v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) -- on ICE’s renewed motion for summary judgment, finding that: (1) ICE’s supplemental search for records was adequate; (2) ICE improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portion of handbook on "The Law of Arrest, Search and Seizure for Immigration Officers"; and (3) ICE properly withheld portions of its “Enforcement and Removal Operations” training manual.

Dec. 20, 2018

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (5th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that pro se attorney are ineligible for attorney’s fees in FOIA cases, reversing the Circuit’s position held since 1983.

Dec. 18, 2018

Elect. Privacy Inf. Ctr. v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that IRS properly withheld Donald Trump’s tax returns, but finding that proper basis for withholding was Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103, rather than plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Reyes v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $429.20 in costs and $19,939.20 in attorney’s fees (reduced from $29,450.80 due to duplicative efforts of plaintiff’s attorneys) for substantially prevailing in case concerning records of female Filipino guerrilla fighters during World War 2. Notably, the court held that its consent order memorializing the parties’ mutually agreed upon production schedule was sufficient to establish plaintiff’s eligibility for fees, rejecting NARA’s argument to the contrary.

Dec. 17, 2018

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that General Services Administration performed inadequate search for records concerning the cancellation of plans to relocate FBI’s headquarters, and that agency’s Vaughn Index was too vague to permit court to evaluate withholdings.

Dec. 14, 2018

Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (W.D. Mo.) -- dismissing part of plaintiff’s lawsuit concerning records that are subject of plaintiff’s concurrent FOIA lawsuit in U.S. District Court for District of Columbia.

Rodriguez v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment motions that Criminal Division performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case, and that the Criminal Division and Executive Office for United States properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).

Dec, 13, 2018

Anderson v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- finding that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, (who did not contest BOP’s summary judgment motion), and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).

Dec. 10, 2018

Clavito v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans' Affairs (E.D. Cal. ) -- dismissing case as moot after determining that VA released in full all requested records pertaining to plaintiff’s overpayment of benefits debt.

Dec. 7, 2018

Democracy Forward Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting Office of Information Policy’s request for a stay until January 13, 2019 to process records from the Office of Legal Policy concerning appellate court nominees. In arriving at its decision, the court considered that OIP has seen a significant spike in requests over the past two years and that it had been sufficiently diligent in processing requests.

Dec. 6, 2018

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- in a blistering opinion against the government, ordering the parties “to meet and confer to plan discovery into whether [Hillary] Clinton used a private email to stymie FOIA, whether State’s attempts to settle [this] case in late 2014 and 2015 amounted to bad faith, and whether State’s subsequent searches have been adequate.”

Sorin v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision that government properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal of Criminal Procedure 6(e); Exemption 5 (attorney work-product privilege); and Exemption 7(C).

Dec. 4, 2018

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold parts of five-page report concerning activities of the “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.”

Nov. 29, 2018

Planned Parenthood v. Azar (W.D. Wash.) -- in “reverse-FOIA” case, ruling that plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunction protecting its grant application because agency’s decision to release it appeared to be arbitrary and capricious and disclosure would likely cause irreparable harm.

Nov. 26, 2018

Smart-Tek Serv. Solutions Corp. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for plaintiff’s administrative files; (2) IRS properly withheld return information of plaintiff’s corporate alter ego pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); and (3) IRS properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff’s “risk score” pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Nov. 23, 2018

Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district’s ruling that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he personally filed FOIA requests that were delayed and, therefore, he did not have standing to bring “pattern or practice” claim. In rejecting the adequacy of plaintiff’s duplicative declaration, the Court amusingly remarked that “[w]hatever salience the adage ‘if at first you don't succeed—try, try again’ has in daily life, expecting identical arguments to yield different results is a poor strategy for success in our court.”

Nov. 20, 2018

Phillips v. DOJ (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing pro se prisoner’s amended Complaint without prejudice because plaintiff failed to show that his request was filed within the statutory deadline.

Nov. 19, 2018

Charles v. DOJ (M.D. Pa.) -- dismissing suit against Bureau of Prisons because pro se plaintiff, a former prisoner, failed to prosecute claim after being released from custody.

Edmond v. United States (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s request for USPS file on plaintiff was not reasonably described because agency does not maintain centralized files on members of public.

Gonzales v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and dismissing suit because plaintiff failed to respond to agency’s notice pertaining to estimated search fees.

Am. Marine LLC. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for plaintiff’s administrative files; (2) IRS properly withheld return information of plaintiff’s corporate alter ego pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); and (3) IRS properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff’s “risk score” pursuant to Exemption 7(E

Nov. 16, 2018

Talbott v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that CIA and State Department performed reasonable, supplemental searches for records relating to President Kennedy’s assassination, and denying plaintiff’s bid to overturn six aspects of the court’s previous opinion.

Nov. 15, 2018

Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily ruling that DHS performed reasonable search and properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest at U.S.-Mexico border, which led to dueling lawsuits between plaintiff and the arresting agent.

Nov. 13, 2018

Anguiano v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that : (1) ICE failed to show that its search was adequate in all respects; (2) court could not evaluate ICE's use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) without reviewing certain documents in camera; and (3) ICE properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect information regarding third parties and ICE employees.

Chase v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff had offered no new arguments that warranted changing court’s earlier opinion that government had performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’ criminal conviction and that it properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

Pubien v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for grand jury information regarding plaintiff’s criminal case, and that it properly withheld the names of government employees pursuant to Exemption 6.

Nov. 7, 2018

Liounis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney-work product).

Nov. 6, 2018

Foley v. DOJ (W.D. Pa.) -- dismissing suit against FBI because plaintiff failed to pay duplication fees associated with agency’s disclosures of records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case.

Nov. 2, 2018

Roseberry-Andrews v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- granting agency’s renewed summary judgment after finding that agency’s supplemental declaration demonstrated adequacy of search for plaintiff’s employment records and that agency had segregated and released all non-exempt material.

Nov. 1, 2018

Baker v. CFPB (D.D.C.) --denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction seeking production of as many as 630,000 pages of responsive records about Zillow Group, because plaintiff failed to show that he has a likelihood of success on the merits, that he will face irreparable harm, or that the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh in plaintiff’s favor.

Oct. 30, 2018

Beard v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (E.D. La.) -- summarily ruling after in camera review of disputed documents that agency properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

Oct. 26, 2018

Bloomgarden v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold two letters pertaining to firing of lead prosecutor in plaintiff’s murder case two decades ago, because prosecutor maintained privacy interests in avoiding disclosure of embarrassing information despite passage of time and that public interest “in negligent job performance and unremarkable misconduct of a staff-level attorney is relatively low.”

Arledge v. IRS (N.D. Tex.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, because: (1) plaintiff incorrectly submitted request to Assistant United States Attorney at field office instead of to main office in Washington D.C.; and (2) plaintiff requested protected “return” information from IRS without submitting agency forms establishing his right of access.

Oct. 24, 2018

Canning v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- in consolidated case, ruling that: (1) agency performed adequate search for records requested by plaintiff SAE Productions concerning Muslim Brotherhood; (2) agency properly justified its use of Exemption 1 for all but four withheld records; (3) agency failed to adequately explain how three draft letters sought by plaintiff Canning fall within deliberative process privilege, but that agency properly withheld other draft material disputed by plaintiff SAE.

Godaire v. Rosentstein (D.D.C.) -- finding that Office of Information Policy properly informed plaintiff that DOJ’s leadership offices, including Deputy Attorney General, typically do not maintain copies of search warrants pertaining to individuals, and that plaintiff was required to contact FBI and DHS directly for records maintained by those agencies.

Oct. 16, 2018

Hughes v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding that U.S. Marshals Service properly issued Exemption 7(C) Glomar in response to plaintiff’s request for records concerning his brother, who is alive and did not consent to disclosure; rejecting plaintiff’s personal interest in records for probate proceeding as sufficient to override subject’s privacy interests.

Oct. 15, 2018

Sieverding v. DOJ (D. Mass.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to state claim for which relief could be granted, because plaintiff sought ratification of Office of Information Policy’s decision to remand request to EOUSA for further processing of responsive records.

Stalcup v. DOD (D. Mass.) -- on remand from First Circuit, finding that three agency offices failed to demonstrate adequacy of their searches for records pertaining to crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996.

Oct. 12, 2018

Gov't Accountability Project v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency’s search was inadequate because it relied on too few keywords and excluded obvious synonyms; adopting plaintiff’s metaphor that “FOIA requests are not a game of Battleship. The requester should not have to score a direct hit on the records sought based on the precise phrasing of his request.”

Oct. 10, 2018

James v. DOD (D. Alaska) -- ruling that: (1) government improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names and current location of Army personnel who gave sworn statements related to plaintiff’s wrongful death lawsuit; and (2) government properly withheld “personnel recommendation” pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Oct. 9, 2018

Moore v. USPS (N.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that Postal Service properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold letters referring agency employees for psychiatric evaluations.

Oct. 4, 2018

Powell v. Social Sec. Admin. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from response issued by SSA two days before plaintiff filed lawsuit.

Oct. 1, 2018

Biear v. DOJ (3rd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and finding that: (1) plaintiff’s request to Criminal Division for records containing his name was reasonably specific even though he did not identify the specific office where records were likely to be located; (2) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal withholdings made by FBI after plaintiff commenced his lawsuit and district court should have maintained jurisdiction over case instead of dismissing it as moot.

Dorsey v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- on remand from the D.C. Circuit, determining that EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F) in withholding certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.

Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that of nineteen disputed documents pertaining to agency’s response to press inquiries about email between Hillary Clinton and Jake Sullivan, agency properly withheld nine documents and improperly withheld ten documents pursuant to deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

Sept. 30, 2018

Wadleton v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- awarding attorney’s fees and costs of $11,726.97 in case involving plaintiff’s employment records, but reducing award from $19,222.75 requested by plaintiff due to excessive time billed and unreasonably high hourly rates.

Intellectual Prop. Watch v. U.S. Trade Representative (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 19 U.S.C. § 2155(g)(2)-(3) to withhold communications among USTR, industry trade advisory committees, and private-sector consultants about Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Sept. 28, 2018

Kwoka v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- holding that IRS could not rely on Exemption 3 and 6 to categorically withhold names of requesters and their organizational affiliations from agency FOIA log.

Hyatt v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- finding after in camera review that employee’s email commenting about character of plaintiff (a frequent patent applicant) constituted “agency record” for FOIA purposes, and that agency’s reliance on Exemption 6 to withhold email failed “miserably.”

Inst. for Justice v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) IRS performed reasonable search for records from its “Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval System,” (2) agency’s production of records in Adobe format was “the only technologically-feasible route available; (3) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold information related to assets seized in open investigations; (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold information pertaining to individuals from whom assets were seized.

Garza v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that USMS, FBI, and DEA performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff’s fugitive arrest and criminal case, and that government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s summary judgment motion (without prejudice) in case that raises question whether plaintiff’s request requires agency to extract and compile existing data from database or, on the other hand, requires agency to create record or conduct research to answer questions.

Hodes v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact commission percentages paid by IRS to debt collection contractors.

Sept. 27, 2018

Story of Stuff Project v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold non-public records concerning Nestle Waters North America’s operations in San Bernardino National Forest, but that agency needed to clarify whether certain information was in public domain; (2) ruling on applicability of Exemption 9 to “bore holes” would be deferred until agency clarified whether information was in public domain; (3) agency properly withheld records concerning permitting and litigation pursuant to deliberative process and attorney-client privileges; and (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of individuals who authored scientific studies or worked on biological surveys.

Micolo v. DOJ (E.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable searches for investigatory records pertaining to bank robbery for which plaintiff was convicted in 2003.

Rosenberg v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for communications sent by former U.S. Southern Command commander John Kelly concerning Joint Task Force Guantanamo; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, section 1.4(g) of Executive Order 13,526, but certain withheld information had been officially acknowledged and other withholdings required supplemental declarations; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(E), but fell short with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings because “foreseeable harm standard” required government to “do more than perfunctorily state that disclosure of all the withheld information—regardless of category or substance—’would jeopardize the free exchange of information between senior leaders within and outside of the [DOD]’.

Michael v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case; (2) ATF, to which EOUSA had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(F), and it also properly withheld records that had been sealed by federal court in North Carolina; and (3) FBI, to which ATF had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Richardson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case; (2) ATF, to which EOUSA had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (3) plaintiff, who contested veracity of documents only, was not entitled to in camera review or discovery.

Cornucopia Inst. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to visits to organic dairies in Texas and New Mexico in 2012, but that it improperly withheld photographs; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to the trade secrets and competitive harm prongs of Exemption 4.

Wellman v. DOJ (D. Nev.) -- agreeing with D.C. Circuit that government cannot withhold portions of documents as non-responsive, but otherwise finding that government properly withheld records pertaining to internal investigation of plaintiff by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

Long v. ICE (N.D.N.Y.) -- denying government’s motion for summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s request for immigration enforcement data would require agency to create new records, conduct research or answer questions.

Mathis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) federal court in Georgia and American Red Cross were not subject to plaintiff’s FOIA requests; (2) plaintiff failed to submit proper FOIA request to IRS; (3) plaintiff failed to prove that he submitted request to Department of Defense, which was unable to locate one; (4) Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security Commission, and FBO performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and found none.

Trucept, Inc. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s renewed summary judgment motion after finding that agency performed reasonable search for plaintiff’s administrative files and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Thompson v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff did not have standing to pursue “policy or practice” claim against DOJ for delaying responses to his requests about his employment, and that plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.

Sept. 26, 2018

James Madison Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that CIA, FBI, and NSA properly issued Glomar responses pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 with respect to requests about “a May 10, 2017 meeting in which President Trump allegedly shared ‘sensitive classified information’ concerning a terrorist threat with the Russian Foreign Minister and the Russian Ambassador to the United States.”

Buzzfeed v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of aerial surveillance records pertaining to specific airplanes.

Sept. 25, 2018

SAI v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff could not add Rehabilitation Act claim regarding format of requested records; (2) agency did not sufficiently demonstrate that records were not “readily reproducible” in format requested by plaintiff; (3) agency failed to explain why it could not release legible copies of six disputed pages; (4) agency’s search was inadequate because agency failed to search four additional offices, failed to demonstrate that it searched relevant time frame, and failed to adequately describe certain searches; (5) additional briefing was necessary as to whether records withheld pursuant to Exemption 3 had been released previously to another requester; (6) agency did not sufficiently explain whether redactions made pursuant to deliberative process privilege in response to one request included factual information, but otherwise agency’s redactions were proper; and (7) agency carried its burden of proof with respect to Exemption 6 and 7(C) withholdings, except for contact information of agency employees.

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.)

Smart-Tek Servs.v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- concluding that IRS performed reasonable search for plaintiff’s administrative file and that records of “alter ego” taxpayers were either non-responsive or protected from disclosure pursuant to section 6013 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Sept. 24, 2018

Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) MCC and State Department performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff’s background investigation; (2) State Department properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold third party’s social security number; (3) Department of Defense properly withheld third-party records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), but it did not provide enough information to permit evaluation of agency's use of Exemption 7(D); (4) although evidence showed that MCC had delivered responsive records to plaintiff, agency would be directed to provide another copy to plaintiff “out of an abundance of caution and to promote judicial economy.”

Aguiar v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, concluding that: (1) agency demonstrated that it performed reasonable search for field office records, but that it failed to pursue potential lead to missing documents; (2) agency demonstrated that GPS mapping software used during investigation of plaintiff was not an agency record; and (3) agency was not required to create map images that plaintiff was unable to access from prison.

Middlebrook v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States performed reasonable search for one document from plaintiff’s criminal case file.

Khine v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff had standing to litigate whether “DHS has a policy of sending ‘computer-generated,’ ‘template’ letters in response to FOIA requests from asylum applicants seeking disclosure of their assessments”; (2) agency’s response letter was sufficiently detailed to trigger plaintiff’s requirement to file administrative appeal before filing lawsuit.

Sept. 23, 2018

King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to adequately describe its search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and failed to provide court with sufficient information to determine whether agency’s withholdings were proper.

Sept. 21, 2018

Crockett v. Dep't of Veteran Affairs (W.D. Va.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs because he failed to show that lawsuit was “reasonably necessary and substantially caused the records to be released.”

