Hajro v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court's ruling that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has a "pattern and practice" of violating FOIA response deadlines.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Our Children's Earth Found. v. Nat'l Marine Fisheries Serv. (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that: (1) the agency conducted an adequate search and that it was not required to submit declarations from each employee who participated in the search; (2) a low-level employee's "draft chart and summary" sent to senior employee was withheld appropriately pursuant to the deliberative process privilege; (3) the agency established that it had released non-exempt, reasonably segregable factual information from certain records, but that an 11-page document could not be withheld in full under the attorney-client privilege merely because the document had been sent to an agency attorney for review; (4) the agency appropriately used search cut-off dates based upon when its principal subject matter expert initiated searches, but noting that "a better policy is the search start date of each individual [subject matter expert]"; and (5) plaintiff was entitled to declaratory relief (and limited injunctive relief) as a result of agency's pattern and practice of failing to meet FOIA deadlines.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Gahagan v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D. La.) -- rejecting agency's argument that an "I-826" form that was released to plaintiff with unmarked redactions was not responsive to plaintiff's request, and ordering agency to submit a revised Vaughn index to account for the withholdings; further finding that the agency's declaration was admissible because the declarant had requisite personal knowledge about the processing of the request.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Windham v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (D. Mass.) -- concluding that the agency performed a reasonable search in response to plaintiff's request for records concerning JP Morgan Chase's mortgage loan on plaintiff's home.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Aqualliance v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency properly invoked Exemption 9 to withhold information regarding the construction, location, and depth of water wells; rejecting plaintiff's argument that the exemption applied to oil and gas wells only. The court further found that Exemption 6 did not justify the agency's redaction of the names and addresses of various participants in water transfer programs, participants in real water valuations, and well owners because plaintiff demonstrated that the public interest in disclosure outweighed the privacy interest at stake.
Sack v. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the FBI properly withheld: (a) records relating to the selection process for FBI Polygraph Examiners under Exemption 2; (b) a recommendation concerning the feasibility of hiring non-agent polygraph examiners under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege); and (c) information about procedures and techniques used by FBI agents to conduct polygraph examinations pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Dugan v. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- granting government's unopposed motion for summary judgment after finding that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly withheld Firearms Trace Summaries and tax return information withheld under Exemption 3; attorney work product under Exemption 5; third-party identifying information under Exemptions 6 and 7(C)); specific law enforcement techniques, TECS codes and TECS file numbers under Exemption 7(E); and third-party information under Exemption 7(F) for personal safety reasons.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Kaplan v. Ebert (M.D. Pa.) -- dismissing lawsuit because plaintiff failed to file administrative appeals before filing Complaint.
Hertz Schram PC v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (E.D. Mich.) -- accepting magistrate's recommendation to deny plaintiff an award of attorney's fees. The court concluded that plaintiff was neither eligible nor entitled to fees because the agency has begun processing the request before the lawsuit was filed, the agency acted reasonably in withholding certain records, and plaintiff had a commercial interest in pursuing the lawsuit.
Canning v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- upholding agency's Exemption 1 withholdings except for: (a) certain unclassified portions of two partially redacted documents, which the court ordered to be released, and (b) documents classified after submission of FOIA request, for which the court sought additional information. The court further upheld agency's withholdings under Exemptions 5 (deliberative process privilege) and 6.
Francis v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency (D.D.C.) -- determining that FHFA conducted a reasonable search of its files and that it was not obligated to search Fannie Mae's files even though FHFA is Fannie Mae's conservator.
Stein v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI's case evaluation forms were properly withheld under Exemption 2 because they are maintained in administrative personnel files "'for purposes of tracking and evaluating the performance of employees who process FOIA and Privacy Act requests'"; (2) FBI properly withheld its "Automated Case Support Basic Reference Guide" pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) the Civil Division properly withheld several monographs pursuant to Exemption 5 (attorney work-product privilege); (4) Executive Office for United States Attorneys "applied an unnecessarily hypertechnical reading" of plaintiff's request for records "in the USABook Desktop Library maintained by the DOJ Office of Legal Education indexed under the topic 'Freedom of Information;'" (5) FBI did not justify its reliance on Exemption 7(D) for 28 of 29 pages concerning Christopher Hitchens; and (6) FBI properly denied plaintiff's request for a fee waiver with respect to approximately 10,000 pages concerning Gwen Todd.
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency and intervenor failed to provide adequate Vaughn indices with respect to Exemption 4 withholdings pertaining to 2009 bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler.
Argus Leader Media v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. (D.S.D.) -- finding that the Food and Nutrition Service had not justified its use of Exemptions 4 and 6 to withhold certain food stamp program information derived from retail stores. In analyzing the prospect of competitive harm, the court took into consideration that only 323 of 321,988 potential retailers responded to the agency's submitter notice.
