Dillon v DOJ (D.D.C.) -- Finding that the FBI "conducted reasonable and adequate searches responsive to the plaintiff’s FOIA requests" concerning terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui and Abderraouf Jdey; further finding that the FBI properly withheld responsive records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Related article from Courthouse News Service here.
List of all cases since April 2015 here.
Int'l Counsel v. Dep't of Def. et al. (D.D.C.) -- Holding that the FBI had not adequately explained why it searched only its Central Records System in response to plaintiff's requests to multiple agencies concerning certain Guantanamo detainees. The court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, however, because it was "not yet convinced that the FBI has not completed a satisfactory search."
W. Energy Alliance v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (10th Cir.) -- Ruling that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying WEA's motion for attorneys fees and costs. Although the district court found that the agency's reasons for delaying disclosure had no basis in law ("an internal processing error and an inopportune employee vacation"), that factor was outweighed by the district court's findings that the records benefitted WEA's dues-paying members, not the public -- findings that the Tenth Circuit held were not clearly erroneous.
Freedom Watch v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D.C. Cir.) -- Affirming Glomar responses of NSA, CIA, and Dep't of Defense in connection with requests for records about New York Times article discussing U.S. cyber-attack on Iran; remanding case to the district court to oversee the State Department's processing of former Secretary Clinton's privately-maintained emails for records responsive to Freedom Watch's request.
The court held that Freedom Watch was precluded from challenging the Exemption 1 Glomar responses of NSA and CIA because it had not challenged them at the administrative stage. The court found DoD's Glomar response to be proper on the merits; it accorded "substantial weight" to DoD's judgment that acknowledging existence or non-existence of records would "'cause damage to national security by providing insight into DoD's military and intelligence capabilities and interests.'" With respect to the State Department, the court held that Freedom Watch forfeited objections to the agency's search and the withholding of a press briefing memo by failing to assert those objections at district court level. The court further held that district court had not abused its broad discretion in denying Freedom Watch's request for discovery, which was not supported by evidence of agency bad faith. The court accepted the government's suggestion to remand the case to permit State Department to process former Secretary Clinton's emails, as well as to supplement the record concerning its search for documents maintained by the Executive Secretariat. The court reminded the agency that regardless of its plans to release the emails to the public, it had an obligation under FOIA to produce responsive records "'in the shortest amount time.'"
Related article from The Hill here.
See complete case list for April 2015 here.
Consumers Council of Mo v. HHS (E.D. Mo.) -- Dismissing Complaint as moot where plaintiff conceded that it had received all requested information in full after lawsuit was filed; rejecting plaintiff's contention that similar requests in the future would likely be subjected to delayed responses and again evade judicial review.
See complete case list for April 2015 here.
Madel v. DEA (8th Cir.) -- The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reverses and remands district court's decision that Exemption 4 protected in full five documents pertaining to the sale of oxycodone in Georgia by private companies. The court holds that the Drug Enforcement Administration demonstrated that "substantial competitive harm is likely" from disclosure. The agency failed to show, however, that certain information from the documents could not be segregated and released.
Arrowgarp v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- Granting the government's unopposed motion for summary judgment where the FBI, EOUSA, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs sufficiently explained their searches and withholdings in response to pro se prisoner's request for agencies' investigation files concerning him.
See complete case list for April 2015 here.
Elkins v. FAA (D.D.C) -- Ruling that agency failed to describe its search for certain items of request about an aircraft reportedly conducting surveillance of plaintiff, but rejecting plaintiff’s contention that FAA should be required to locate and translate a code transmitted by aircraft in order to determine the plane’s ‘N’ number. With respect to FAA’s withholdings under Exemption 7(E), the court held that FAA failed to show in its “laconic briefing” that voice recordings and flight tracking records, which are collected as a matter of course for all aircraft, were originally or subsequently compiled for a law enforcement purpose; however, a sealed declaration filed by FAA demonstrated that the identity of the law enforcement agency operating the aircraft was properly withheld.
See complete case list for April 2015 here.
Coss v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- Rejecting FBI’s Glomar response where requester sought a notebook that had been entered into evidence in third party’s criminal trial and cited in publicly available court opinion. “Refusing to acknowledge whether or not the notebooks exist borders on foolishness,” observed the court, which ordered the agency to conduct a search.
Kuzman v. CIA (W.D.N.Y.) -- Holding that CIA performed an adequate search for records concerning plantiff's participation in a protest against CIA; the agency was not obligated to identify the employees who searched for records or when those searches were conducted. The court also held that the CIA properly invoked a Glomar response pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3 in response to the portion of plaintiff's request for all records pertaining to himself generally.