Sept. 20, 2018

Bernegger v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) EOUSA performed reasonable search for communications of prosecutors involved in plaintiff’s criminal case; (2) EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records about third parties, but that additional briefing was necessary with respect to one email exchanged between agency and federal trial court; and (3) EOUSA justified its withholdings under deliberative process privilege, except for one email exchanged between agency and trial court that required in camera review.

Sept. 19, 2018

Clervrain v. United States (D. Kan.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons properly aggregated plaintiff’s three requests because they sought similar records and were submitted by plaintiff on same day; (2) plaintiff failed to appeal agency’s denial of his fee waiver request and therefore court could not consider it.

Linder v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case as moot because agency provided plaintiff with all records to which he was entitled for free, as plaintiff expressly requested.

Climate Investigations Ctr. v. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) — concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning clean-coal technology at Mississippi power plant; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 4 based on impairment and competitive harm theories; (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to attorney-client privilege, but could not rely on privilege to withhold agency communications that included private company’s counsel; and (4) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold disputed records originating from agency headquarters, but did not provide sufficient evidence to permit court to evaluate propriety of withholdings made by agency’s National Energy Technology Laboratory; (5) names of third parties had not been previously disclosed publicly, as court initially found, but agency did not properly perform balancing test of private and public interests required by Exemption 6.

Sept. 18, 2018

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. FEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to “@altFEC” Twitter account, as well as communications from Executive Office of President to certain senior FEC employees.

Crisman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff, but failed to justify use of deliberative process privilege to withhold records; (2) FRB was not required to conduct additional search based on new information provided by plaintiff almost three years after FRB completed its initial search'; and (3) plaintiff’s request to DHS would require burdensome search, but denying summary judgment to government because DHS failed to propose ways to narrow request.

Northrup Grumman v. NASA (D.D.C.) -- in reverse-FOIA lawsuit, concluding that Exemption 4 protected proposed “wrap rates” from a NASA contract in effect from 2002 to 2009 because disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive harm.

Sept. 14, 2018

Mabie v. U.S. Marshal's Serv. (S.D. Ill.) -- ruling that city jail and city police department were not agencies subject to federal Freedom of Information Act.

Property of the People v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) OMB improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold factual information from OMB Director’s calendar, such as names of schedulers, names of meeting attendees, and the locations of meetings; and (2) OMB’s filings were too vague to permit court to evaluate whether disputed calendar entries were protected from disclosure solely pursuant to presidential communications privilege or in conjunction with deliberative process privilege.

Sept. 13, 2018

Niskanen Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning federal advisory committee, namely National Coal Coalition or its incorporated counterpart NCC, Inc.; and (2) agency improperly withhold certain records pursuant to Exemption 4, because they were obtained involuntarily (contrary to agency’s claim) and agency failed to show that disclosure would likely cause substantial competitive harm; and (3) further briefing was required to determine whether on document was privileged under Exemption 4.

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding after in camera review that: (1) DOJ improperly relied on attorney-client and deliberative process privileges to withhold portion of email between White House and Office of Information and Privacy concerning House Committee’s directive to agencies to withhold congressional records; (2) DOJ properly relied on same privileges to withhold communications among three DOJ components and undisclosed federal agency about same subject; and (3) it was unnecessary to resolve parties’ disagreement as to whether FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 raised requirement for withholding records.

Prechdel v. FCC -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold communications among agency staff regarding public inquiry about proposed “Restoring Internet Freedom” regulations; (2) agency improperly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold email addresses of email associated with “bulk comment” submissions; (3) .CSV files themselves also could not be protected by Exemption 6, and ordering parties to meet and confer about their availability; and (4) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold electronic server logs detailing all dates and times that .CSV files were submitted.

Sept. 12, 2018

Hillier v. CIA (D.D.C.) — ruling that: (1) CIA performed adequate search for unclassified records concerning plaintiff, who believes he is under surveillance, and that agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of classified records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3; (2) DHS performed adequate search for records about plaintiff, who claimed he might have been mistaken for suspected terrorist, except with respect to one system of records; and (3) Department of State performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s alleged involvement in terrorist incidents.

Sept. 10, 2018

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold portions of 14 of 16 emails pertaining to video of 2013 briefing about Iran that agency altered; (2) agency properly redacted two documents pursuant to attorney-client privilege; and (3) agency did not justify withholding one email pursuant to presidential communications privilege.

Sept. 7, 2018

James Madison Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that government properly invoked Exemption 7(A) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records indicating whether President Trump is or was ever target of or material witness to any investigation, and that public statements by President Trump and DOJ did not invalidate government's Glomar response. 

King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys did not perform adequate search for records pertaining to investigation of plaintiff's client (Abiomed, a medical device company), because agency's declaration did not identify terms used to search three of four email files; (2) EOUSA failed to demonstrate that material provided to government about Abiomed by unidentified individual or entity was protected by Exemption 7(D); and (3) EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold name of counsel who had transmitted material to government on behalf of unidentified individual or entity, but name of counsel's law firm was not protected from disclosure.

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff waived its right to challenge adequacy of DOJ's search for records pertaining to June 2016 airplane meeting between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Clinton, because plaintiff failed to raise search issue in joint status report; (2) DOJ properly relied on deliberative process privilege to redact ten of twelve documents consisting of discussions and talking points about how to handle press inquiries about airplane meeting.

Sept. 6, 2018

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) IRS properly invoked Exemption 7(D) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to whistleblower involved in investigation of plaintiffs, despite agency's error in not raising Glomar response during administrative stage; (2) IRS did not perform reasonable search for other records pertaining to agency's investigation of plaintiffs. 

Sept. 4, 2018

Frank LLP v. CFPB (D.D.C.) -- holding that CFPB properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to redact two investigational hearing transcripts generated in connection with enforcement action.  

Aug. 31, 2018

Ernest Asiedu Odei & Spirit of Grace Outreach. v. DHS (N.D. Ill.) -- determining that: (1) DHS performed reasonable search for records concerning denial of entry and detention of Ghanaian national, and (2) DHS "honored" disputed FOIA requests by releasing all documents with redactions and that plaintiffs did not object to Vaughn Index.  

Aug. 29, 2018

San Juan Citizens All. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo.) -- in a wieldy opinion, (1) denying parties' summary judgment motions regarding adequacy of government's search for records concerning Glade Run Recreation Area, noting that "each party has the burden of proof showing reasonableness and neither party has met that burden"; (2) finding that "there may be merit in proceeding" with plaintiff's claim that agency has pattern and practice of illegally withholding records from plaintiff; and (3) denying plaintiff's motion for contempt orders against agency officials for submitting declarations that plaintiff asserted were "ambiguous and unresponsive."

Aug. 27, 2018

Crestek, Inc. & Subsidiaries  v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that IRS performed reasonable search for companies tax records and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges), 7(D), and 7(E).  

Sandoval v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to requests to FBI and Federal Bureau of Prisons for records about his criminal case; (2) plaintiff was not entitled to additional records from Executive Office for United States Attorneys because he refused to pay for copies. 

Aug. 24, 2018

Gatore v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency improperly relied upon deliberative process privilege to withhold asylum officer assessments in full; (2) plaintiff had standing to bring "policy-and-practice" claims pertaining to agency's treatment of assessments under FOIA and that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on merits of claims; and (3) individual plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they were entitled to represent a class of plaintiffs under Rule 23(a).  

Turner v. U.S. Forest Serv. (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that agency conducted adequate search for records pertaining to protection of bats in Shawnee National Forest.  

Aug. 21, 2018

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court's decision and holding that detainee photographs were protected from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009. 

Protect Democracy Project v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) government properly relied on presidential communications privilege to withhold three legal memoranda pertaining to U.S. missile attack in Syria; (2) government properly invoked attorney-client privilege to withhold legal advice of Office of Legal Counsel to Attorney General; (3) government properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold talking points used to respond to media inquiries, except for portion that government officially acknowledged.

Bonfilio v. OSHA (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records of deaths or injuries occurring on property of four construction companies, and that agency properly withheld information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C). 

Aug. 20, 2018

Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that CIA's supplemental search for records of certain search tools and indices was reasonable and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (National Security Act) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).

Aug. 17, 2018

People for the Ethical Treatment Animals v. HHS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that HHS properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records about importation of nonhuman primates, specifically shipment-by-shipment quantity, crate size, and airline carrier information.

Aug. 15, 2018

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process and presidential communications privileges) and Exemption 6 to withhold various records pertaining to "evidence-based assessment tools that seek to predict the statistical probability of an individual’s recidivism."

Aug. 14, 2018

Djenasevic v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Executive Office for United State Attorneys and Drug Enforcement Administration performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff, a convicted heroin dealer; (2) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (grand jury), 5 (deliberative process privilege), 6, and 7(C); (3) DEA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Aug. 9, 2018

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly invoked Exemption 1 to withhold letter exchanged between Bank of England and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

Milbrand v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (E.D. Mich.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for business email addresses of state compliance officers, and the agency properly withheld business email address of federal compliance officers pursuant to Exemption 6. 

Aug. 6, 2018

Advocates for the West v. DOJ (D. Idaho) -- concluding that Office of Legal Counsel properly relied on attorney-client, deliberative process, and presidential communications privileges to withhold twelve legal memoranda regarding the President's authority to alter national monuments. 

Aug. 3, 2018

Bartko v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility had "not come close to showing" that records of allegations of misconduct against senior prosecutor were compiled for law enforcement purposes, reversing district's decision concerning OPR's Exemption 7(C) "Glomar" response; (2) OPR "dropped the ball" in withholding investigatory records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), but properly withheld documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege; (3) FBI, SEC, IRS, and U.S. Postal Inspection Service properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C); (4) in light of intervening case law, district court needed to reconsider FBI's use of Exemption 3 to withhold records produced in response to grand jury subpoena; and (5) SEC performed reasonable search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 8.

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning "Countering Violent Extremism Initiative, and that FBI and/or DHS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 7(D), and 7(E).  

July 31, 2018

Lantz v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- in what might be the first FOIA opinion to include photograph, finding that U.S. Patent and Trade Office performed reasonable search for trademark application for " Eat More Kale" and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

July 26, 2018

Butler v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- finding that Occupational Safety and Health Administration properly withheld records of accident investigation records pursuant to Exemptions 4, 7(C), and 7(D), except for portion of service agreement that did not contain "pricing and cost data." 

Doyle v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that: (1) government properly withheld records of visitors to White House because they are not subject to FOIA, per D.C. Circuit case law; (2) government performed adequate search for records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago; and (3) government properly withheld records concerning President's schedule because they are not subject to FOIA, but was required to process "operational records" pertaining to Japanese Prime Minister's visit to Mar-a-Lago. 

July 25, 2018

Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees in case involving Scott Pruitt's travel vouchers and meetings with outside parties, because: (a) EPA exercised due diligence in processing request; (b) lawsuit was not catalyst for production; and (c) court order regarding proposed briefing schedule did not provide "relief" to plaintiff. 

July 24, 2018

Fleming v. Medicare Freedom of Info. Grp. (D.D.C.) -- denying pro se inmate's motion for permission to file motion to proceed in forma pauperis, motion for appointment of counsel, motion for discovery, and motion for expedited proceedings, because court previously considered and rejected duplicate motions. 

July 23, 2018

Kansas ex rel Schmidt v. DOD (D. Kan.) -- following in camera review of five documents pertaining to proposed closing of Guantanamo Bay detention center, concluding that: (1) agency improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold information about actual costs of housing various prisoners; (2) agency properly invoked deliberative process privilege to withhold projected costs of moving Guantanamo Bay prisoners; and (3) agency properly withheld draft email pursuant to deliberative process privilege, but improperly relied on same privilege to withhold identity of another agency.

Villar v. FBI (D.N.H.) -- ruling that FBI properly invoked Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withhold records, or portions thereof, concerning agency's investigation of plaintiff-inmate's criminal activity. 

Mora-Villalpando v. ICE (W.D. Wa.) -- denying government's motion to strike Complaint's allegations that ICE illegally targeted plaintiff and other immigration activists, because allegations would be relevant to "public interest" factors considered under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and for attorney's fees.

July 19, 2018

Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (11th Cir.) -- holding that: (1) district court erred in allowing Navy to ignore plaintiff's request for certain records concerning suicide of Admiral Boorda merely because agency had released records in response to plaintiff's duplicate request five years earlier; (2) although district court failed to address whether Navy properly withheld suicide note from Admiral Boorda to his wife pursuant to Exemption 7(C), there was no need to remand case because law was clear that note was properly protected from disclosure.  

July 18, 2018

Wild Horse Freedom Fed'n v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Bureau of Land Management failed to perform adequate search for various records pertaining to Wild Horse and Burro Program; (2)  agency properly withheld certain (but not all) information from one exhibit pursuant to Exemption 5, and that redactions on second exhibit could not be reviewed until agency provided court with clean copy.

W. Values Project v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- holding that government improperly issued Glomar response based on Exemption 5 for request pertaining to Office of Legal Counsel opinions, and that it performed reasonable search for remaining requested records.

July 17, 2018

Judicial Watch v. DHS (D.C. Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, reversing district court's decision that plaintiff's complaint failed to adequately allege “policy or practice” claim against Secret Service based on history of delayed responses.  

Trautman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that National Archives & Records Administration failed to adequately describe search of three agency offices for records pertaining to investigation of former Archivist Archivist of the United States, Allen Weinstein.

July 12, 2018

Brown v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) emails sent by State Department to Hillary Clinton's private attorney were not considered in public domain; and (2) State Department properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges.

July 11, 2018

Kuntz v. U.S Dep't of Justice (D. N.D.) -- in first published FOIA opinion from North Dakota district in more than 14 years, ruling that FBI's full disclosure of memorandum with North Dakota Attorney General rendered case moot. 

July 10, 2018

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives failed to perform reasonable search for certain firearms tracing records; (2) ATF was not required to produce new documents to satisfy plaintiff's request; and (3) ATF properly withheld non-statistical aggregate data from trace database pursuant to Exemption 3.  

Elliott v. USDA (D. Md.) -- dismissing case after determining that government never received plaintiff-inmate's FOIA request concerning government's jurisdiction over certain property. 

July 9, 2018

Morley v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees in connection with a 15-year-old case involving JFK assassination records.  The majority -- which included U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh -- found that the CIA did not act unreasonably by referring plaintiff to the National Archives and Records Administration, which possessed the requested records.  The dissenting judge asserted that the majority gave the lower court too much deference, misapplied the relevant test for determining fee awards, and permitted the CIA to evade its FOIA responsibilities. 

Project on Predatory Lending of the Legal Servs. v. DOJ (W.D. Pa.) -- ruling that: (1) certain information contained on hard drive and obtained by DOJ during qui tam False Claims Act action did not qualify as "agency record" because DOJ never reviewed or relied upon it; (2) even if documents on hard drive were agency records, DOJ demonstrated that processing approximately 140 million pages would be unduly burdensome; (3) agency performed adequate search, but improperly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold certain records; and (4) various protective orders entered in False Claims litigation did not prohibit DOJ from releasing records at issue

July 5, 2018

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- vacating district court's ruling that government had acknowledged certain information pertaining to drone strikes, because ruling was "unnecessary" and posed "risk of injury to important security interests of the United States."  

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for tax records, except for plaintiff's "K-1 information as it relates to Form 706 from the William A. Powell Estate."

July 3, 2018

Powell v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Office of Foreign Assets Control performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff over thirty-year period.

Middle Eastern Forum v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- holding that IRS improperly refused to search for third-party records, noting that plaintiff's request sought only "non-return" information and that it was reasonably described.

June 30, 2018

Braun v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable searches for investigatory records concerning plaintiff and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, 6, and 7(C).

June 29, 2018

N.Y. Times v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning program to arm Syrian rebels, and that public statements by President Trump and U.S. Army general did not constitute official acknowledgments of program.

June 27, 2018

LAF v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (N.D. Ill.) -- holding that plaintiff adequately pled that agency has unlawful practice of processing first-party requests for veterans claims files solely under Privacy Act.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that White House press secretary's public statements precluded CIA from refusing to confirm or deny existence of certain records concerning government raid in Yemen.  

Heffernan v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency did not show that it performed reasonable searches for two of four categories of records concerning NIH's Department of Spiritual Ministry, and that agency adequately justified its use of Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold all disputed records except for draft press release.

June 26, 2018

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that FBI properly withheld records pertaining to deceased Internet activist Aaron Swartz pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), but remanding portion of case pertaining to redacted records disclosed to plaintiff following appellate oral arguments.  

