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.

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