N.Y. Times v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that: (1) FBI's witness statements were protected by attorney work-product privilege because they revealed an attorney's strategic impressions and mental processes; (2) all memoranda at issue were covered by the attorney work-product privilege, the doctrine of "express incorporation" applies to and waives that privilege, and one of four memoranda -- a declination to prosecute -- had been expressly incorporated, at least in part, in agency's final decision.
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D.D.C.) -- dismissing NSA from multi-defendant lawsuit concerning records of shoot-down of a military helicopter in Afghanistan because plaintiff failed to appeal NSA's determinations; rejecting plaintiff's argument that appealing would have been futile or that a "futility" exception to appeal requirement even exists.
Aguiar v, Drug Enforcement Admin. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DEA performed an adequate search for certain administrative subpoenas and that third party's GPS mapping software utilized by the DEA is not an "agency record." The court also found from an in camera review that DEA's uncontested withholdings were proper.
Am. Civil Liberties Union of S. Cal. v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) national security concerns underlying agency's Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program was sufficient to meet Exemption 7's law enforcement threshold; (2) USCIS properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 7(E), but that it failed to adequately explain that exemption's applicability to other records; (3) USCIS performed an adequate search for responsive records; (4) USCIS improperly determined that certain records were outside the scope of request; and (5) USCIS reasonably segregated and released all non-exempt information.
Rocky Mountain Wild v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D. Colo.) -- concluding that the Forest Service unreasonably limited its search and that agency justified its withholdings under Exemption 5 for only certain records.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Spears v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Criminal Division conducted a reasonable search for requested telephone wiretap records and that it properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6 and 7(C).
Riddick v. Holland (D.D.C.) -- determining that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case, that it properly withheld responsive records under attorney work-product and deliberative process privileges, and that it properly closed plaintiff's requests after plaintiff failed to pay fees after exhausting two hours of free search time.
Unrow Human Rights Impact Litig. Clinic v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C) -- ruling that requested diplomatic cable was properly withheld under Exemption 1; rejecting plaintiff's waiver argument that agency had acknowledged authenticity of a cable published by newspaper.
Coleman v. Drug Enforcement Admin. (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency's search was sufficient except for agency's failure to search the one office; further finding that plaintiff was not entitled to a fee waiver determination because agency had provided documents free of charge and plaintiff did not establish likelihood of future injury.
Bryson v. Susan B. Gerson & U.S. Dep't of Justice (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing lawsuit because plaintiff failed to pay the fees associated with his request and failed to administratively appeal after agency closed the request for non-payment.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Evans v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior & Nat'l Park Serv. (N.D. Ind.) -- granting government's motion for summary judgment after determining that: (1) plaintiff failed to file administrative appeals for several requests; (2) agency conducted a reasonable request for remaining requested records; and (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(E).
Coss v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the FBI conducted an adequate search for a requested notebook pertaining to plaintiff's criminal case; noting that DEA, not FBI, was involved in plaintiff's drug trafficking conviction.
Campbell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Criminal Division properly relied upon the attorney-work product privilege to withhold documents related to court-authorized wiretaps in pending drug conspiracy cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.
Bigwood v. U.S. Dep't of Def. (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate's findings that the Dep't of Defense: (1) conducted an adequate search for requested records concerning a coup d'état in Honduras; (2) properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 7(E); and (3) produced all reasonably segregable, non-exempt records. The court further agreed with magistrate's recommendation to deny plaintiff's request for an in camera inspection of records, as well as his motion to file a sur-reply.
Hall v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency-defendants performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and that Exemption 7(C) was properly invoked to withhold name of a grand jury foreman.
Kleinert v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that neither party was entitled to summary judgment except with respect to limited amounts of information that the court ordered to be released or withheld. The court otherwise concluded that the agency had not adequately described its search or justified its withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).
Whitmore v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted an adequate search for records about plaintiff's criminal case and that it properly withheld the identities of special agents and the direct phone number of the prosecutor under Exemption 7(C).
McKneely v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Drug Enforcement Administration performed a reasonable search fir records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and that it properly withheld certain information under Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Intellectual Property Watch v. U.S. Trade Rep. (S.D.N.Y) -- in case involving records of Trans-Pacific Partnership (a free trade agreement), the court granted in part and denied in part the parties' motions for summary judgment. The court found that USTR properly invoked Exemption 1 to protect decision memoranda, draft agreement text, and certain communications between USTR and Industry Trade Advisory Committee (ITAC) that reflected U.S. positions and proposals that were shared with foreign counterparties. With respect to other agency-ITAC communications, however, the court rejected USTR's reliance on deliberative process privilege and granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment after concluding that ITAC was neither an agency nor a disinterested consultant. Lastly, the court found that neither party was entitled to summary judgment with respect to agency-ITAC communications that were withheld pursuant to Exemption 3in conjunction with 19 U.S.C. § 2155(g) and/or Exemption 4.
Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here.