June 25, 2018

Higgs v. U.S. Park Police (S.D. Ind.) -- in case involving records of death-row-plaintiff's triple homicide, concluding that: (1)  government properly invoked Exemption 7(D) to withhold source information from FBI interviews, but that Exemption 7(C) withholdings were invalid because government failed to show third parties were still living after passage of 22 years; and (2) government improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold National Crime Information Center reports and ballistics reports.

June 22, 2018

Century Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Education (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees after finding that disclosure of records was triggered by APA-related temporary restraining order, and that all of plaintiff's FOIA claims lacked merit.

June 15, 2018

Henson v. HHS (7th Cir.) -- affirming lower court's decision that: (1)  FDA performed adequate search for records concerning premarket approval for glucose monitor; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records about raw material used in manufacturing process; and (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges) and Exemption 6.

June 14, 2018

Janangelo v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin. (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court's decision that agency properly issued Exemption 6 Glomar response to request concerning third party's alleged misconduct, and that agency had not officially acknowledged existence of records.  

Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C) -- awarding plaintiff attorney's fees in case concerning agency's Wild Horse and Burro Program, but reducing amount sought from $125,541 to $69,019 primarily because plaintiff spent excessive time on various pleadings. 

Rhodes v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records indicating whether plaintiff's name appears on any agency watch lists.

June 13, 2018

100Reporters v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOH overbraodly applied Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 7(C) in withholding certain records generated by company's independence compliance monitor. 

June 12, 2018

Cause of Action Inst. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for communications with White House regarding third-party document requests; notably approving IRS's decision not to search email accounts of Office of Disclosure employees because its highest ranking official attested that he was unaware of any relevant IRS-White House consultations.

June 11, 2018

Linder v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency failed to adequately explain how it conducted search for trial exhibits sought by plaintiff or why its withholdings were justified under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

June 8, 2018

Laverpool v. HUD (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning the foreclosure of plaintiff's home in Georgia, and that agency sufficiently explained why certain documents were not located.   

June 7, 2018

Rosiere v. United States (3rd Cir.) (not precedential) -- affirming district court's decision to dismiss case as malicious, noting that inmate-plaintiff had filed identical lawsuits in other jurisdictions and inundated the government with motions.

Talbot v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) State Department should have used false birthdates in search for passport and travel records of two deceased CIA agents who plaintiff suspects were aware of CIA’s involvement in JFK's assassination; (2) State Department properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold (a) names and signatures of State Department employees who processed one of CIA agent's passports, and (b) names, birth dates, and places of birth of CIA agent's then-minor children; (3) CIA improperly declined to search certain operational files for responsive records; and (4) CIA properly withheld documents pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with the CIA Act and the National Security Act, as well as Exemption 6. 

June 5, 2018

Marck v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI properly withheld third-party records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(D), and that in camera review was not warranted.

Poet Design & Constr. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that company lacked standing to intervene because its lawyer submitted FOIA request without identifying company as client.

June 2, 2018

Am. Oversight v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- denying government's motion to sever plaintiff's lawsuit into seventeen separate actions, all of which concern requests for records about Trump Administration nominees.  Among the arguments advanced by defendants (and rejected) were that the court would be deprived of filing fees and that severing the case would promote efficiency. 

June 1, 2018

Pub. Employees for Envtl. Responsibility v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff's following two-part request was neither unreasonably described nor unduly burdensome:  (1) agency records that Administrator Pruitt relied upon to support his statements in his CNBC interview" on March 9, 2017, regarding impact of human activity on climate; and (2)"EPA documents, studies, reports, or guidance material that support the conclusion that human activity is not the largest factor driving global climate change."

May 25, 2018

A Better Way for BPA v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court's decision that plaintiff did not have standing to file lawsuit because of "the submitted form’s unambiguous reference to A Better Way, confirming correspondence, and common sense." 

Physicians Comm. for Responsible Med. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that requested records possessed by National Cattle Beef Association were not created, obtained, or controlled by agency and, thus, were not "agency records." 

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. USDA (N.D. Cal.) -- holding that expedited FOIA processing standard for "imminent threat to life or safety of an individual" excludes threats to animals -- in this case, a Siberian-Bengal tiger named "Tony."

May 24, 2018

Grand Canyon Tr. v. Zinke (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs in case involving the Federal Coal Program after finding that Office of Secretary and BLM "had begun processing the plaintiff’s request well before this lawsuit was initiated and that both agencies had even made partial releases to the plaintiff before the complaint was filed."

Sai v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency failed to prove that it could not have “readily” produced responsive records or legible copies of six pages; (2) agency failed to search four offices that were likely to maintain responsive records; (3) agency failed to show that it properly invoked Exemption 3 with respect to information that another requester received ; (4) agency failed to demonstrate that certain information concerning agency employees was properly withheld under Exemption 6.

May 23, 2018

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment to Federal Bureau of Prisons on eight of ten requests; finding that BOP failed to justify use of Exemption 6 on four documents and Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) on one document. 

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying government's unopposed renewed summary motion because Executive Office for United States Attorneys Office failed to show that it performed reasonable search in response to plaintiff's two requests for case files. 

May 22, 2018

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning Russian interference in 2016 presidential election, and that it properly withheld non-segregable records under Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(A).

Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that with few exceptions, EPA properly relied on Exemption 5 to withhold records concerning agency's non-acquiescence to 2013 Eighth Circuit decision about water treatment regulation; further, denying plaintiff's motion to strike, motion for discovery, and request for sanctions after finding that EPA did not act in bad faith before or during litigation.  

May 21, 2018

Roble v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold grand jury minutes pertaining to plaintiff's  criminal indictment.

May 16, 2018

Hohman v. IRS (E.D. Mich.) -- denying plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs after concluding that: (1)  agency diligently processed request and lawsuit did not cause release of records; and (2) court's order to IRS to "either make its disclosures by January 6th or attend a follow-up scheduling conference" was not a decision on the merits. 

May 15, 2018

Kearns v. Fed. Aviation Admin. (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding one request seeking records about his employment; (2) FAA properly withheld certain information from reports of investigation concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and (7(C), and that Privacy Act did not provide plaintiff with greater access to disputed records,

May 14, 2018

Cornicopia Inst. v. Agric. Marketing Serv. (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning five enforcement investigations and that all but three pages were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 4 and 5 (attorney-client and deliberative process privileges).  

May 8, 2018

Argus Leader Media v. USDA (8th Cir.) -- on appeal filed by private intervenor (not USDA) following bench trial, affirming district court's decision that contested Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data was not protected by Exemption 4.  

May 7, 2018

Ibrahim v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency improperly relied on section 222(f) of Immigration and Naturalization Act, in conjunction with Exemption 3, to withhold plaintiff's Resettlement Application; (2) agency properly withheld USCIS's  Refugee Application Assessment under Exemptions 5 and 7(E), except for page containing final decision, which may be redacted under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (3) agency properly withheld portions of USCIS's chronology under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E), though not under Exemption 5; and (4) agency must release United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees document and USCIS's official assessment of plaintiffs's "Request for Reconsideration," subject to redactions under Exemptions 6 and 7(C). 

May 3, 2018

Am. Oversight v. GSA. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency failed to perform adequate search for records reflecting communications between GSA and  presidential transition team (2) agency failed to justify withholding records pursuant to Exemption 5 (attorney-client privilege)  or names of transition team members pursuant to Exemption 6.

May 1, 2018

Greenpeace v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning facilities formerly classified as high risk due to their chemical holdings, and (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 7(F).   "While there are surely many hard cases under Exemption 7(F), the court stated, "this is not one of them. The information in question was compiled by DHS in order to keep our country safe from terrorist attacks. Disclosing it would reveal the location of facilities containing dangerous chemicals terrorists might target, as well as how the government has assessed the risks posed by those facilities—all information that terrorists might exploit."

Igoshev v. NSA (D. Md.) -- ruling that National Security Agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to ownership, use, and targets of satellites.

Apr. 30, 2018

DeFraia v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed adequate search for contracts pertaining to detainee interrogation program and that plaintiff was not entitled to records beyond scope agreed to by parties; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to in camera review of records withheld under Exemptions 5 and 6, which court found were sufficiently justified by agency.

Apr. 26, 2018

Johnson v. CIA (S.D.N.Y) -- holding that CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold portions of five emails sent by agency's Office of Public Affairs to select number of reporters.

Apr. 24, 2018

Jarvis v. HUD (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment in government's favor because plaintiff failed to show that agency received his FOIA requests.

Apr. 23, 2018

Castleman v. DOJ (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court's decision regarding plaintiff's multiple requests concerning his criminal trial because plaintiff failed to raise genuine disputes of material fact regarding government's searches or withholdings under Exemption 7(C).

Prop. People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning Donald Trump's interactions with FBI before he became President, ruling that agency had "not yet justified its sweeping Glomar response for two categories of responsive records: (1) non-investigative records related to Donald Trump and (2) records that mention Trump 'in the context of his official capacity as chief executive of specific organizations'  Further, the court ruled that FBI "may at least issue a narrow Glomar response as to most law-enforcement records."

Jarvis v. SSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff was required but failed to file an administrative appeal concerning his request for disability decisions based on race or immigration status; and (2) SSA sufficiently demonstrated that it does not maintain the requested records.  

Apr. 19, 2018

Judicial Watch v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA properly relied on 50 U.S.C. § 3141 to withhold pornographic material seized by United States during operation against bin Laden's residential compound in Pakistan.

Apr. 16, 2018

Donato v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) EOUSA properly denied pro se inmate's request for waiver of fees regarding records about alleged murder-conspiracy plot, but that agency was obliged to provide two hours of free search time and 100 pages free of charge; (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records about murder-conspiracy plot pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (3) Bureau of Prisons failed to show that it conducted reasonable search and failed to justify its withholdings under Exemptions 2, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Apr. 13, 2018

Jackson v. GSA (3rd Cir.) (per curiam) -- affirming district court's decision that General Services Administration and the Internal Revenue Service performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff's application for employment with IRS as revenue agent.

Apr. 4, 2018

Frost v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that Office of Attorney General performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, FBI failed to adequately describe search methodology employed by its San Francisco Field Office, and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery. 

Apr. 3, 2018

Negley v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff in connection with UNABOMB case, and that plaintiff could not challenge redacted documents that were responsive to his previous FOIA litigation in Western District of Texas. 

Apr. 2, 2018

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for years' worth of communications originating with two components that mention "carbon," and (2)  agency's withholdings under deliberative process privilege were justified except records concerning "staff commentary on news articles, public comments by non-agency officials, and other media originating outside the Department."

Mar. 31, 2018

Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, ruling that FBI's policy of charging $15.00 for preparing CD with 500 pages did not violate statute's requirement that agency recover “only the direct costs of search, duplication, or review.” 

Borda v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Criminal Division's supplemental search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal investigation and prosecution was adequate; (2) Criminal Division properly withheld plea agreements that are under court seal, as well as other responsive records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (grand jury material) and 5 (attorney work-product privilege).  

Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys performed adequate search for third-party records related to plaintiff's mortgage fraud conviction and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (2) FBI conducted adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E); and (3) plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.  

Mar. 30, 2018

Jordan v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency improperly withheld email under attorney-client privilege, noting that "simply copying an attorney on a communication does not make that communication privileged.'

Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol failed to perform reasonable search for certain policy records and instructions disseminated to customs officials at U.S. ports-of-entry.

Reilly v. DOJ (D. Conn.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 3, 6 and 7(C) to withhold wiretap surveillance tapes concerning criminal investigation of Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim. In reaching its decision, the court stated that exposing Ganim's misconduct as elected official was not in public interest because it would not shed light on misconduct by federal officials. 

Yanofsky v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- holding that FOIA's fee scheme was not displaced by the Mutual Educational And Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and the Appropriations Act of 2016, and thus Commerce improperly billed plaintiff $173,775 in connection with his request about visitors and international flights to United States.

Turner v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (E.D. Cal.) -- concluding that Financial Crimes Enforcement Network performed adequate search for copy of Currency Transaction Report concerning plaintiff. 

Mar. 29, 2018

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that State Department properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records originally generated by non-agency employees in preparation for Senate confirmation hearings of Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton and Legal Adviser Designate Harold Koh; further ruling that agency properly withheld private email addresses pursuant to Exemption 6, which plaintiff did not dispute. 

Knowles v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that State Department performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's extradition from the Bahamas, and that State Department and/or DOJ's Criminal Division properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 5, 6, and 7(C). 

Tokar v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Criminal Division's creation of chart regarding selection of corporate compliance monitors for fifteen corporations did not satisfy obligation to conduct adequate search for records in absence of agreement with plaintiff; (2) Criminal Division properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold company's compliance program concerning Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (3) agency improperly withheld, pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C): (a) "names of monitor selection committee members who are not part of DOJ’s senior management;" (b) "names and related personal identifying information concerning the individuals nominated but not selected to be monitors;” and (c) "names of the unselected nominees when those names appeared in a company’s response letter to its submitter notice."

Mar. 27, 2018

Nat'l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges to withhold certain Attorney General communications related to eleven contested immigration decision; (2) agency's use of deliberative process privilege was not justified by brief descriptions provided in VaughnIndex. 

Mar. 26, 2018

Mertz v. SSA (E.D. Mich.) -- rejecting magistrate judge's recommendation to release certain records, because court found records fell within parameters of attorney-client privilege or Exemption 6 and 7(C).    

Russell v. United States (E.D. Tenn.) --  concluding that U.S. Marshals Service conducted adequate search for records pertaining to assault at detention center, and that agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact names, email addresses, and telephone numbers of agency employees and local law enforcement.

James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to sufficiently explain applicability of deliberative process privilege to records concerning Thomas A. Drake.  

Rojas-Vega v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency conducted reasonable search for state criminal court transcripts and that it properly withheld records under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Mar. 24, 2018

Seife v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process and presidential communications privileges) to withhold records concerning press briefings given "on background" by anonymous senior agency officials; (2) agency did not justify use of Exemption 6 to withhold identities of senior employees who provided briefings, but it properly withheld cell phone numbers and personal email addresses, as well as identities of lower-level Department of Defense employees.  

Mar. 23, 2018

Edelman v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of 36 individuals who complained about transfer of ownership of Empire State Building in New York. 

Casey v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI properly refused to confirm or deny -- pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C) -- existence of witness statements of six individuals in connection with agency's investigation of plaintiff for murder.

Mar. 22, 2018

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz. v.  DHS (D. Ariz.) -- on motion for reconsideration, finding that: (1) public interest in disclosing names of DHS employees accused of mistreating unaccompanied children outweighed privacy interests; (2) court "clearly erred" by previously suggesting that DHS names could be disclosed under protective order.

Fabricant v. DOJ (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court's decision that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives performed reasonable search and properly withheld certain records; further finding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiff's motions for in camera review, discovery, striking agency's declaration, and litigation costs.   

E.G. v. Dep't of the Air Force (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Air Force properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold certain records from administrative proceeding concerning plaintiff's allegations of sexual assault against staff seargent.

Reep v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff's claims against Executive Office for United States Attorneys, FBI, and Drug Enforcement Agency were filed too late -- that is, six years after his right to file first accrued; and (2) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withelld records pursuant to Exemption 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Mar. 20, 2018

Burke v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that U.S. Postal Inspection Service properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact third-party information contained in records referred to agency by EOUSA and FBI, and that FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D).  

Mar. 19, 2018

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI conducted reasonable search for investigative records pertaining to Donald Trump's statement about Russia looking for Hillary Clinton's missing emails; (2) FBI properly withheld all responsive records concerning item 1 above pursuant to Exemption 7(A); (3) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(A) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of investigative records concerning Donald Trump statement about "Second Amendment people" stopping Hillary Clinton; (4) Secret Service properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold records concerning plaintiff's requests.  

Dutton v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI and DOJ Inspector General conducted adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff, and that government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Mar. 16, 2018

Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (10th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff's claims for benefits and that agency did not withhold any responsive records. 

Mar. 15, 2018

Lopez v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal agency's decision before he filed lawsuit.  

Chase v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that:  (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's prosecution for possession of child pornography; (2) EOUSA properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the Child Witnesses' Rights Act,  to withhold grand jury transcripts; (3) U.S. Marshals Service properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E); and (4) EOUSA properly referred certain records to FBI, which properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to waiver of duplication fees.  

