Court opinions issued Sept. 6-7, 2018
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.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.