FOIA Advisor

Court opinions issued Sept. 30, 2019

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

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.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.