Mar. 14, 2018

Garcia v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1)  government performed reasonable search for records concerning prosecution witness who testified against plaintiff, and (2) government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).

Mar. 13, 2018

Roseberry-Andrews v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency failed to demonstrate that it performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's employment with ICE; (2) plaintiff failed to establish that agency had policy or practice of delaying FOIA responses; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E); and (4) agency failed to identify portions of records withheld as non-segregable. 

Mar. 8, 2018

Clemente v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- denying appellant's petition for rehearing en banc.  Notably, Judge Kavanaugh stated in a concurring opinion that the Court’s "four-factor test for awarding attorney’s fees in FOIA cases is inconsistent with FOIA’s text and structure, and impermissibly favors some FOIA plaintiffs over other equally deserving FOIA plaintiffs.  In an appropriate case, I believe that the en banc Court should re-examine and jettison that four-factor test."

Walston v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- finding that government performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's complaint with DOD that her computer was hacked.

Mar. 7, 2018

Schoeffler v. USDA (D.Ariz.) -- concluding that agency failed to perform adequate search in response to one of four requests for records concerning Yarnell Hill Fire in Arizona.

Mar. 6, 2018

Sanchez v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that Drug Enforcement Administration conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff by entering plaintiff's name into agency's "Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Information System."

Calderon v.DOJ (D.D.C.) -- near-duplicate decision as Sanchez v. DOJ, above.

Mar. 2, 2018

Rockwood v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed summary judgment motion because agency dropped Exemption 7(E) as sole basis for withholding certain records and plaintiff conceded that no genuine dispute existed. 

Mar. 1, 2018

Beard v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (E.D. La.) -- concluding that agency failed to justify withholding of 154 emails and attachments pursuant to Exemption 5 and ordering production of amended Vaughn index.

Feb. 28. 2018

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit seeking disclosure of "all existing and future . . . formal opinions" issued by the Office of Legal Counsel, because "at least some of the documents sought are to subject to FOIA Exemption 5."  

Muckrock v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that:  (1) CIA has employed policy of categorically refusing to process plaintiff's requests for email records that do not specify "to and "from" recipients, time frame, and subject, and that agency's per se policy violates FOIA; and (2) agency conducted adequate search and properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with National Security Act of 1947, to withhold disputed records in whole or in part.

Flores v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that agency performed adequate search.

Feb. 23, 2018

Singh v. USPS (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court's decision that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's employment.

Cable News Network v. FBI (D.D.C.) (consolidating five cases) -- finding that: (1) FBI conducted adequate search for documents related to James Comey's memos about President Trump and memos by Comey (or related documents) about other specific prominent figures; (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C), but was required to release certain portions of non-responsive email chain.

Feb. 22, 2018

Burke v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because Executive Office for United States Attorneys adequately demonstrated that it never received plaintiff's request before plaintiff filed suit.

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that DOJ properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to expedited treatment of request concerning Noel Francisco, then Acting Solicitor General.  Although plaintiff demonstrated existence of widespread media interest in Mr. Francisco's nomination as Solicitor General, DOJ "correctly concluded" that plaintiff failed to show that media's interest "raised possible questions about government integrity that affect public confidence."  Notably, in reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that DOJ's interpretation of applicable regulation, 28 C.F.R. §16.5(e)(2), was not entitled to deference.   

Feb. 21, 2018

Rodriguez v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ's Criminal Division and Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to demonstrate that they performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case.

Feb. 20. 2018

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- in witty-styled opinion, ruling that settlement agreement between parties concerning tax matters did not preclude plaintiff from filing FOIA lawsuit, nor did the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata.

Feb. 16, 2016

Carlson v. USPS (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that plaintiff did not present "clear and convincing" evidence that judgment -- which was partially favorable to plaintiff -- should be vacated to permit plaintiff to revive challenges to Exemption 5 withholdings and adequacy of agency's search.  

Feb. 15, 2016

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning Attorney General's recusal from certain matters related to 2016 presidential campaign.  Although plaintiff did not dispute DOJ's search methodology, it argued that the agency's search nonetheless was unreasonable because plaintiff believed that certain documents should have been located, such as an updated calendar and written advice to the Attorney General.  The court rejected plaintiff's belief as "nothing but supposition," noting that it was "hardly surprising that a busy day might turn out differently for a senior government official than was planned on his calendar.  Nor is it unheard of that an official might receive sensitive advice orally rather than in writing."

Feb. 13, 2018

Pulliam v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving investigation into toxic contamination at former Army base, finding that: (1) DOD's renewed searches were inadequate and plaintiff was entitled to "limited telephonic deposition" regarding agency's search for electronic records; (2) EPA's supplemental searches were adequate except with respect to one office, and that EPA properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 6; and (3) DOJ's renewed search was inadequate in multiple respects and noting that agency's declarant had already "wasted everyone's time the first time around."

Sharkey v. DOJ (N.D. Ohio) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff (who believes federal government has been surveilling him),  and that it properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold certain information from records generated in response to plaintiff's complaints.  

Feb. 12, 2018

Otero v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly declined to complete search for responsive records because plaintiff had failed to pay fees in connection with an earlier request.   

Feb. 7, 2018

Judicial Watch v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 as grounds for refusing to confirm or deny existence of unclassified report assessing Moscow’s interference in foreign elections.

Feb. 6, 2018

Hill v. Exec. Office for the U.S. Attorneys (W.D. Va.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search notwithstanding failure to locate files that it possessed prior to plaintiff's request; (2) plaintiff's Constitutional rights as criminal defendant did not apply to FOIA case.

Feb. 5, 2018

Mount v. Nielsen (D.D.C.) -- holding that DHS Office of Inspector General properly refused to confirm or deny, pursuant to Exemption 7(C), existence of records concerning allegation that Supervisory Special Agent "lost his official credentials to a prostitute and the credentials had to be retrieved by local police."

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly refused to confirm or deny, pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 6, existence of records pertaining to "Trump Dossier" and that President's tweet did not constitute public acknowledgment of existence of requested records.

Evans v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold video of prison altercation involving plaintiff, and (2) agency was not required to answer plaintiff's questions concerning screwdriver that might have been used in altercation.

N.Y. Times v. U.S. Secret Serv. (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to withhold certain records regarding air transportation costs during 2016 presidential campaign; (2) plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees  or other litigation costs because it failed to obtain any judicial relief. 

Feb. 2, 2018

Cable News Network, Inc. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- deciding after in camera review that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold memoranda written by James Comey concerning multiple conversations with President Trump.

Feb. 1, 2018

Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. FBI (9th Cir.) -- vacating district court's decision and holding that "when a FOIA request seeks guidelines and other generalized documents compiled by a law enforcement agency not related to a particular investigation, the government need not link the document to the enforcement of a particular statute in order to claim the protection of Exemption 7. Rather, the agency need only establish a rational nexus between the withheld document and its authorized law enforcement activities."

Jaber v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) multiple agencies properly refused to confirm or deny -- pursuant to Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 -- existence of records "that would tend to confirm in one way or another" role of government in drone strike in Yemen in 2012, and (2) agencies performed adequate searches for other requested records related to drone strike.   

Grynberg v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that DOJ properly withheld certain records pertaining to prosecution of James Giffen pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and mutual assistance agreement with Switzerland.

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning "Operation Mosaic," and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).

Jan. 31, 2018

Huntington v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding after three rounds of litigation that U.S. Patent & Trade Office performed reasonable search for records concerning its Sensitive Application Warning System.  

Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) government did not show that it conducted adequate search for records concerning Secure Communities program and Priority Enforcement Program; (2) government failed to establish that it properly withheld draft statistical reports pursuant to deliberative process privilege. 

Jan. 30, 2018

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that "no evidence" supported plaintiff's claim that agency had policy or practice of forcing FOIA requesters to file suit in order to obtain records, and that agency's disavowal was supported by "hard data corroborating its claim that it must handle immense FOIA obligations with limited resources."

Jan. 26, 2018

Whitney v. DOJ (D. Ark.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff failed to specify where requested case records would likely be maintained and it would be unreasonable burdensome for government to search offices in all federal districts.

Jan. 24, 2018

Waterman v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) IRS properly relied on Exemption 5 to withhold memoranda concerning investigation into plaintiff's alleged misconduct; and (2) IRS relied on Exemption 6 to withhold email addresses and telephone numbers of agency employees.  

Elliott v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency performed adequate search for records of a building that it did not own. 

Jan. 22, 2018

Estevez v. U.S. Attorney's Office for the S. Dist. of Cal. (S.D. Cal.) -- finding that Federal Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorney's Office performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff-inmate and that all withheld records were protected pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and/or 7(F).  

Jan. 19, 2018

White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff constructively exhausted his administratively remedies when he mailed complaint from prison, which predated government's FOIA responses; (2) liberally construed in pro se plaintiff's favor, complaint articulated challenge to adequacy of Bureau of Prison's search; and (3) government's conduct in litigation did not warrant sanctions.     

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency performed reasonable search for copy of legal determination as to whether emails of former Secretary of State Clinton dated January-April 2009 were official State Department records.

Am. Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Right Projects v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) --  awarding attorney's fees and costs to plaintiff, but reducing requested amount for fees incurred prior to litigation, excessive time drafting the complaint; and block billing.

Jan. 18, 2018

Am. Civil Liberties Union of N. Cal. v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part district court's decision and ruling that only portions of internal guidance for prosecutors was exempt as attorney work product and that none of disputed records were protected by Exemption 7(E).

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Department re-posted three categories of disputed animal welfare records on its website, which mooted plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief; (2) as to remaining records that Department did not re-post, plaintiff failed to show that Department was required to post them under statute's "reading room" provision. 

Jan. 17, 2018

Kaye v. DHS (S.D.N.Y) -- finding that DHS properly withheld witness statement in immigration-related matter pursuant to Exemptions 7(C)), 7(D), and 7(F) and discounting relevance of plaintiff's assertion that he deduced the witness's identity.  

Jan. 12, 2018

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C) -- concluding on motion for renewed summary judgment that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold attorney-client privileged communications between company and its legal counsel, except those portions that agency officially disclosed through public releases; and (2) agency provided sufficient justification for redacting identifying information of agency and company personnel under Exemption 7(C), except for names that agency officially acknowledged through FOIA disclosures

Jan. 11, 2018

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) records concerning agency's use of certain electronic devices during Secretary Clinton's tenure did not meet asserted "government misconduct" exception to deliberative process privilege; and (2) agency needed to clarify whether it had reviewed and released in full emails recovered by FBI in October 2016.  

Kanaya v. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm & Explosives (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because ATF averred that it never received plaintiff's request before lawsuit and plaintiff was unable to show that he mailed the request to an address associated with ATF. 

Jan. 10. 2018

Cornucopia Inst. v. Agric. Mktg. Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but reducing award from $41,965.73 sought by plaintiff to $12,145.83 due to excessive charges. 

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting plaintiff's motion to expedite production of travel ban records and Vaughn Index because agency had not released a single record in six months and it failed to show that meeting new scheduled would be impractical.  

Jan. 5, 2018

Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv. (10th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that documents prepared by contractor and never seen by agency are not "agency records," rejecting relevance of agency's reliance on documents or its ownership rights.

Jan. 4, 2018

Gatore v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review after finding that agency's supplemental declarations failed to sufficiently explain whether agency released all non-exempt segregable material from asylum assessments.

James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of synopsis of Trump-Russia Dossier and related records; and (2) CIA, NSA, and Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly withheld synopsis pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, and properly refused to confirm or deny existence of remaining records pursuant to same exemptions.  Notably, the court rejected plaintiff's arguments that statements made by President Trump and former executive branch officials precluded summary judgment in government's favor.      

Jan. 3, 2018

Cole v. Rochford (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's request for discovery regarding Federal Emergency Management Agency's search for records about World Trade Center's collapse on September 11, 2001, because agency had not yet filed its motion for summary judgment with supporting declarations.

Dec. 29, 2017

Parker v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (D.D.C.) -- on second round of briefing in dispute over emails from 1998 to 2006, finding that agency's search of one Special Agent's email remained inadequate in several respects but that agency adequately explained its email backup system.

Dec. 22, 2017

Eil v. DEA (1st Cir.) -- reversing judgment of district court because it failed to consider privacy interests of decedents' family members and holding that Exemption 7(C) permitted DEA to withhold medical and death-related records introduced as exhibits by government at criminal trial of Dr. Paul Volkman. A dissenting judge agreed that the lower court employed incorrect standard, but opined that summary judgment.was precluded by a genuine factual dispute. 

Dec. 21, 2017

Gatore v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiffs were eligible for and entitled to attorney's fee and costs for substantially prevailing in case involving FOIA requests for assessments of asylum officers.  In reaching its decision, the court notably held that it was unreasonable for DHS to withhold non-responsive information from a responsive document. per recent D.C. Circuit case law.  The court also held that plaintiff failed to demonstrate the "LSI Laffey Matrix" reflects the prevailing hourly rates for attorneys better than the "USAO Matrix." 

Dec. 20, 2017

Whitaker v. Dep't of Commerce (D. Vt.) -- concluding that: (1) First Responder Authority Network (FirstNet)is wholly exempt from FOIA pursuant to section 1426(d) of Title 47; (2) National Telecommunications & Information Administration and main Department of Commerce both properly declined to perform searches because they were likely to be futile; (3) Department did not have improper practice or policy of referring requests to FirstNet.  

Dec. 19, 2017

Am. Ctr. for Equitable Treatment v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency's search was inadequate because: (1) agency failed to sufficiently explain why it did not search for records requested prior to January 20, 2009, and  (2) agency failed to use certain commonly used terms as search terms.  

Dec. 18, 2017

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Office of the Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 (National Security Act of 1947) to withhold, in its entirety, an assessment of U.S. Intelligence Community ("IC") compiled by agency regarding Russia's attempts to influence 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Dec. 15, 2017

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court's decision that FBI had conducting adequate search for records concerning its impersonation of media during law enforcement investigations.  In reaching its ruling, the Circuit found that the government failed to sufficiently describe which agency files were searched and how, failed to demonstrate that certain records would not likely be maintained outside of one office it searched, and failed to follow one clear lead mentioned in responsive records.

Dec. 14, 2017

Frank LLP v. CFPB (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Bureau properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain records concerning enforcement action against debt collector; (2) Bureau properly withheld attorney interview notes prepared during active investigation into potential target pursuant to Exemption 5 (attorney work-product); (3) plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to second request for failure to pay fees; (4) Bureau has improper practice of treating records submitted in response to Civil Investigative Demands ("CIDs") as "voluntarily" submitted for  purposes of Exemption 4; (5) Bureau properly treats entities that buy and collect on debts as "financial institutions" for purposes of Exemption 8. 

Dec. 13, 2017

Pickard v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- ruling that: (1) district court properly held that Exemption 7(D) protected name and information provided by source despite source's testimony at public trail; and (2) district court abused its discretion by considering plaintiff's remaining claims "withdrawn," because even though plaintiff had not sought summary judgment on those claims, he had opposed agency's summary judgment motion. 

Scudder v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that CIA has policy or practice of categorically refusing to produce responsive documents electronically.

Goldner v. SSA (D. Md.) -- finding that: (1) agency reasonably searched for names and contact information of claimant representatives by utilizing its "Modernized Claims System" (MCS) database; and (2) although plaintiff sought only business contact information, agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold disputed addresses and telephone numbers because agency was unable to distinguish personal and business information in MCS database. 

Dec. 11, 2017

Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold thirteen documents concerning toxic contamination at schools in Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District, but that agency failed to carry burden of proof with respect to six other documents withheld in full or in part pursuant to same privilege.   

Dec. 4, 2017

Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) several of plaintiff's FOIA requests were moot because agency released all responsive records; and (2) agency demonstrated that it performed reasonable search by submitting declaration containing "three essential statements that courts require: the search terms used, the database or locations searched, and an averment that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched."  

Rojas v. FAA (D. Ariz.) -- in case involving multiple requests pertaining to agency's policy change for hiring Air Traffic Control Specialists, finding that: (1) agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of complaints against named individual; and (2) agency improperly relied on privacy exemptions to redact email subject lines, case numbers, attachment files, and various other records; (3) agency failed to justify its use of Exemption 7(A).   

