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