Court opinions issued May 20, 2015

 Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that a report drafted by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concerning CIA's former detention and interrogation program is a congressional record not subject to FOIA; further ruling that documents pertaining to an internal CIA review were properly withheld pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5, as discussed in Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2015), which concerned same material.  

Related article from Courthouse News Service here.

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 19, 2015

Neary v. FDIC (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff's case seeking the names, addresses  and interview dates of certain rejected job applicants.  The court found that the FDIC properly withheld responsive records pursuant to Exemption 6, because plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of age discrimination did not outweigh the privacy interests of the rejected applicants.  Although certain requested information was publicly accessible for a brief time period, the court held that the information remained practically obscure and the FDIC had not waived its right to protect it.

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 15, 2015

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- (1) dismissing case against the DEA as moot because plaintiff abandoned his claim; (2) dismissing case against the Criminal Division as moot because the agency released in full the document at issue; and (3) with respect to Bureau of Prisons and DOJ, denying plaintiff's motions for sanctions, a protective order, an order to show cause, and a preliminary injunction; granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment of counsel because plaintiff, an inmate at maximum-security prison, was prohibited from receiving certain FOIA-released documents in mail due to BOP security policies. 

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 14, 2015

Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- Ruling that a Senate committee report concerning the CIA’s former detention and interrogation program was properly redacted pursuant to Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 (in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. §§ 3024(i)(1) and 3507).  The redactions at issue concerned:  "(1) the costs of CIA detention facilities abroad; (2) amounts paid to unknown countries; (3) the size of monetary cuts to CIA intelligence programs; (4) sums given to previously detained individuals; and (5) compensation for medical services."  With respect to Exemption 1, the court found that the CIA  "complied with the procedural and substantive requirements for classifying the information under Executive Order 13,526."   In analyzing Exemption 3, the court pointed out that it owed  "considerable deference" to the CIA's judgment as to whether disclosure of requested information would reveal intelligence sources and methods. 

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 13, 2015

Manna v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- Dismissing case as moot because the FBI released requested videotape in full after plaintiff filed suit.  The court rejected plaintiff's argument that the FBI should have construed request to include records that are the subject of plaintiff's separate FOIA requests, which plaintiff had cited as background information.

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 12, 2015

Elkins v. FAA (D.D.C.) -- Dismissing lawsuit in part because plaintiff filed it before the FAA was obligated to respond to one of his FOIA requests.  With respect to plaintiff's second FOIA request, the court found that the FAA's search was  "commendable" but ultimately inadequate, because the agency's declaration failed to state "that all files likely to contain responsive records were searched or that no other offices would likely contain responsive documents."   Further, the court upheld the FAA's use of Exemption 7(E) to withhold an FAA Order that the court had previously reviewed in camera in a related lawsuit.  The court, however, ordered the FAA to release an aircraft radar plot because the FAA failed to demonstrate how such information was compiled for law-enforcement purposes.  Lastly, the court rejected plaintiff's motion to depose certain FAA officials, because plaintiff offered "no compelling reason" for his request. 

Alvin v. DOJ (M.D. Al.) -- Adopting Magistrate's recommendation to dismiss case on grounds that:  (1) plaintiff's administrative FOIA appeal was untimely filed, notwithstanding the fact that it was mailed before deadline and agency error delayed plaintiff's receipt of agency's initial determination; and (2) agency reasonably demonstrated that it did not received plaintiff's second FOIA request and plaintiff offered no proof that he actually submitted it.       

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 8, 2015

Gahagan v. USCIS (5th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- Vacating district court's judgment in favor of agency and remanding for further proceedings, because the district court had not considered the actions of another DHS component on records referred to it by USCIS in response to plaintiff's FOIA request.

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 7, 2015

Hoeller v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Wi.) -- Finding that SSA conducted a reasonable search in response to plaintiff's request concerning his disability benefits; the fact that a particular document could not be located did not undermine the adequacy of the search.  The court further found that plaintiff had received all records that SSA located and that he was not entitled to other requested relief under FOIA, such as a stipulation or additional explanations from SSA about its search or plaintiff's disability benefits. 

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 6, 2015

Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- Ruling that redactions made by the Executive Office of United States Attorneys under Exemption 5 were proper because pro se prisoner-plaintiff did not contest them.  The court further ruled that the agency properly denied plaintiff's request for a waiver of duplication fees, because the "incidental public-interest benefits to be gained . . . are minimal in comparison to the unavoidably obvious personal purpose for which the records are sought" -- namely, to challenge plaintiff's criminal conviction.  Lastly, the court rejected plaintiff's allegation that the agency manifested bad faith by, among other things, delaying its processing of records by several months, denying plaintiff's requests to waive fees or to pay fees in installments, and producing public source documents despite his request to exclude them.

Pelligrino v. TSA (E.D. Pa.) -- Upholding in part and rejecting in part the agency's witholdings under Exemption 5 and Exemption 6 after conducting an in camera review, and ordering agency to submit a more-detailed search affidavit. Search:  The court found that TSA's affidavit identified the offices that had been tasked to conduct searches, but contained "no actual information on how these searches were conducted."  There was "no information about what the tasking forms said, what records were searched, what search terms were used, or what procedures were followed." Exemption 5, Attorney Work-Product Privilege:  The court rejected TSA's argument that the mental processes used by an attorney to collect documents in a case file triggered the privilege.  The vast majority of the documents were found to qualify, however, because they were "created in anticipation of litigation."  Attorney-Client Privilege: The court ruled that communications from an attorney to clients providing confidential legal advice qualified for the attorney-client privilege.  Further, the court rejected plaintiff's contention TSA's attorneys commited crimes or misconduct so as to preclude the agency's withholding of documents based on attorney work-product or attorney-client privileges.  Deliberate Process Privilege:  The court found that an  "EIR Offical Recommended Action form" did not qualify under the privilege because it merely showed "the officials' concurrence with a recommended action" and did not reflect or reveal "anything about the agency officials' thought processes or discussions that led to their decision." Exemption 6:  The court found that TSA properly invoked Exemption 6  to withhold the names and identifying information of TSA employees, but improperly  withheld the time-stamp from a cover email and the title of an email attachment that had been released.  

List of all cases since April 2015 here.

Court opinions issued May 5, 2015

Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D. Or) -- Awarding plaintiff $86,878 in attorney fees and $2,411 in litigation costs after reducing billing for duplicative work, excessive time, and time spent on an unsuccessful claim.

List of all cases since April 2015 here.