Dec. 1, 2017

Judicial Watch v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold copies of any indictments against Hillary Clinton arising out of Independent Counsel's investigation.

Keeping Gov't Beholden v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's request for expedited review under Federal Courts Civil Priorities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1657, because plaintiff failed to show "manifest good cause." 

Nov. 30, 2017

Ecological Rights Found. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) agency properly used the date it began to search for documents as cut-off date; (2) agency failed to demonstrate propriety of its withholdings pursuant to deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges; notably, the court cited agency's statutory obligation to show reasonably foreseeable harm; (3) Exemption 6 did not protect names of individuals or contact information appearing in records concerning National Flood Insurance Program; and (4) plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief "because FEMA has repeatedly failed to comply with its express statutory requirements."

Nov. 29, 2017

O'Connor v. Office of Foreign Assets Control (E.D. Pa.) -- holding that agency failed to adequately search for records concerning its procedures for granting licenses to conduct business in Cuba. 

Nov. 28, 2017

Conley v. FBI (3rd Cir.) -- (1) affirming district court's decision that plaintiff was not entitled to fee waiver regarding records concerning himself; (2) affirming district court's decision that plaintiff failed to file a timely administrative appeal from one of FBI's responses; and (3) vacating and remanding district court's decision that FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold portion of law enforcement manual. 

Nov. 27, 2017

Sorin v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff's fraud prosecution pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)), 5 (attorney work-product privilege), and 6 and 7(C). 

Nov. 21, 2017

Nat'l Pub. Radio v. FEMA (D.D.C.) -- ordering agency to release the names of individuals who sold property through agency's flood mitigation program, as well as the addresses and sales prices of those properties, after finding that the privacy interests at stake were outweighed by the public interest in knowing whether agency was a good steward of taxpayer dollars.

Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney's fees with respect to certain claims from three lawsuits (as well as all costs), but reducing award for time spent on unsuccessful claims and ordering plaintiff to recalculate hourly rates based upon different fee matrix.

Nov. 20, 2017

Wallick v. Agric. Mktg. Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that:  (1) agency reasonably interpreted the scope of plaintiff's request to be limited to its original application for certification, as opposed to applications for recertification and related audits; (2) agency failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for adequate records; and (3) agency improperly withheld disputed sentence pursuant to deliberative process privilege, and agency was precluded from withholding it as non-responsive.

Nov. 17, 2017

Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review (D.D.C.) -- on remand from the D.C. Circuit, ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of certain, but not all, immigration judges against whom complaints had been filed.

Nov. 16, 2017

Corley v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys released all reasonably segregable records containing third-party information and properly withheld all but five documents pursuant to  attorney work-product privilege.

Nov. 10, 2017

King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying pro se plaintiff's opposition and cross motion because plaintiff failed to show "excusable neglect" for filing them late; further denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration because plaintiff offered no "good reason" for reopening court's decision on government's summary judgment motion. 

Nov. 9, 2017

Hardy v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $20,095.95 in attorney's fees and costs for substantially prevailing in case against DOJ's Office of Inspector General, but not against ATF, and reducing award for its limited success and for time spent on certain non-compensable tasks. 

Brick v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI's declarations were too sweeping and vague to permit review of agency's withholdings on 12 pages of records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Nov. 7, 2017

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed summary judgment motion regarding use of Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold records about pen registers or trap and trace devices, except with respect to certain redactions that government failed to address.  

Nov. 6, 2017

Dubuque v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force (E.D. Mo.) -- ruling that agency properly relied upon Exemption 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff's polygraph examination. 

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records concerning the United States's unpublished international agreements.

Nov. 2, 2017

Sandoval v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, failed to administratively appeal the Federal Bureau of Prison's FOIA determination before filing lawsuit; (2) Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to demonstrate that it had conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff; and (3) FBI conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F). 

Oct. 31, 2017

Bloomgarden v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold proposed job termination letter issued to the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted plaintiff's criminal case, noting that the letter revealed "only alleged unprofessionalism of a sort in which any junior attorney might engage, not allegations of prosecutorial misconduct or other abuse of a federal prosecutor's powers." 

Oct. 30, 2017

Emanuel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact third party names from incident report.

Oct. 24, 2017

Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. HHS (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court's order requiring agency to prospectively release health insurance plans, because: (1) agency had not withheld records pursuant to improper practice or policy, (2) agency had not withheld records solely for purposes of delay, and (3) agency was not likely to continue to withhold disputed records in future.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- granting agency's motion for reconsideration after concluding that information contained within two Hillary Clinton emails pertaining to Benghazi attack were properly protected under Exemption 1.

Oct. 19, 2017

Wren v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration was not required to create list of cases in which Special Agency had testified; and (2) pro se plaintiff-inmate was not entitled to fees or costs even though DEA released records about Special Agent after unilaterally changing position during litigation, because disclosure was primarily in plaintiff's interest and agency's initial withholding had a "colorable basis in law."

Oct. 17, 2017

Cornucopia Inst. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for investigatory records concerning certain organic corporations and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Oct. 10, 2017

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- (1) dismissing as moot plaintiff's claim that agency improperly redacted records as "non-responsive" and improperly segmented one record into multiple records; (2) denying as unduly prejudicial plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to add "policy-or-practice" claim against agency regarding its designation of records as non-responsive.

Oct. 6, 2017

Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) court has authority to issue broad, prospective injunction requiring Office of Legal Counsel to affirmatively produce to plaintiff legal opinions that are subject to reading-room requirement; and (2) plaintiff failed to identify ascertainable set of legal opinions that OLC has failed to make publicly available and index pursuant to reading-room requirement. 

Oct. 3, 2017

Thompson v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- denying summary judgment to both parties because plaintiff failed to show he had standing to pursue a "policy or practice" FOIA claim and DOJ failed to negate or even to address the issue.

Oct. 2, 2017

Wheeler v. Mahar (N.D. Ga.) -- dismissing lawsuit against State Department because plaintiff's request for records concerning former President Barak Obama did not include Mr. Obama's written authorization. 

Sept. 30, 2017

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly invoked Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold report of investigation concerning Secretary Clinton's IT Specialist; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5 to redact portion of email between Secretary Clinton and General Petraeus concerning personnel decisions, but neither party was entitled to summary judgment as to redactions made pursuant to Exemption 6. 

Associated Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) --  holding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 7(E) to withhold identity of and price paid to technology vendor that assisted FBI in unlocking iPhone of suspected terrorist.

Sept. 29, 2017

Sheridan v. OPM (D.D.C.) -- holding that Office of Personnel Management properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold computer files containing the source code for agency's Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-Qip) System.

Spataro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case except with respect to certain documents housed in New Jersey facility damaged by Hurricane Sandy; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 6 and 7(C) to withhold records concerning law enforcement personnel and other third parties; and (3) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(D) to withhold certain source information, but did not adequately explain basis for withholding source information pursuant to express assurances of confidentiality.

Digirolamo v. DEA (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration properly relied on Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), or 7(F) to withhold records concerning plaintiff; (2) agency properly denied fee waiver request because disclosure would primarily benefit only plaintiff; (3) agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to categorically withhold records about third parties.

Sarno v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A); (2)  DOJ's Tax Division performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C); (3) Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold grand jury records; (4) FBI properly withheld wiretap records pursuant to Exemption 3; (5) Internal Revenue Service properly withheld grand jury material pursuant to Exemption 3. 

Coffey v. BLM (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Land Management did not perform reasonable search for records concerning sale of wild horses and burros, because agency neglected to produce multiple email attachments or to identify all locations where it searched for records.

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) government performed adequate search for snapshots of enforcement database used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol; (2) government properly relied on Exemption 6 to withholdnames and contact information of agency employees; (3) government failed to justify withholdings under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E); and (4) evidentiary hearing would be required in lieu of further briefing. 

Goldstein v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- declaring that plaintiff failed to perfect certain but not all requests concerning tax examination file and return and return information of his father's Estate.

Goldstein v. TIGTA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff's newly discovered evidence did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b); and (2)  Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold certain records, but failed to justify its use of Exemption 7(C).

Sept. 28, 2017

Agrama v. IRS (D.D.C.)-- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold all disputed records pertaining to investigation of plaintiff's tax payments.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning pesticide product; (2) agency properly withheld personal phone number pursuant to Exemption 6; (3) agency failed to demonstrate propriety of withholdings made under Exemption 5; and (4) plaintiff failed to show that agency had pattern of practice of disregarding FOIA response deadline or neglecting to provide estimated completion dates.

Codrea v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency's failure to release records until plaintiff filed lawsuit was insufficient to establish plaintiff's eligibility for attorney's fees. 

Alford v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency failed to perform adequate search for a portion of plaintiff's vocational rehabilitation case records; (2) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to request for certain email; and (3) plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of $400 filing fee for lawsuit, noting agency's "unreasonable intransigence" and "numerous unforced errors."  

Sept. 27, 2017

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- ordering government to release additional portions of six of nineteen documents concerning CIA's detention and interrogation program after finding Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 did not protect them. 

Alliance Defending Freedom v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed an adequate search for records pertaining to Treasury Regulations § 301.7611-1 ("Questions and answers relating to church tax inquiries and examinations").

Edelman v. SEC (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for investigatory records concerning real estate investment trust; and (2) agency failed to demonstrate propriety of withholdings under Exemptions 4 and 5, which were justified by only speculative and conclusory statements.

Sept. 26, 2017

Cruz v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that government properly withheld certain records concerning plaintiff's criminal case pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and "various subparts of exemption 7," which pro se plaintiff failed to oppose.

Sept. 25, 2017

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that government properly relied on Local Civil Rule 84 to withhold settlement-related documents exchanged between congressional committee and DOJ relating to "Fast and Furious" program.

Lockett v. Wray (D.D.C.) -- finding that local law enforcement agency, not FBI, maintained records of plaintiff's DNA profile.

Urban Air Initiative. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency failed to adequately search for records concerning gasoline fuel study, but that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 4, 5, and 6.     

Sept. 22, 2017

Cable News Network v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff's request for records "relating in any way" to memos issued by former FBI Director James Comey was not reasonably described.   

Sept. 21, 2017

Taylor Energy v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Department performed reasonable search for records underlying statements it issued about 2004 incident at plaintiff's oil platform in Gulf of Mexico; (2) Department properly relied upon deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold five disputed documents.

MacLeod v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DHS demonstrated that it did not maintain records concerning plaintiff's application for "diplomatic status" card; (2) plaintiff failed to appeal CIA's Glomar response regarding himself, and his request concerning "Russia" and the "Cold War" was not reasonably described; and (3) National Security Administration and the General Services Administration demonstrated that it never received requests from plaintiff

Sept. 20, 2017

Lindsey v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- denying without prejudice agency's Glomar response concerning request for records of interaction between government and Imad Hage, because FBI interpreted request too narrowly, Mr. Hage publicly acknowledged (to some degree) his contacts with U.S. officials, and agency failed to acknowledge any public interest in subject matter of request.

Sept. 19, 2017

Hall v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that; (1) DEA, ATF, and Criminal Division performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff; (2) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to request to Bureau of Prisons; and (3) Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to indicate how agency responded to request re-directed to it from Criminal Division.

Murray v. Shulkin (D.D.C.) -- dismissing FOIA and Privacy Act case because: (1) Department of Veterans Affairs fully disclosed plaintiff's claim file; and (2) plaintiff failed to identify documents that agency allegedly falsified, and plaintiff failed to request amendment of such document prior to bringing lawsuit.

Sept. 18, 2017

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- finding that Air Force properly relied on Exemption 5 to withhold certain (but not all) disputed records pertaining to federal government's use of interrogation tactics designed and implemented by medical professionals.

Wilson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff's criminal case.

Sept. 15, 2017

McNeely v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that: (1) government conducted adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff's childhood medical records and a study at Hanford nuclear site; (2) government properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.

Gelb v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that government performed adequate search for records concerning unclaimed funds and that it properly withheld the names of account holders pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Sept. 14, 2017

Sanchez-Alanis v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency properly withheld certain records from plaintiff's inmate files pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F), and that agency's delayed releases of records did not preclude summary judgment. 

Sept. 13, 2017

Tuffly v. DHS (9th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that Exemption 7(C) protected disclosure of names of 149 non-citizens who were released in 2013 from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention pending final removal determinations.

Wadhwa v. Sec'y U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (3rd Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that: (1) agency properly withheld records pertaining to complaints of employment discrimination pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6, and (2) agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of disciplinary records of named agency employees.

Carter v. USDA (W.D. Ark.) -- determining that Food and Nutrition Service performed reasonable search for records concerning institutions disqualified from food program between 1995 and 2001.

Sept. 12, 2017

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- holding that pro se attorney was ineligible for attorney's fees -- overruling magistrate judge's report and recommendation -- in light of U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432, 438 (1991), but granting award for plaintiff's costs.   

Sept. 11, 2017

Climate Investigations Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency failed to show that it adequately searched for records pertaining to "a power plant in Mississippi that uses 'clean coal' technology; (2) agency failed to show that its withholdings under deliberative process privilege were "predecisional" or that it properly relied upon attorney-client privilege; and (3) dispute about agency's Exemption 6 withholdings was moot because plaintiff possessed requested information via SEC filings.  

Sept. 8, 2017

Jackson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Criminal Division conducted adequate search for wiretap records pertaining to plaintiff's criminal case and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (oddly citing Privacy Act, which is not an Exemption 3 statute, instead of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act).

Burke v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that U.S. Secret Service performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff's criminal case.

Sept. 7, 2017

McPhail v. FBI (W.D. Pa.) -- holding that FBI was precluded from using Glomar response concerning plaintiff's co-defendant because Securities and Exchange Commission had officially acknowledged existence of investigation and FBI's participation in that investigation.

Sept. 6, 2017

Beagles v. Watkins (D.N.M.) -- ruling that plaintiff improperly named individual employee as defendant and that plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies because agency failed to make determination on appeal for two years.

King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that government could not withhold information provided by confidential source pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and/or 7(D) unless it explained whether source was an entity or individual. 

Judicial Watch. v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withheld surveillance videos concerning Anwar Aulaqi, an American-born Muslim cleric killed in Yemen by drone strike; and (2)  State Department failed to provide certain details necessary to evaluate adequacy of searches conducted in six of nine offices or record systems.  

Sept. 1, 2017

Wisdom v. U.S. Trustee Prog. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's bankruptcy case and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6. 

Bayala v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed a reasonable search for records concerning his asylum application and that it properly relied on Exemption 5 to withhold certain information, but not the first eight paragraphs,  from an "Assessment to Refer" document.

Aug. 31, 2017

Davidson v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning company's request for commercial assistance with Libyan government, and that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6.

Gatson v. FBI (D.N.J.) -- finding that: (1)  agency conducted reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and third parties, and that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 3, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to sufficiently describe its search with respect to one of plaintiff's five requests, and (2) case docket entry referencing protective order was insufficient to to prove that agency's search for public discovery materials would be futile.   

Aug. 29, 2017

Whitson v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- determining, upon motion for reconsideration, that agency performs law enforcement functions and therefore is entitled to invoke Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) in case involving investigation of personnel misconduct.

Pubien v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Office of Professional Responsibility performed a reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff's complaints about an Assistant United States Attorney and that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 6.

Aug. 28, 2017

Yagman v. Pompeo (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court's dismissal after concluding that plaintiff had requested records and not merely asked a question about CIA personnel or affiliates that engaged in torture.  Although the Circuit agreed with the agency that request was too vague, it remanded the case to the district court with instructions to allow plaintiff to reframe his request. 

Energy & Env't Legal Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of State (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that plaintiffs were precluded from filing separate summary judgment motions and that agency properly withheld disputed emails pertaining to environment pursuant to Exemptions 1, 5, and 6.  

Aug. 25, 2017

First Amendment Coalition v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court's decision that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney fees in case pertaining to Anwar al-Awlaki, and remanding for determination as to whether plaintiff is entitled to fees. Notably, one panelist opined that fee eligibility ought not depend upon whether plaintiff's litigation was  "substantial causative effect" of disclosure of requested information.

Aug. 23, 2017

Hetznecker v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (E.D. Pa.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning Occupy Philly movement and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E); and (2) NSA and CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pursuant to Exemption 1.  

Aug. 22, 2017

Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D. Colo.) -- finding that agency performed a reasonable search for plaintiff claim file  (from which it produced more than 7500 pages without redactions), and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery.

