Court opinion issued Jan. 23. 2017

W. Arms v. United States (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: (1) violated FOIA by failing to produce records for 20 months; (2) performed a reasonable search for response records; (3) properly withheld certain firearms records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Consolidated Appropriations Acts, 2005-2012) and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).  The court further found that plaintiff was eligible for attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 18 & Jan. 20, 2017

Jan. 20, 2017

Hetznecker v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (E.D. Pa.) -- in case concerning "Occupy Philly" movement, denying government's motion to reconsider court order requiring agencies to submit documents for in camera review. 

Jan. 18, 2017

Dibacco v. U.S. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Army conducted adequate searches in response to plaintiff's 30-year old requests regarding Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen, and that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold certain information from Army records. 

Huntington v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the U.S. Patent & Trade Office failed to conduct a reasonable search for records concerning confidential program, and that USPTO properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege).   

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Dep't of Def. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) government failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether photographs of Abu Ghraib detainees were protected by Exemption 3 ( Protected National Security Documents Act); and (2) Exemption 7(F) did not protect photographs from disclosure because government provided a "vague and unlimited" description as to who was endangered.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that DOJ properly withheld a 2003 memorandum regarding common commercial service agreements pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 17, 2017

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) with the exception of a single email, DOE properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain contract provisions and contract strategy of company investigated by agency's Inspector General for illegally using taxpayer funds to engage in lobbying activities; (2) DOE properly withheld sensitive national security information pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(E), and 7(F); (3) DOE failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protects identities of company employees, DOE employees who serve at GS-15 level and below, and individuals interviewed during DOE's investigation; and (4) DOE properly used Exemption 6 to withhold identities of certain low-level contractor employees and of targets of company's lobbying strategy. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 16, 2017

Buholtz v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- holding that records maintained by USMS contract jail were not "agency records" and that USMS was not required to retrieve them in response to plaintiff's request.   

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 13, 2017

Wisdom v. U.S. Trustee Program (D.D.C.) -- determining that Executive Office for U.S. Trustees: (1) failed to show it had viable exhaustion defense to any of plaintiff's claims; (2) failed to establish that it conducted adequate searches in all locations likely to contain responsive documents; (3) failed to demonstrate that it properly withheld records pursuant to the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges; (4) properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold personal identifying information of third parties and all but one employee performance evaluation; and (5) failed to prove that information withheld under Exemption 7(E) met law enforcement threshold.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 12, 2017

Grigery v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D. Md) -- summarily concluding that agency conducted reasonable search and properly redacted ten pages.  The court further found that redactions on other pages were a moot issue because HHS provided them to plaintiff without redactions in an EEOC action.    

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 10, 2017

Manning v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to categorically withhold records related to its investigation into Plaintiff and others for disclosing classified and confidential information to WikiLeaks.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 6, 2017

Am. Small Bus. League v. DOD (9th Cir.) -- in an unpublished opinion, reversing district court's decision that none of agency's redactions from company's subcontracting plan were protected under Exemption 4 and that company's business contact information and signatures were not protected by Exemption 6.

Schwartz v. DOD (E.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Department of Defense failed to adequately search for certain records concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay; (2) Exemption 7(F) did not apply to DOD's annual security refresher training presentation; (3) CIA properly redacted four of five items pursuant to Exemption 3; and (4) CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of certain records pursuant to Exemption 3.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 5, 2017

People for the Ethical Treatment Animals v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on reconsideration of decision dated August 18, 2016, ruling that: (1) four categories of records that court previously held were protected under Exemption 4 for seven objecting animal importers were also exempt for three additional importers who had not been notified of FOIA requests prior to court's decision; and (2)  animal quantity and crate information was protected by Exemption 4, except with respect to two importers that failed to object to disclosure.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 3, 2017

Ecological Rights Found. v. Fed. Emergency Mgmt. Agency (N.D. Cal.) — denying agency request to “clawback” three records previously produced to requester, despite inherent authority of court to order such return, because the documents in question were not protected by the deliberative process or attorney-client privileges.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.