Nov. 5, 2024

Stonehill v. IRS (D.D.C.) — in yet another case concerning the 1962 Stonehill raids, granting the plaintiff’s motion to substitute but denying its motion to set aside a 2008 judgment pertaining to search adequacy and certain exemption claims on the theory that the agency lied about missing boxes of responsive documents; holding, firstly, that the plaintiff’s motion, which seemed to arise under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), should have been filed within a year from entry of judgment (i.e., in 2009), and that any effort to recharacterize the motion as arising under Rule 60(b)(6) to avoid that time limitation is unavailing; holding further that a motion pursuant to the court’s inherent powers, while timely, cannot satisfy “the extraordinarily high standard for establishing fraud on the court” because allegations of falsely submitted declarations would constitute “fraud between the parties”; noting the plaintiff also had not established any alleged fraud “by clear and convincing evidence,” let alone shown how the court was misled by such fraud in reaching its judgment.

Buckley v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) — denying a motion for attorney’s fees and costs because plaintiff neither “substantially prevailed by way of a court order” nor under the so-called “catalyst theory,” if only because the agency “promptly released the records upon receipt of the necessary” Privacy Act consent forms (DOJ-361s) shortly after commencement of the lawsuit.

Nov. 4, 2024

Wash. Blade v. Dep’t of Labor (D.D.C.) — with a very lengthy opinion, granting in part and denying in part each party’s motion for summary judgment in a case concerning records about religious entity exemptions withheld under Exemption 5, in conjunction with the attorney-client and deliberative-process privileges; of most interest: (1) allowing the agency “one more chance” to “meet it burden” with respect to the claimed privileges as applied to certain records, such as draft responses to congressional inquiries; (2) rejecting the agency’s use of privilege with draft press releases “adopted” by decision-makers; (3) clarifying the deliberative-process privilege extends to communications about any “matter within the agency’s managerial, organizational, or administrative ambit,” including the drafting of responses to inquiries from non-profit organizations; (4) also clarifying that Exemption 5 cannot be used to withhold communications providing guidance on how to resolve novel issues in a definitive way, because the “working law” exception applies even to "routine” matters; (5) rejecting the deliberative-process privilege vis-à-vis employee “reactions” to a press release that otherwise involved no “recommendations” about “how best to preserve or promote the Department’s goals or responsibilities”; (6) rejecting the attorney-client privilege as applied to records containing legal advice that were not subsequently kept confidential, or which merely included a lawyer on a communication that did not seem to involve any request for legal advice, or which merely constituted a “summary of verbal communication” from an agency attorney; (7) with respect to foreseeable harm, deciding that some of the agency’s analysis pertaining to records withheld under the deliberative-process privilege was “cursory,” “barely sufficient,” or “just shy of what is required,” and directing the agency to “tak[e] the time to offer more complete explanations” in the future; and, finally, (8) summarizing relevant caselaw and articulating a standard for foreseeable harm in the context of the attorney-client privilege, while also concluding the agency had failed to satisfy that standard in this case due to its “open-ended” and incomplete descriptions of supposed harms that even hinted disclosure “might pose no risk at all.”

Nov. 1, 2024

Documented v. DHS (D.D.C) — denying the government’s motion for reconsideration of an order directing DHS to disclose a memo designating Somalia for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”) because the agency “failed to articulate, with reasonable specificity, a foreseeable harm that would likely result from its disclosure”; explaining how “the agency's summary judgment briefing and declarations provide no reason to believe that Somalia's TPS designation, or TPS designations in general, are so peculiarly controversial that agency personnel would rather eschew candid discussion than risk public disclosure of their deliberations”; explaining further that, “[i]f the abstract threat that a record may be used in future litigation were enough by itself to satisfy FOIA's foreseeable harm requirement, that requirement would be reduced to a nullity”; finally, admonishing DHS to raise its strongest and most pointed arguments against disclosure from the outset, rather than relying on “boilerplate, unparticularized, and hypothesized” predictions of future harm.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.