Dixon v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI conducted reasonable search for various records concerning comparative bullet lead analysis and that it properly withheld third party information pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

Aug. 21, 2017

Villar v. FBI (D.N.H.) -- concluding that pro se plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to his request concerning third party, and that FBI failed to submit adequate information to permit review of records withheld concerning plaintiff.  

Demoruelle v. Dep't of Veterans' Affairs (D. Haw.) -- granting pro se plaintiff's claim for waiver of fees, which agency did not dispute in litigation, and granting litigation costs but not attorney's fees.  

Francis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed a reasonable search for certain records concerning his prosecution for conspiring to kill a federal official.  

Aug. 18, 2017

Carlson v. USPS (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that Postal Service improperly withheld names, titles and email addresses of certain agency employees pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6.

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that tax returns of President Trump were not subject to disclosure without his written consent, which plaintiff failed to submit.

Aug. 17, 2017

Bush v. USDA (N.D. Iowa) -- finding that agency conducted adequate search for records of soybean and corn yields within four townships in Iowa, and that any arguably responsive records were protected pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 1502(c)(1).

Aug. 16. 2017

Parker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that attachment to already-produced letter was responsive record even though it pertained to subject unrelated to request;  further ruling that Exemptions 5 and 7(C) protected portion of document addressing reasons for employee's discipline but not agency's disciplinary procedures or information in public domain.

Labow v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI properly withheld disputed records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Pen Register Act and Rule 6(e) of Federal Rule Criminal Procedure.

Cornucopia Inst. v. Agric. Mktg. Serv. (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted adequate search for certain investigatory records concerning organically-produced agricultural products and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption5 and 7(C).

Legal Landmark Found. v. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff was precluded by collateral estoppel from bringing suit seeking records "evincing the use of" improper private electronic communications by certain agency employees, because same request to different agency was found by court to be inadequately described. 

Aug. 14, 2017

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz. v. DHS (D. Ariz.) -- finding that multiple agency components did not perform completely adequate searches for records concerning treatment of minors in Border Patrol custody, and that their declarations Vaughn Indices did not justify all withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Fund v. USDA (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing plaintiff's FOIA and APA claims concerning agency's removal of certain Animal Plant Health Inspection Service inspection records from online reading room.

Aug. 11, 2017

Clemente v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that FBI conducted a reasonable search for records concerning mob informant Gregory Scarpa and that disputed records met law enforcement enforcement threshold; further finding that court did not abuse discretion by denying interim attorney's fees or by dismissing case after plaintiff missed filing deadlines. 

Aug. 8, 2017

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency's search for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-mails related to Benghazi attack was inadequate because agency neglected to search the "state.gov" accounts of aides Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jacob Sullivan. 

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- ruling that agency's supplemental declaration established that disputed records were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5. 

Burke v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Transportation Security Agency performed an adequate search for travel records concerning plaintiff and his family.  

Aug. 7, 2017

McKinley v. FDIC (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency failed to show that withheld records concerning Citibank were properly withheld under Exemptions 4, 5, or 8, and ordering agency to submit revised Vaughn Index and/or declarations.

Shapiro v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI properly withheld certain records regarding Nelson Mandela under deliberative process privilege, and that agency properly excluded certain pages as non-responsive because they neither mention Nelson Mandela nor put the relevant pages in context.

Aug. 4, 2017

Price v. U.S. Dep't of Justice Attorney Office (D.C. Cir.) -- ruling in 2-1 decision that plea agreement waiving criminal defendant's FOIA rights "offends public policy and is therefore unenforceable."

Aguiar v. DEA (D.C. Cir.) -- vacating district court's decision because DEA failed to show that requested GPS software was not an agency record and failed to show that it adequately searched for administrative subpoenas that existed at time plaintiff submitted his request. 

Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied upon Exemption 4 to withhold certain email between company and agency administrative law judge because, among other things. the records contained privileged attorney-client communications.

Sharkey v. FBI (N.D. Ohio) -- determining that FBI conducted reasonable searches for assorted records concerning plaintiff and that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to one of his requests.  

Aug. 3, 2017

Argus Leader Media v. USDA (D.S.D.) -- awarding plaintiff attorney fees and costs despite undisputed finding that agency had a reasonable basis for withholding certain food stamp program records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 4.  See related news article. 

Aug. 2, 2017

Hall v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) CIA failed to demonstrate that its search for records pertaining to POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War era was adequate in all respects; (2) CIA properly invoked Exemption 1, but that Vaughn Index was deficient with respect to three documents; (3) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 5, noting that sunset provision of deliberative process privilege did not apply to this case; (3) Exemption 6 did not protect certain names of non-CIA employees because of substantial public interest in POW/MIA matters.    

Eakin v. DOD (W.D. Tex.) -- concluding that request for electronic files related to missing and unidentified veterans from World War II was not unreasonably burdensome.  In reaching its decision, the court noted that it could think of "few other government programs more solemn and worthy of public scrutiny than those tasked with ensuring that Americans who gave the last full measure of devotion in service to their nation are identified, returned home to their families or communities, and buried with honors."  Due to the volume of material, the court permitted DOD to make semi-annual productions over next four years.

July 31, 2017

Rios v. United States (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff properly certified his identity to Drug Enforcement Administration with respect to request concerning himself, and that DEA had waived its exhaustion of remedies defense regarding plaintiff's request concerning a third party.

July 28, 2017

Mattachine Soc'y of Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI failed to adequately search for records concerning Executive Order 10450; (2) FBI properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 7(D); and (3) FBI properly withheld certain names pursuant to Exemption 7(C), but that public interest warranted that names be replaced with uniquely identifiable alphanumeric markers and production of index.

July 27, 2017

White v. Office of the Fed. Defender for the Middle Dist. of Fla. (S.D. Ill.) -- spontaneously dismissing lawsuit as frivolous because defendant is not a federal agency subject to FOIA.

July 26, 2017

Am. Marine v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for responsive records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7)), 5, 7(A), and 7(D); (3) IRS failed to address whether "Risk Score" withheld under Exemption 7(E) was technique unknown to public; and (4)  judgment would be reserved as to Exemption 3 (26 U.S.C. § 6103(a)) and Exemption 6 until record was further developed.

July 25, 2017

Jackson v. GSA (E.D. Pa.) -- concluding that both GSA and Treasury performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff's unsuccessful application for employment as IRS agent.

James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that Department of Defense performed an adequate search for certain records concerning soldier's memoir about killing Osama Bin Laden, and that agency properly withheld information pursuant to Exemption 5 (which plaintiff conceded).  

July 24, 2017

Stein v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency was obliged to search for certain requested records even though plaintiff once had access to them during discovery phase of litigation; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Bank Secrecy Act), 7(A), and 7(C); and (3) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information to determine whether certain records withheld under Exemption 7(A) were also properly withheld under Exemption 5 

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain information from two pages referred to it by USCIS.

July 20, 2017

Seavey v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering FBI to process 102,000 pages of responsive records concerning Vietnam War at a rate of at least 2,850 pages per month, which exceeds agency's policy of processing 500 pages per month for voluminous requests. 

Huntington v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- determining that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office failed to perform an adequate search within one office for records concerning a confidential program, but that it properly withheld a disputed document pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Smart-Tek Automated Servs. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for responsive records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. 6103(e)(7)), 5, 6,  7(A), and 7(D); (3) IRS failed to address whether records withheld under Exemption 7(E) revealed techniques unknown to public; and (4) judgment would be reserved as to Exemption 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. 6103(a)) and Exemption 7(C) until record was further developed.

July 19, 2017

Smallwood v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing lawsuit because plaintiff did not submit the request and the requester (plaintiff's lawyer) failed to indicate that the request was made on behalf of a client generally or plaintiff specifically.  

July 18, 2017

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney's fees, but excluding all time spent on unsuccessful summary judgment briefing, reducing excessive time spent by three attorneys on certain tasks, ordering plaintiff to recalculate hourly rate based on updated U.S. Attorney's Office matrix, and reducing requested fee-on-fee award by 67 percent.

July 17, 2017

McGuffin v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D.N.C.) -- concluding that SSA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names and personal productivity information of agency decision writers. 

Gawker Media v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- rejecting discovery request for: (1) affidavit from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines concerning methodology he employed to search his private email for government documents, and (2) sworn certification that Reines turned over all government-related records in his private email accounts..

July 13, 2017

Canning v.  DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI properly relied upon Exemption 3 to withhold wiretap records, but that agency was required to release certain information that it had previously acknowledged officially; (2)  FBI was required to release certain names withheld under Exemption 7(C) and 7(D) because agency had previously acknowledged them officially; and (3) FBI failed to demonstrate the propriety of Exemption 7(D) to withhold certain information obtained from sources under implied assurance of confidentiality. 

Protect Democracy Project v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was entitled to expedited processing of its requests for records concerning President Trump's legal authority to order missile strikes against Syria, but declining to order defendants to produce records by any certain date. 

July 12, 2017

Baker v. FBI (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that names of FBI agents and Chicago police officers involved in an investigation were protected from disclosure pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

N.Y. Legal Assistance Grp. v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly withheld certain records, but not others,  concerning repayment of student loans pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(E).  Notably, the court opined that records concerning the enforcement of contracts did not meet the "law enforcement" threshold of Exemption 7(E).

July 11, 2017

Gerhard v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- finding that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed an adequate search and provided plaintiff with all requested records, but awarding plaintiff litigation costs due, in part, to agency's dilatory search.

July 10, 2017

Singh v. U.S. Postal Serv. (W.D. Wash.) -- determining that agency performed a reasonable search for plaintiff's employment records and granted him access to all documents located.  

Smart-Tek Serv. Solutions Corp. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for responsive records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. 6103(e)(7)), 5, 7(A), and 7(D); (3) IRS failed to address whether records withheld under Exemption 7(E) revealed techniques unknown to public; and (4) judgment would be reserved as to Exemption 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. 6103(a)) and Exemption 6 until record was further developed.

July 6, 2017

Harrison v. EOUSA (S.D. Cal.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning activities of Assistant United States Attorney with respect to plaintiff, a pro se inmate.

July 5, 2017

Trucept v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for responsive records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 7(A), and 7(D); (3) IRS failed to address whether "Risk Score" withheld under Exemption 7(E) was technique unknown to public; and (4)  judgment would be reserved as to Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(C) until record was further developed.

Frost v. Wilkinson (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing complaint because plaintiff improperly named an employee of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys as the defendant instead of the agency; stating in dicta that agency appeared to have conducted adequate search for records, which was sole issue in dispute.

July 3, 2017

Polk v. FBI (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that agency conducted reasonable search and that plaintiff was not entitled to costs.

Rosiere v. United States (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- summarily affirming district court's decision to dismiss case for improper venue.

June 30, 2017

Kulkarni v. U.S. Dep't of State (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that records concerning plaintiff's passport application were protected under Exemption 6.  

Finney v. SSA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that agency performed an adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6.

June 26, 2017

Yunes v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with Bank Secrecy Act to withhold records concerning plaintiff. a citizen of the Dominican Republic who had his United States visa revoked when he was identified as a known or suspected terrorist. 

June 22, 2017

Di Montenegro v. FBI (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that FBI performed a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, and that various agencies properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D), (7(E), and 7(F).  

June 19, 2017

Facebook v. IRS (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing plaintiff's claim seeking production of agency documents in electronic, native-file format with metadata because plaintiff's FOIA request did not specify format of production.  

June 13, 2017

Murphy v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (N.D.W.Va.) -- concluding that plaintiff was prevailing party due to agency's "multiple inadequate disclosures" and awarding plaintiff $552.54 for reasonable expenses.

June 9, 2017

Eleson v. Tippen (E.D. Cal.) -- recommending dismissal of lawsuit after finding that U.S. Postal Service conducted reasonable search and provided plaintiff with all records that it could locate.  Of note, the magistrate judge determined that it was not improper for agency to refer plaintiff to website (to which plaintiff, a prisoner, had no access) because plaintiff had not specified preferred format of production.  

June 8, 2017

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- permitting plaintiff to amend Complaint to allege that agency has policy or practice of forcing requesters to sue to obtain FOIA responses. 

June 6, 2017

Schwartz v. DEA (2nd Cir.) (summary order)  -- affirming district court's decision that certain video footage of drug interdiction raid in Honduras was not protected by Exemption 7(E).  

Baldwin v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing pro se plaintiff's suit because he sought answers to questions and not access to agency records.

June 5, 2017

Guidry v. Comey (11th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that FBI was not required to perform a "manual keyboard search" because it would have resulted in creation of new records rather than retrieval of existing records.

Canning v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI performed an adequate search for requested records concerning third parties; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), except with respect to certain information that FBI previously released to public.

June 2, 2017

White Arnold & Dowd P.C. v. Dep't of Justice (N.D. Ala.) -- finding that DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any complaints against an Assistant U.S. Attorney.

May 31. 2017

Kuzma v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court's decision that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning civil rights activist Ray Robinson and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(D).

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. USDA (N.D. Cal.) -- denying plaintiffs' request for preliminary injunction compelling USDA to restore public access to documents removed from online reading room.  In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that FOIA does not provide a public remedy for reading-room violations and that plaintiffs did not exhaust administrative remedies.  The Court further concluded that Administrative Procedure Act claim was unlikely to succeed and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm or that the balance of harms weighs in their favor.

May 30, 2017

Envtl. Integrity Project v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that EPA properly withheld confidential commercial information pursuant to Exemption 4, rejecting appellant's argument that Exemption 4 is superseded by Section 308 of the Clean Water Act.

May 26, 2017

The Few, The Proud, The Forgotten v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D. Conn.) -- concluding that: (1) agency failed to conduct an adequate search for certain records regarding compensation scheme for injuries caused to veterans by contaminated water at Marine Corps base; (2) agency failed to show that Exemption 6 applied to qualifications of agency employees.

May 25, 2016

Cause Action v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for any records indicating that Executive Office of the President made unauthorized requests for tax return information.

Bloomgarden v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees and costs given the government's "obdurate behavior that unnecessarily prolonged [the] litigation, but reducing award from $154,885 to $45,518 because of limited success, duplicative efforts, and improper billing techniques. 

May 23, 2017

Whitson v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- holding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning employee misconduct investigation; (2) agency could not rely upon Exemptions 7(C ) and 7(E) because none of the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes; (3) agency properly identified privacy interested covered by Exemption 6, but needed to reconsider public interest at stake; and (4) agency properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process privilege, rejecting plaintiff's argument that agency was required to demonstrate concrete evidence of harm.

May 17, 2017

Scudder v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the CIA properly applied Exemption (b)(1) and adequately justified its segregability review where former CIA employee had requested copies of certain articles published in the CIA journal, Studies in Intelligence.

Katsiaficas v. CIA (D. Mass.) -- ruling that the CIA conducted an adequate search and properly applied Exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3), in conjunction with Section 102A of the National Security Act and Section 6 of the Central Intelligence Act, to records concerning the United States government's long-term involvement in South Korea.

May 16, 2017

Seavey v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was entitled to public interest waiver of duplication fees with respect to requested FBI records concerning anti-war movement in St. Louis in 1960s and 1970s.

Immigrant Def. Project v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting plaintiff's reconsideration motion regarding adequacy of ICE's search for records related to agency's enforcement and arrest operations at homes and residences.

Broward Bulldog v. DOJ (S.D. Fla.) -- ruling that FBI performed adequate search for records concerning the 9/11 Review Commission, and that it properly withheld or redacted certain, but not all, 28 disputed documents.  

May 11, 2017

Brozzo v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (N.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that agency met its burden of demonstrating that  requested loan documents were not "agency records," because records were not created or obtained by agency and were not under its control.

May 9, 2017

Aqualliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that agency properly withheld information relating to water-well construction, completion, depth, and location" pursuant to Exemption 9. 

May 8, 2017

Widi v. McNeil (D. Me.) -- reluctantly ordering EOUSA to perform segregability analysis on four pages of attorney work product documents and to clarify the nature of certain documents withheld under Exemption 7(C), but otherwise denying plaintiff's request for reconsideration.

Cameranesi v. U.S. Dep't of Def. (9th Cir.) -- in a two-to-one decision, affirming the district court's ruling that names of foreign students and instructors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6.

May 4, 2017

Allied Progress v. CFPB (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's request for injunctive relief mandating expedited processing and production of documents concerning agency's "Prepaid Rule."  

