Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Serv. (D.D.C) -- upholding government's use of Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold certain information pertaining to plaintiff's criminal conviction.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- deciding not to impose sanctions against the VA or its counsel after finding that their litigation tactics in FOIA case were not motivated by bad faith. The court noted, however, that it remained "troubled by the cumulative effect of the decisions made along the way" by the government, namely the "multiplication of briefings and depositions", for which plaintiff was entitled to attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Fowlkes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted an adequate search for criminal records concerning plaintiff; further finding that ATF properly withheld a firearm trace report (Exemption 3)] and codes and files numbers from a law enforcement information system (Exemption 7(E)). The court, however, rejected the government's argument that the name of a judge who convened a grand jury could be protected under Exemption 7(C).
Elkins. v. Fed. Aviation Admin. (D.D.C.) -- granting motion for reconsideration based upon FAA's in camera declarations; concluding that agency properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to protect an airplane radar plot that was compiled in connection with a classified investigation.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Cleveland v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that State Department conducted an adequate search for records relating to a human rights report about Cameroon, and that it properly withheld certain information under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Nat'l Institutes of Health (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $22,724.03 in attorneys fee and costs, which represented 10 percent of amount that plaintiff sought. The court determined that plaintiff was eligible for fees because the D.C. Circuit had rejected in part agency's Glomar response, thus changing the legal relationship between the parties. Further, the court found that plaintiff was entitled to fees even though agency's actions were reasonable, because plaintiff's interests in seeking records were for public benefit and non-commercial. Because plaintiff prevailed on only a narrow portion of its litigation, however, the court concluded that plaintiff should receive only 10 percent of requested fees.
Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- finding that: (1) agency's search was adequate; (2) agency declarants were not required to have personal knowledge of search; (3) plaintiff was not entitled to a Vaughn Index from USCIS because another DHS component had processed the records and already provided plaintiff with an index; and (4) an in camera review of withheld records was unnecessary.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Plunkett v. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part the Executive Office for United States Attorneys' motion for summary judgment concerning convicted murderer's request for records about his prosecution. The court found that government's declarations did not fully address: (1) whether two binders of material identified in an email were, in fact, reviewed for responsive documents, and if so, what was found; (2) which, if any, of the documents originally referred to the Bureau of Prisons for review were withheld and, if so, which FOIA exemption was applicable; and (3) the segregability of portions of one document that the government withheld in part. The court, however, upheld the government's use of Exemptions 5 (attorney work-product), 7(C), and 7(D).
Henry v. Dep't of Justice (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that the FBI and various U.S. Attorney's Offices conducted adequate searches in response to plaintiffs' requests for records about themselves.
Gilliam v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Criminal Division conducted a reasonable search for requested wiretap records and properly withheld records under Exemption 3 (in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521), Exemption 5 (attorney work-product), and Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Gamboa v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Drug Enforcement Administration conducted an adequate search for requested joint task force records, and that the FBI properly withheld records under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(F).
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Rubman v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. & U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (7th Cir.) -- concluding that agency "failed to conduct an adequate search . . . when it unilaterally narrowed [plaintiff's] request for 'all documents' to a single, newly generated statistical table."
Citizens for a Strong New Hampshire v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.N.H.) -- ruling that IRS properly withheld correspondence from taxpayers, through their Congressmen, pursuant to Exemption 3 and Section 6103 of Internal Revenue Code. The court further determined that a genuine factual dispute existed about the adequacy of the agency's search, and it stated that it would schedule a conference of the parties to discuss prospect of a rare FOIA trial.
Agolli v. Office of Inspector Gen. (D.D.C) -- dismissing plaintiff's claims stemming from her 2006 FOIA request because the six-year statute of limitations ran before she filed suit; further finding that the Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy conducted an adequate search for records in response to plaintiff's 2014 request.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Cause of Action v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for summary judgment. With respect to plaintiff's request for FOIA-related records pertaining to Section 6103 of Internal Revenue Code, the court held that the IRS conducted an adequate search and that its withholdings from these records were proper under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). As for plaintiff's request for any requests by the Executive Office of the President for tax information, the court held that IRS properly withheld "tax check" records under Section 6103, but that: (a) any other requests would not be protected by Section 6103, and (b) the search described by the agency was inadequate. Regarding plaintiff's request for any federal agency requests for tax information, the court rejected the IRS's argument that any responsive records would be protected by Section 6103 and/or Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Note: Mr. Blutstein co-represented Cause of Action in this case.
Envtl. Integrity Project v. Small Bus. Admin. (D.D.C.) -- determining after in camera review that SBA properly withheld all records responsive to plaintiff's request pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Ibeagwa v. Internal Revenue Serv. (W.D. Wis.) -- denying pro se plaintiff's motions for costs and attorney fees. The court found that IRS's disclosure of one of two requested documents after the filing of lawsuit made plaintiff eligible for costs, but that plaintiff was not entitled to costs because disclosure of his tax records would not benefit the public. With respect to attorney fees, the court found that a pro se party is not eligible for attorney fees, that plaintiff's motion was untimely, and that disclosure of his tax records would not benefit the public.
Love v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Drug and Enforcement Administration properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to a third party, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Sack v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C.) -- granting CIA's motion for reconsideration and vacating the court's earlier Order extending plaintiff's time to file a notice of appeal, because plaintiff's motion for an extension of time had been filed too late.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
August 25, 2015
Cause Action v. Fed. Trade Comm'n (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court's decision that the last of plaintiff's three requests was moot for purposes of determining its fee status; further clarifying the definition of a "representative of the news media" and ordering district court to evaluate plaintiff's status in light of D.C. Circuit's opinion. See related article here.
[Note: Mr. Blutstein co-represented Cause of Action in this appellate case]
Willaman v. Erie Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms (3rd Cir.) -- affirming ATF's determination that plaintiff's request was not reasonably described inasmuch as it consisted of a question, which FOIA does not require an agency to answer.
August 24, 2015
Judicial Watch v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) -- granting IRS's motion for summary judgment after finding that records located by the agency consisted of "return information," which plaintiff had stipulated would not be responsive to its request; further finding that plaintiff conceded the adequacy of the agency's search by failing to oppose the agency's arguments pertaining to the subject.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Harvey v. Lynch (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff's FOIA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims were moot because plaintiff agreed that agency had released all non-exempt records; noting that APA claim also was moot because "a FOIA requester may not seek relief under the APA for a violation of FOIA or the governing FOIA regulations."
Patel v. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- holding that BOP failed to adequately explain: (1) how it searched for records in response to one of plaintiff's requests; (2) why it was unable to segregate non-exempt information from information that it withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (3) that records it withheld under Exemption 5 were privileged.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.