Leopold v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C) -- finding that agency conducted an adequate search for various records pertaining to congressional inquiry into the CIA's alleged torture program.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (E.D.N.Y.) (Magistrate's Order) -- finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons: conducted an adequate search for records and properly redacted the inmate names and register numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that the agency had no duty to respond to plaintiff's request for "records that identify the number and names of all current and former" State Department officials "who used email addresses other than their assigned 'state.gov' email addresses to conduct official State Department business," because the request was really a question and not a request for existing records.
Gatore v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) -- agreeing with agency that Exemption 5 applies to assessments of asylum applications, but ordering agency to perform segregability analysis of each document; denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees because plaintiff failed to address whether it was eligible and entitled to such fees.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Mar. 31, 2016
Ryan v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who alleged that he has been under constant FBI surveillance since shortly after September 11, 2001.
Giovanetti v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed motion for summary judgment after finding that FBI properly withheld records about plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Mar. 30, 2016
Center for Ethics & Responsibility in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly invoked Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withheld records pertaining to investigation of former congressman Tom Delay. Of note, the court permitted the FBI to assert Exemption 5 even though it had not raised the argument during prior proceedings. The court noted, however, that the agency "prevailed on this issue by the skin of its teeth." The court further stated that it was "particularly displeased by defendant's misrepresentation in its brief in support of its second Motion for Summary Judgment that the FBI had withheld material pursuant to Exemption 5 in the first round of summary judgment . . . and defendant's failure to explain or take responsibility for the mishap here."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Weikamp v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (N.D. Ohio) -- denying request for costs and attorney's fees after determining that agency's withholding of contract-related information was not unreasonable and that other entitlement factors were neutral.
Justice v. Mine Safety & Health Admin. (S.D. W. Va.) -- ruling that the agency properly relied upon Exemptions 5 and 7(C) to redact information from employee interviews concerning plaintiff's administrative complaint.
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- granting limited discovery regarding the adequacy of the Department of State's search for requested records concerning Ambassador Rice's talking points on Benghazi attack.
Envtl. Integrity Project v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D.D.C.) -- holding that Exemption 4 protected data submitted by businesses to help the agency to draft regulations and that the Clean Water Act did not displace the provisions of the FOIA.
Pinson v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- determining that the FBI properly withheld certain information responsive to plaintiff's nearly three dozen requests pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), but declining to dismiss certain claims after finding that plaintiff might not have received mail sent by the agency.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Mar. 25, 2016
Sanchez-Alaniz v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the agency conducted an adequate search, properly withheld information under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F), and released all reasonably segregable information. Further, the court found that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to one of his requests.
Goldstein v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin. (D.D.C.) -- finding that TIGTA failed to carry its burden of showing that Exemption 7(C) applied to records of investigation of certain IRS employees, but that same records fell within ambit of Exemption 6. The court found, however, that TIGTA failed to provide sufficient details about the segregability of of records containing return or return information to which plaintiff might be entitled under 26 U.S.C. § 6103.
Goldstein v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ordering IRS to reprocess seven of ten categories of tax records requested by the heir of father's estate, but finding that agency properly withheld a telephone number under Exemption 6, a Discriminant Function score under Exemption 7(E), and corporate tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(1)(D).
Mar. 24, 2016
White v. McDonald (N.D. Okla.) -- dismissing action as moot because the Department of Veterans Affairs had produced all requested records to plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit.
Edelman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part the parties' motions for summary judgment concerning various records related to the Empire State Realty Trust, whose property holdings include the Empire State Building. Of note procedurally, the court dismissed one claim because plaintiff had neglected to appeal the substantive determination issued by the agency upon remand from plaintiff's initial appeal, which merely disputed the lack of a response. The court acknowledged that "there may be circumstances under which requiring an appeal after an agency remands a case to the processing officer would not further the purposes of the exhaustion requirement. For instance, where an agency initially responds to a FOIA request on the merits, the requester appeals, and the agency issues the same response on remand, the requester might argue that the purposes of the exhaustion requirement would not be furthered by an additional—and arguably futile—appeal." Further, the court rejected the agency's determination that the meeting notes of SEC attorneys constituted "personal records" rather than "agency records," employing the D.C. Circuit's "totality of the circumstances" test. The court found that the SEC conducted reasonable searches and that, with the exception of one document, it had established that Exemption 5 protected certain withheld information.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Forsythe v. U.S. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. (E.D.N.Y.) -- adopting magistrate judge's report and recommendation because plaintiff failed to clearly object to the agency's specific withholdings.
Logan & Lowry, LLP v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (N.D. Okla.) -- ruling that the Office of Inspector General performed a reasonable search for responsive records and that plaintiff was neither eligible nor entitled to an award of fees notwithstanding it untimely production of records.
Klayman v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C.) -- determining that the CIA properly relied upon Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning an alleged CIA contractor against whom plaintiff had filed a civil lawsuit; rejecting plaintiff's argument that the agency had officially acknowledged the individual at issue as a CIA contractor.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Poulsen v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $22,588.50 in fees and $350 in costs for prevailing in lawsuit that sought access to Secret Service records about Aaron Swartz, an Internet activist who committed suicide after being prosecuted by federal government; reducing requested amount by approximately 40 percent primarily because plaintiff relied upon incorrect matrix to calculate hourly rates.
A Better Way for BPA v. U.S. Dep't of Energy Bonneville Power Admin. (W.D. Wa.) -- dismissing suit because the initial request was submitted by an individual who did not clearly state that she was acting on behalf of the requester; to the contrary, she indicated that the request was being made by an individual for personal use rather than by a company for use in its business.
Gahagan v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (E.D. La.) -- awarding plaintiff $12,676 for attorney's fees and $462.87 for costs after obtaining ten pages of records that agency claimed -- but did not establish -- were merely duplicates; reducing number of hours calculated by plaintiff by 25 percent due to lack of billing judgment and further reducing his hourly rate from $300 to $200.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Sandy v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted a reasonable search, albeit in vain, for certain personnel records of a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted plaintiff in Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Platsky v. FDA (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court's decision that FDA conducted a reasonable search.
Bustillo v. U.S. Dep't of of Justice (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment in favor of Federal Bureau of Prisons because the agency provided access to all records responsive to plaintiff's requests.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Mar. 14, 2016
Cooper v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that with the exception of one document, DOJ properly invoked Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withhold various records concerning plaintiff's prosecution for drug trafficking offenses.
Mar. 12, 2016
Thelen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- finding that government conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 (grand jury material), Exemption 5 (attorney work-product privilege), and Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n (M.D. Tenn.) -- concluding that the SEC properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to protect records of investigation concerning Walmart's payment of millions of dollars to Mexican officials.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.