May 3, 2017

Kinney v. CIA (W.D. Wash.) -- determining that CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records concerning alleged operative pursuant to Exemption 1.  

May 2, 2017

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that government properly relied on work-product privilege under Exemption 5 to withhold in full records pertaining to DOJ's policy on giving notice to criminal defendants and others against whom it intends to use evidence derived from warrantless surveillance. 

May 1, 2017

N.Y. Times v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- awarding plaintiff $51,909.86 in attorney's fees and costs in case where CIA withdrew its Glomar response late in litigation and released portions of three reports concerning chemical weapons in Iraq.   Notably, the court declined to adopt CIA's argument that the reasonableness of its legal position automatically outweighed other three "entitlement" factors that plaintiff's favor. 

Apr. 27, 2017

Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Ga.) -- ruling that: (1) agency was not required to certify authenticity of records previously released to plaintiff concerning Admiral Jeremy Michael Boorda; and (2) agency did not waive privacy exemption applicable to Admiral Boorda's suicide note by producing photograph that incidentally contains blurry, illegible depiction of suicide note

Apr. 26, 2017

Simon v. DOJ  (D.D.C.) -- (1) denying plaintiff's motion to compel the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to individually process 61 separate requests about plaintiff and his wife's prosecution for tax evasion; (2) denying as unripe plaintiff's argument that EOUSA's ongoing search will ultimately prove inadequate.

Reynolds v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after finding that EOUSA never received pro se inmates FOIA requests.

Apr. 21, 2017

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court's decision in case involving FBI investigation of former congressman Tom Delay after concluding that government invoked Exemption 5 too late and that it needed to perform "a more particularized balancing of the interests at stake" under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Franklin v. DEA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that agency conducted adequate search and properly redacted records.

Apr. 20, 2017

Prince v. NLRB (S.D. Ohio) -- holding that agency was not required to create records in order to answer plaintiff's legal questions.

Coffey v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency was not required to pay interest on processing fees that were refunded to plaintiff; and (2) agency failed to adequately search for records of communications between two named employees and contractors concerning agency's "Wild Horse and Burro Program."

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold reports generated by "Accurint" database even though agency's use of database was public knowledge.  

Apr. 19, 2017

Stevens v. DHS (N.D. Ill.) -- ruling in "reverse FOIA" case that U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement's decision to disclose portions of plaintiff's bid and contract was not arbitrary and capricious. In reaching it decision, the court rejected plaintiff's arguments that the contract was not responsive to the request or that ICE was required to show how disclosure would not cause competitive harm to plaintiff.

Apr. 17, 2017

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- dismissing requester's "policy or practice" claim that alleged agency had an "impermissible practice, policy, and pattern of [intentionally issuing] untimely and noncompliant FOIA responses," but otherwise allowing "basic FOIA challenge related to one particular request" to proceed.

Apr. 12, 2017

Offor v. EEOC (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court's denial of plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees and costs, Special Counsel to investigate agency, and injunction regarding plaintiff's future FOIA requests.

Apr. 7, 2017

Plunkett v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government's summary judgment motion because Federal Bureau of Prisons released all records concerning plaintiff's criminal case that were at issue.

Apr. 5, 2017

Reddick v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (E.D. Wash.) -- dismissing case as moot because agency -- prior to scheduled bench trial -- released disputed document in full to plaintiff and agreed to pay all litigation costs. 

Smith v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (D. Colo.) -- finding that plaintiff, an immigration attorney, had standing to litigate claim that agency has pattern and practice of denying FOIA requests that might assist fugitive aliens.   

Apr. 4, 2017

Prisology v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that plaintiff lacked standing to litigate agency's alleged violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2).

Mar. 31, 2017

Justice v. Mine Safety & Health Admin. (S.D. W. Va.) -- denying plaintiff's bid for attorney's fees and costs because he failed to show that disclosure resulted in public benefit or that agency withholdings were unreasonable.  

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Treasury performed a reasonable search for email between three agencies and Hillary Clinton's personal email address, rejecting plaintiff's argument that Treasury should have searched all employee email accounts instead of limiting to senior employees.

Smith v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA conducted adequate search for records concerning uranium shipments to Israel, and that agency justifiably declined to search its operational files; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E); and (3) circumstances did not allow plaintiff to amend Complaint in order to add DOJ as defendant. 

Shapiro v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving request to FBI for records concerning Nelson Mandela, determining that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 7(A), and 7(D) to withhold requested records, but did not justify all withholdings made pursuant to Exemptions 5, 7(C), and 7(E); and (2) FBI did not provide sufficient information to allow court to decide whether agency properly withheld certain records as nonresponsive to request.  Notably, the court stated that the FBI's general practice was consistent with D.C. Circuit precedence.  It further observed that "[i]f an agency was forced to turn over a full manual or entire report every time a single page contained a responsive term, the amount of time, labor, and cost that would be required to review this purportedly 'responsive' material for exemptions would be exponential, hindering the agency's ability to process multiple requests efficiently or allocate its resources effectively."

Hunton & Williams LLP v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of the Army conducted adequate searches for records concerning an industrial site in California, but that none of them established the propriety of their withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6.

Tushnet v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE failed to conduct adequate search for various records concerning counterfeit apparel, and that agency failed to justify the applicability of Exemption 7(E) to industry guides used by agents to detect counterfeit apparel.

Mar. 30, 2017

Smith v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- rejecting agency's use of Glomar response in connection with request for line-item budget information reflecting support of Israel, because President Obama acknowledged  existence of records in 2015 public statement. 

Patino-Restrepo v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's prosecution and properly withheld information pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); (2) Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), and 7(E); (3) Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's incarceration and properly withheld information pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(F); (4) Department of State conducted adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F); and (5) DOJ Criminal Division properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(D); (6) Drug Enforcement agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F); and (7) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A).  

Harrison v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (S.D. Cal.) -- deciding that FOIA officer's telephone conversation with U.S. Attorney's office about existence of responsive records was insufficient to establish adequacy of search.

Mar. 29, 2017

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI: (1) conducted adequate searches in response to five of nine contested requests; (2) properly withheld records under Exemptions 3, 7(C), and 7(D); and (3) failed to adequately explain the basis for withholding records pursuant to Exemption 7(A). 

Morley v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees concerning his request for certain Kennedy assassination records because agency's withholdings were reasonable.

Mar. 28, 2017

Smith v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI conducted reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case, properly withheld information under Exemptions 5, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E), and released all reasonably segregable information.

Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- finding that government properly withheld five memoranda concerning raid, capture, and/or killing of Osama bin Laden pursuant to Exemption 1, Exemption 3 (National Security Act of 1947), and Exemption 5 (deliberative process, attorney-client, and presidential communications privileges). 

King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Solicitor General performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case; (2) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI's determination; (3) Drug Enforcement Agency performed reasonable search and properly withheld records under Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F); and (4) Executive Office for United States Attorneys improperly relied on mere existence of district court sealing order to withhold plaintiff's criminal case file.

Borda v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that Executive Office of United States Attorneys failed to show it performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and failed to explain why non-exempt portions of plea agreements could not be released.  

Passmore v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for requested email between plaintiff and his murder victim; (2) plaintiff was not entitled to waiver of fees associated with request; and (3) agency properly withheld responsive information under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E). 

Thomas v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that Executive Office of United States Attorneys failed to adequately explain how the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia searched for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case. 

Mar. 27, 2017

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) FBI, National Security Division (NSD), and CIA failed to perform adequate searched for requested records concerning Executive Order 12,333; (2) all Exemption 5 withholdings by Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) were proper, and some but not all Exemption 5 withholdings by CIA, NSD, and Nat'l Security Agency were proper; (3) all but one document was properly withheld under Exemptions 1 and 3 by NSD, CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, NSA; and (4) OLC, FBI, and NSD properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and (7(E).

Debrew v. Atwood (D.D.C.) -- determining that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed an adequate search for records concerning the promulgation of a disciplinary regulation.  

Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project v. DHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly relied upon Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold portions of "trip reports" regarding refugee applicants.

Mar. 24, 2017

Lucaj v. FBI (6th Cir.) --  reversing district court decision and remanding for further proceedings after concluding that documents exchanged between DOJ Criminal Division and foreign governments could not be protected under Exemption 5 because they do not meet the "inter-agency" or "intra-agency" threshold.

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Customs and Border Protection (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed summary judgment motion after finding that agency properly withheld disputed records were pursuant to Exemption 7(E).  

Mar. 23, 2017

Ocasio v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after concluding that MSPB had released all records requested by plaintiff, except for ALJ hearing notes that had been routinely destroyed prior to request. 

Apotosky v. FBI (N.D. Ohio) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff abandoned his FOIA claim against Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and (2) FBI established that all requested records were produced, unidentifiable, or exempt.

Turner v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that Financial Crimes Enforcement Network conducted a reasonable search for four requested items, but that it improperly invoked Exemption 3 (Bank Secrecy Act) without actually searching for fifth item of requested records.   

Henson v. HHS & FDA (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that government performed a reasonable search for requested records and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 4, 5, and 6.

Mar. 21, 2017

Cohens v. FBI (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing pro se prisoner's complaint (with leave to amend) because it failed to allege that plaintiff "made a request to the FBI, that a request was denied, or that records were improperly withheld."

Mar. 20, 2017

McCash v. CIA (N.D. Cal.) --  finding that FBI properly relied upon Exemption 7(E) to withhold records showing how agency uses an investigative database.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that State Department improperly relied upon deliberative process privilege to withhold factual summaries within two documents concerning  September 11, 2012 attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Mar. 15, 2017

Rozema v. HHS (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that FDA's records concerning quantity of menthol in cigarettes by brand is protected by Exemption 4.

Mar. 13, 2017

Jett v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) FBI failed to prove that it performed adequate search for records within ELSUR indices; (2) plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery as to whether a search for records in CRS also constitutes search for records in ELSUR indices; and (3) FBI properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

Comp. Enter. Inst. v. OSTP (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency was not required to search employee's non-official email account because employee complied with policy to forward all work-related email from such account to an official OSTP email account. 

Freedom of the Press Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed a reasonable search for records concerning issuance of national security letters ("NSLs") to obtain information about media; and (2) FBI properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3 (National Security Act of 1947). 5, and 7(E).  

Mar. 9, 2017

De Sousa v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of various records concerning kidnapping of Abu Omar pursuant to Exemption 1; (2) State Department properly issued a partial Glomar response in order to protect classified information; (3)  Department of Defense needed to supplement record as to whether it expressly adopted a draft letter as final agency policy.

Mar. 8, 2017

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- stating that "[t]he Court will not reconsider its prior ruling based on any clarity finally achieved [by USCIS] only after a Court-ordered search and submission that was prompted by the agency's own inadequate presentation. USCIS cannot retroactively satisfy its burden to show an adequate search had been conducted after haphazardly filing incomplete or inaccurate affidavits, confusing the bar, the Court, and the public it is intended to serve."

Wu v. Nat'l Geospatial Intelligence Agency (D. Conn.) -- holding that agency performed a reasonable search for satellite images at or near plaintiff's residence.

Ahuruonye v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- finding that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service conducted an adequate search for personnel records concerning plaintiff.

Mar. 7, 2017

Codrea v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly relied upon Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain "instructions, policies or guidance given to agents who serve as hearing officers, or to their superiors, in connection with determining whether an [firearm] license should be revoked or suspended, or issuance of a license be denied, or a civil fine imposed."

Mar. 6, 2017

Edelman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (D.D.C) -- determining that the SEC performed a reasonable search for consumer complaints regarding a real estate trust and that it properly withheld certain information pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.  Further, the court rejected the agency's categorical withholding of all names of consumer complainants under Exemption 6 and ordering the parties to meet and confer on the issue. 

Shapiro v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold search slips generated in response to certain FOIA requests seeking records concerning domestic terrorism investigations; (2) parties must meet and confer concerning FBI's "sensitive case file numbers or sub-files," which court found meets the threshold test of Exemption 7(E); (3) FBI properly withheld certain investigatory records pertaining to murder of Hyram Kitchen pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 5, but that neither party was entitled to summary judgment with respect to Exemption 3; and (4) FBI was required to submit sample, redacted documents to permit court to evaluate issue of segregability.  

Johnson v. United States (D.D.C.) -- dismissing action against EEOC because it released all records requested by plaintiff, and dismissing action against Office of Personnel management because plaintiff failed to submit a request before filing lawsuit. 

Mar. 5, 2017

House v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed motion for summary judgment after determining that the Criminal Division performed an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal prosecution.  

Mar. 2. 2017

Parker v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't (D.D.C.) -- deciding that ICE failed to perform an adequate search for certain records concerning its investigation of plaintiff, and that the agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

Mar. 1, 2017

Our Children's Earth Found. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that plaintiffs were eligible and entitled to attorney's fees and costs, but rejecting their request for $723,202.74 because of unreasonable hourly rates and excessive or redundant work. 

Feb. 28, 2017

Walston v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that:  (1) the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) failed to perform an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's complaint to DISA's Inspector General; (2) DISA properly withheld one record pursuant to attorney-client privilege; and (3) DISA properly redacted identifying information of agency investigators pursuant to Exemption 6.  

Feb. 27, 2017

Broward Bulldog v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (S.D. Fla.) -- in case involving Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), granting in part and denying in part government's summary judgment motion with respect to four disputed documents concerning FBI investigation of a Saudi family in Florida after September 11, 2001.

Feb. 24, 2017

Albers v. FBI (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that it was reasonable for FBI to initially search its Automated Case Support case management system for only "main entries" in response to request for all records "pertaining to" plaintiff.

Feb. 22, 2017

Gilliam v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Drug Enforcement Administration performed a reasonable search for records concerning investigation that led to plaintiff's drug trafficking conviction and that DEA properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).  

Reporters Comm. for Freedom Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed a reasonable search for records concerning the agency's alleged practice of impersonating the news media and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3 (Nat'l Sec. Act of 1947), 5 (attorney work-product), 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Feb. 21, 2017

Calderon v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Exemption 4 applies to some but not all requested information concerning Export Credit Guarantee Program overseen by Foreign Agricultural Service; (2) Exemption 6 protected email addresses and telephone numbers of company employees, but not their names or business addresses.

N.Y. Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting in part and denying in part the parties' summary judgment motion in case involving the applicability of Exemption 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7(C) to five memoranda relating to agency's investigation into legality of certain CIA overseas interrogations. 

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the FBI failed to conduct an adequate search or to properly justify its use of Exemption 7(E), and granting the agency an opportunity to supplement the record to demonstrate that the requested unpublished privacy assessments meet Exemption 7(E)'s threshold "compiled for law enforcement purposes" requirement.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- granting agency's motion for summary judgment in case concerning thirty documents about former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's non-"state.gov" e-mail communications, which had been withheld in full under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the deliberative process privilege, and rejecting requester's invocation of the government-misconduct exception.

Feb. 17, 2017

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ: (1) performed adequate searches in response to seven of eleven FOIA requests; (2) failed to prove the applicability of deliberative process privilege to After-Action Reports; (3) failed to prove that Exemption 6 categorically applied to all names, addresses, and case numbers concerning Federal Bureau of Prison litigation settlements; and (4) properly withheld only certain information for which it invoked Exemptions 7(C) and/or 7(F).   

Feb. 16, 2017

Pulliam v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) EPA, DOJ, and DOD failed to perform adequate searches for records related to an investigation into toxic contamination occurring at former Army base; (2) DOD properly invoked Exemption 6 to redact names, email addresses, and phone numbers of junior personnel.

Feb. 15, 2017

Rodriguez v. DOD (D.D.C) -- concluding that agency unreasonably limited scope of search and failed to demonstrate that search was reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive records. 

Feb. 14, 2017

Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- finding that (1) FBI's policy of saving a maximum of 500 pages on a CD did not result in a violation of FOIA's mandate that agencies recover only "reasonable standard charges; (2) FBI failed to provide sufficient facts to allow court to determine whether FBI's $15-per-CD fee policy exceeds direct costs; and (3) affirming district court's denial of plaintiffs' request for a public interest fee waiver, because plaintiffs "failed to provide sufficiently specific and non-conclusory statements demonstrating its ability to disseminate the disclosures to a 'reasonably broad audience of persons interested in the subject.'" 

Feb. 8, 2017

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. EPA (D.D.C) -- ruling that:  (1)  plaintiff's lawsuit was not prematurely filed, because agency's deadline to respond to appeal started when agency received received emailed appeal, not when employee opened email two business days later; (2) agency performed a reasonable search for requested records concerning text-messaging by agency's former Administrator; (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to the deliberative process, attorney-client, and/or work-product privileges, including public relations documents.

Feb. 7, 2017

Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that a memo concerning the release of Bowe Bergdahl was protected by the deliberative process privilege; rejecting plaintiff's argument that the agency expressly adopted the memo as a source of guidance. 

Braun v. FBI (D. Mont.) -- finding that magistrate did not err in determining that agency properly withheld records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).  

Feb. 3, 2017

Buckovetz v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Cal.) --  concluding that Navy performed an adequate search for documents pertaining to sexual harassment complaint and properly withheld disputed page under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

Feb. 2, 2017

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency's search for records concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation was reasonable "in most respects," but unreasonably omitted emails of Huma Abedin; (2) agency failed to adequately address whether documents concerning then-Senator Clinton's Senate confirmation were protected under deliberative process privilege; (3) agency improperly withheld certain factual material concerning potential sources of conflict being deliberated upon by agency; (4) Exemption 6 protected private email addresses of individuals who were not yet affiliated with State Department, but not domain extensions of email addresses when release would not reveal the owner's full email address.

Feb. 1, 2017

Bettwieser v. Gans (D. Idaho) -- declining to dismiss plaintiff's suit against United States Postal Service even though agency averred that it never received request.

Jan. 31, 2017

Rad v. U.S. Attorney's Office (D.N.J.) -- denying requester's motion for in camera review and granting agency's motion for summary judgment because agency had properly applied Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); Exemption 6; and Exemptions 7(C), (D), and (E).

Bothwell v. Brennan (9th Cir.) -- affirming district court decision denying requester's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he had failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the CIA had waived its application of Exemption 3 or failed to conduct an adequate search for responsive records.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court decision dismissing plaintiff's suit under the APA to compel DOJ Office of Legal Counsel to meet its disclosure obligations under the "reading room" provision of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. sec. 552(a)(2). 

Jan. 30, 2017

James Madison Project v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency failed to perform  adequate searches for records relating to Hillary Clinton's private attorney; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identity of agency's information security chief.  

Davis v. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- summarily agreeing that five DOJ components had performed adequate searches and justified their withholdings, issues that plaintiff, a pro se inmate, did not dispute.

Jan. 27, 2017

Rocky Mountain Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- ruling that certain records maintained by third-party contractor were not "agency records" because Forest Service lacked "control" over them.

Jan. 26, 2017

Inclusive Cmtys. Project v. HUD (N.D. Tex.) -- finding that prevailing plaintiff could recover attorney fees for time spent to review records to determine whether agency's response was fully responsive to its request.

Fabricant v. Dep't of Justice (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- affirming district court's decision that agency conducted reasonable search for records concerning informant who testified against plaintiff, and finding that court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for discovery and costs.  

Jan. 25, 2017

O'Neill v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (E.D. Wis.) -- concluding that United States Marshal's Service and FBI performed reasonable searches for 56-page courtroom security plan, along with documents related to murder plot, created in 2000 in connection with plaintiff's criminal case

Jan. 23, 2017

W. Arms v. United States (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: (1) violated FOIA by failing to produce records for 20 months; (2) performed a reasonable search for response records; (3) properly withheld certain firearms records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2005-2012) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).  The court further found that plaintiff was eligible for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party.

Jan. 20, 2017

Hetznecker v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (E.D. Pa.) -- in case concerning "Occupy Philly" movement, denying government's motion to reconsider court order requiring agencies to submit documents for in camera review. 

Jan. 18, 2017

Dibacco v. U.S. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C.) -- - ruling that the Army conducted adequate searches in response to plaintiff's 30-year old requests regarding Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, and that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold certain information from Army records. 

Huntington v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the U.S. Patent & Trade Office failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning confidential program, and that USPTO properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).   

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) government failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether photographs of Abu Ghraib detainees were protected by Exemption 3 ( Protected National Security Documents Act); and (2) Exemption 7(F) did not protect photographs from disclosure because government provided a "vague and unlimited" description as to who was endangered.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that DOJ properly withheld a 2003 memorandum regarding common commercial service agreements pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.  

Jan. 17, 2017

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) with the exception of a single email, DOE properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain contract provisions and contract strategy of company investigated by agency's Inspector General for illegally using taxpayer funds to engage in lobbying activities; (2) DOE properly withheld sensitive national security information pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(E), and 7(F); (3) DOE failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protects identities of company employees, DOE employees who serve at GS-15 level and below, and individuals interviewed during DOE's investigation; and (4) DOE properly used Exemption 6 to withhold identities of certain low-level contractor employees and of targets of company's lobbying strategy. 

Jan. 16, 2017

Buholtz v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- holding that records maintained by USMS contract jail were not "agency records" and that USMS was not required to retrieve them in response to plaintiff's request.   

Jan. 13, 2017

Wisdom v. U.S. Trustee Program (D.D.C.) -- determining that Executive Office for U.S. Trustees: (1) failed to show it had viable exhaustion defense to any of plaintiff's claims; (2) failed to establish that it conducted adequate searches in all locations likely to contain responsive documents; (3) failed to demonstrate that it properly withheld records pursuant to the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges; (4) properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold personal identifying information of third parties and all but one employee performance evaluation; and (5) failed to prove that information withheld under Exemption 7(E) met law enforcement threshold.

Jan. 12, 2017

Grigery v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D. Md) -- summarily concluding that agency conducted reasonable search and properly redacted ten pages.  The court further found that redactions on other pages were a moot issue because HHS provided them to plaintiff without redactions in an EEOC action.    

Jan. 10, 2017

Manning v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to categorically withhold records related to DOJ's' investigation into Plaintiff and others for disclosing classified and confidential information to WikiLeaks.

Jan. 6, 2017

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD (9th Cir.) -- in an unpublished opinion, reversing district court's decision that none of agency's redactions from company's subcontracting plan were protected under Exemption 4 and that company's business contact information and signatures were not protected by Exemption 6.

Schwartz v. DOD (E.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Department of Defense failed to adequately search for certain records concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay; (2) Exemption 7(F) did not apply to DOD's annual security refresher training presentation; (3) CIA properly redacted four of five items pursuant to Exemption 3; and (4) CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of certain records pursuant to Exemption 3.  

Jan. 5, 2017

People for the Ethical Treatment Animals v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on reconsideration of decision dated August 18, 2016, ruling that: (1) four categories of records that court previously held were protected under Exemption 4 for seven objecting animal importers were also exempt for three additional importers who had not been notified of FOIA requests prior to court's decision; and (2)  animal quantity and crate information was protected by Exemption 4, except with respect to two importers that failed to object to disclosure.  

Jan. 3, 2017

Ecological Rights Found. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (N.D. Cal.) — denying agency request to “clawback” three records previously produced to requester, despite inherent authority of court to order such return, because the documents in question were not protected by the deliberative process or attorney-client privileges.

Dec. 31, 2016

Liberman v. U.S. Dep't of Transp. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that online blog owned by for-profit company qualified as  "representative of the news media" and that its request was not made for commercial purposes.

Dec. 29, 2016

Powell v. IRS (E.D. Mich.) -- adopting magistrate's report and recommendation finding that: (1) plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies or follow agency regulations regarding several requests; (2) IRS conducted a reasonable search for responsive records; and (3) IRS was not required to re-release certain records that it previously provided to plaintiff.

Dec. 28, 2016

Braun v. FBI (D. Mont.) -- ruling that FBI properly withheld records of "unspecified investigations" sought by pro se plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 3 (31 U.S.C. § 5319), 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Dec. 22, 2016

Electronic Frontier Found. v. Dep't of Justice (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that Drug Enforcement Agency failed to demonstrate that certain records concerning Hemisphere project were protected from disclosure under Exemptions 5, 7(A), 7(D) or 7(E), and ordering agency to produce for in camera inspection all records withheld under Exemption 7(E). 

Dec. 21, 2016

Behrens v. U.S. Attorney, Dist. of Neb., (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorney conducted an adequate search of plaintiff's criminal case file despite failing to find requested document.

Dec. 20, 2016

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that 52 documents concerning drone strikes were protected from disclosure; finding that seven other drone-related documents were protected by the deliberative process privilege, reversing the district court's judgment that they must be disclosed.    

Rosiere v. United States (10th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision to dismiss pro se prisoner's lawsuit as malicious, in light of his multiple, repetitious suits.  

Nat'l Ass'n of Criminal Def. Lawyers v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.C. Cir.) -- denying appellant's petition for rehearing, but amending July 19, 2016 opinion and remanding case to district court to consider whether requested "Blue Book" manual contains non-exempt and reasonably segregable statements of discovery policy.

Dec. 15, 2016

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (5th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision that plaintiff was "eligible" but not "entitled" to attorney's fees; rejecting plaintiff's argument that eligibility-entitlement test had been superseded by statutory amendments in 2007.    

Cause of Action Inst. v. Eggleston (D.D.C.) -- rejecting plaintiff's claim that various agencies engaged in a "pattern and practice" of violating FOIA by delaying responses to consult with the Office of White Counsel.  As an initial matter, the court held that plaintiff's claim improperly relied upon requests made by other requesters, as well as requests submitted by plaintiff that did not involve White House consultation.  Further, the court observed that "delay alone, even repeated delay," is not actionable as a pattern-and-practice claim.  Lastly, the court found that plaintiff's allegation that its requests were delayed for unnecessary and illicit purposes was "conclusory" and "unsupported."

Dec. 14, 2016

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- finding that agency failed to perform an adequate search for a "Form I-485 Receipt Notice," and ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a recreated notice within 24 hours. 

Dec. 12, 2016

Freedom Watch v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, finding that the State Department conducted an adequate search for records relating to New York Times article about classified government cyberattacks against Iranian nuclear program.

Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- striking agency declaration because declarant did not attest that he had personal knowledge of or familiarity with documents in question.

Dec. 6, 2016

Baker v. FBI (N.D. Ill.) -- ruling that the FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold identifying information of federal and local law enforcement personnel and third party suspects from an investigative file.  

Kinman v. United States (S.D. Ohio) -- denying government's motion to dismiss (on procedural grounds) FOIA and Privacy Act suit against Department of Veterans Affairs in which plaintiff seeks access to individual claim files known as "C-files."  

Muchnick v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- reissuing tentative order and opinion from November 2, 2016 (summarized here) as a final order and opinion. 

Dec. 1, 2016

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of State (E.D. Va.) -- finding that agency properly redacted communications concerning U.N. Climate Conference in Paris pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), with the exception of certain portions of two documents consisting of merely factual statements.

Ocasio v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ's Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to categorically withhold all records of agency's investigation into FBI's response to plaintiff's complaint of criminal conduct by a third party.

Nov. 30, 2016

Argus Leader Media v. USDA (D.S.D.) -- following a bench trial, concluding that the agency failed to carry its burden under Exemption 4 to prove that disclosure of certain "food stamp" data would cause substantial competitive harm to individual grocery stores participating in the agency's program.  

Nov. 23, 2016

Levinthal v. Fed. Election Comm'n (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the agency properly withheld a vulnerability assessment of its information technology systems pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(E).   

Sklarski v. Niagara Falls Bridge Comm'n (W.D.N.Y.) -- holding that the Commission is not subject to FOIA because its employees are not federal employees, it receives no federal funds, and the federal government does not recommend or appoint Commissioners.

Nov. 22, 2016

Friends of the River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (N.D. Cal.) --  transferring case to District of Columbia because plaintiff failed to establish that responsive records were likely located in the Northern District of California.   

Wadhwa v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.N.J.) -- granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery because the agency ignored instructions to submit affidavit explaining its Glomar response or its withholding under Exemptions 5 and 6. 

Nov. 21, 2016

Torres Consulting & Law Grp. v. NASA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- reversing and remanding district court's decision that certain payroll information was protected by Exemptions 4 and 6.  

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) --  concluding for fee purposes that that plaintiff substantially prevailed because court issued scheduling order and because FOIA litigation substantially caused DHS to produce documents; further finding that plaintiff was entitled to fees because all factors weighed in plaintiff's favor.

Vakili v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing plaintiff's possible FOIA claims for failing to prosecute and for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Nov. 15, 2016

Pickard v. Dep't of Justice (N.D. Cal.) -- concluding that the DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withhold a confidential informant's name and any information he publicly released, and that the agency properly withheld the informant's NADDIS number pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Nov. 14, 2016

Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- see DOJ's summary here.

Nov. 10, 2016

Hoeller v. SSA (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court's decision to dismiss case because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies at the time he filed suit. 

Earle v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys demonstrated that the records requested -- specifically, a grand jury's "tax number" for a particular criminal case in the District of Columbia -- have never existed.

McCash v. CIA (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) the NSA, CIA, and FBI performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff; (2) the CIA and NSA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of classified records pursuant to Exemption 1; and (3) the FBI properly redacted third-party information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), but failed to explain why any non-exempt, segregable portions of the withheld pages could not have been released.

Nov. 8, 2016

Brown v. Perez (10th Cir.) -- on petition for panel rehearing, reversing district court's decision that the names and business addresses of workers compensation physicians were properly withheld under Exemptions 4 or 6; affirming district court's decision that agency was not required to input information into computer program in order to recreate requested screen images.

Nov. 4, 2016

Buckovetz v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Cal.) -- holding that the agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold identities of third parties from records associated with a sexual harassment complaint, but that agency's declaration failed to adequately explain its search methodology.  

Nov. 3, 2016

Schotz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- (1) denying pro se plaintiff's motion to reconsider decision in the Federal Bureau of Prison's favor, because records released by BOP in response to a different request did not qualify as "new evidence" nor did it undermine the reasonableness of the agency's search; (2) denying plaintiff's motion for costs because plaintiff did not prevail by judicial order, the lawsuit was not the proximate cause of agency's release of records, plaintiff sought records for purely personal reasons, and the agency's uncontested withholdings were reasonable.  

Nov. 2, 2016

Muchnick v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- issuing a tentative order, pending resolution between the parties, that: (1) DHS must release information about the alleged crimes of George Gibney, decisions about immigration benefits he sought, and the dates any documents containing such information were created; (2) DHS may withhold, pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), all identifying information about third parties other than Gibney, as well as Gibney's past addresses, salary history, Alien number, and the like; and (3) DHS may redact records revealing the investigative procedures it used to obtain information about Gibney, but not the information itself, pursuant to Exemption 7(E).  

Nov. 1, 2016

Associated Press v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- in an opinion abbreviated due to the time-sensitive nature of plaintiff's requests, ruling that the State Department properly withheld records concerning its civil settlement with BAE Systems pursuant to Exemptions 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Oct. 27, 2016

Freedom Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's so-called discovery request seeking "full production" of requested records in case in which agencies averred they had never received plaintiff's requests.  

Morales v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C) -- denying plaintiffs' emergency motion seeking immediate processing of their FOIA request, because: (1) plaintiffs failed to ask the agency for expedited processing in his FOIA request; and (2) plaintiffs did not establish that they met any of the factors warranting preliminary injunctive relief. 

Oct. 24, 2016

Hedrick v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the FBI conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, including his prosecution for the child pornography offenses, and that the agency properly redacted information about third parties pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Oct. 21, 2016

Heartland Alliance Nat'l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DHS (7th Cir. 2016)  -- affirming district court's decision that Exemption 7(E) protected information relating to Tier III terrorist organizations, defined by the Immigration and Nationality Act in 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(III). 

Freedom Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C. 2016)  --  denying plaintiff's Rule 60 motion after determining that the agency performed a reasonable search of documents located by the FBI from Hillary Clinton's personal email.  

Oct. 19, 2016

Worldnetdaily.com v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the government properly relied upon Exemption 5 to withhold a memorandum that recommended no charges against the law enforcement officials involved in the fatal shooting of Miriam Carey at the U.S. Capitol in 2013.

Oct. 12, 2016

Parker v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C) -- ruling that:  (1) the government was permitted to file a Motion for Summary Judgment instead of an Answer; (2) the Office of Professional Responsibility properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold records about an AUSA who had practiced law without a valid license; and (3) the government failed to submit an affidavit concerning the withholdings made by EOUSA on records referred to it by OPR.

Oct. 11, 2016