Cornucopia Inst. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for investigatory records concerning certain organic corporations and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- (1) dismissing as moot plaintiff's claim that agency improperly redacted records as "non-responsive" and improperly segmented one record into multiple records; (2) denying as unduly prejudicial plaintiff's motion to amend complaint to add "policy-or-practice" claim against agency regarding its designation of records as non-responsive.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Oct. 6, 2017
Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) court has authority to issue broad, prospective injunction requiring Office of Legal Counsel to affirmatively produce to plaintiff legal opinions that are subject to reading-room requirement; and (2) plaintiff failed to identify ascertainable set of legal opinions that OLC has failed to make publicly available and index pursuant to reading-room requirement.
Oct. 3, 2017
Thompson v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- denying summary judgment to both parties because plaintiff failed to show he had standing to pursue a "policy or practice" FOIA claim and DOJ failed to negate or even to address the issue.
Oct. 2, 2017
Wheeler v. Mahar (N.D. Ga.) -- dismissing lawsuit against State Department because plaintiff's request for records concerning former President Barak Obama did not include Mr. Obama's written authorization.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly invoked Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold report of investigation concerning Secretary Clinton's IT Specialist; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5 to redact portion of email between Secretary Clinton and General Petraeus concerning personnel decisions, but neither party was entitled to summary judgment as to redactions made pursuant to Exemption 6.
Associated Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 7(E) to withhold identity of and price paid to technology vendor that assisted FBI in unlocking iPhone of suspected terrorist.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Sheridan v. OPM (D.D.C.) -- holding that Office of Personnel Management properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold computer files containing the source code for agency's Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-Qip) System.
Spataro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case except with respect to certain documents housed in New Jersey facility damaged by Hurricane Sandy; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 6 and 7(C) to withhold records concerning law enforcement personnel and other third parties; and (3) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(D) to withhold certain source information, but did not adequately explain basis for withholding source information pursuant to express assurances of confidentiality.
Digirolamo v. DEA (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration properly relied on Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), or 7(F) to withhold records concerning plaintiff; (2) agency properly denied fee waiver request because disclosure would primarily benefit only plaintiff; (3) agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to categorically withhold records about third parties.
Sarno v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A); (2) DOJ's Tax Division performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C); (3) Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold grand jury records; (4) FBI properly withheld wiretap records pursuant to Exemption 3; (5) Internal Revenue Service properly withheld grand jury material pursuant to Exemption 3.
Coffey v. BLM (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Land Management did not perform reasonable search for records concerning sale of wild horses and burros, because agency neglected to produce multiple email attachments or to identify all locations where it searched for records.
Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) government performed adequate search for snapshots of enforcement database used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Patrol; (2) government properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names and contact information of agency employees; (3) government failed to justify withholdings under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E); and (4) evidentiary hearing would be required in lieu of further briefing.
Goldstein v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- declaring that plaintiff failed to perfect certain but not all requests concerning tax examination file and return and return information of his father's Estate.
Goldstein v. TIGTA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff's newly discovered evidence did not warrant relief under Rule 60(b); and (2) Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold certain records, but failed to justify its use of Exemption 7(C).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Agrama v. IRS (D.D.C.)-- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold all disputed records pertaining to investigation of plaintiff's tax payments.
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning pesticide product; (2) agency properly withheld personal phone number pursuant to Exemption 6; (3) agency failed to demonstrate propriety of withholdings made under Exemption 5; and (4) plaintiff failed to show that agency had pattern of practice of disregarding FOIA response deadline or neglecting to provide estimated completion dates.
Codrea v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency's failure to release records until plaintiff filed lawsuit was insufficient to establish plaintiff's eligibility for attorney's fees.
Alford v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency failed to perform adequate search for a portion of plaintiff's vocational rehabilitation case records; (2) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to request for certain email; and (3) plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of $400 filing fee for lawsuit, noting agency's "unreasonable intransigence" and "numerous unforced errors."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- ordering government to release additional portions of six of nineteen documents concerning CIA's detention and interrogation program after finding Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 did not protect them.
Alliance Defending Freedom v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed an adequate search for records pertaining to Treasury Regulations § 301.7611-1 ("Questions and answers relating to church tax inquiries and examinations").
Edelman v. SEC (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for investigatory records concerning real estate investment trust; and (2) agency failed to demonstrate propriety of withholdings under Exemptions 4 and 5, which were justified by only speculative and conclusory statements.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Cruz v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that government properly withheld certain records concerning plaintiff's criminal case pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and "various subparts of exemption 7," which pro se plaintiff failed to oppose.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Sept. 22, 2017
Cable News Network v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff's request for records "relating in any way" to memos issued by former FBI Director James Comey was not reasonably described.
Sept. 21, 2017
Taylor Energy v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Department performed reasonable search for records underlying statements it issued about 2004 incident at plaintiff's oil platform in Gulf of Mexico; (2) Department properly relied upon deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold five disputed documents.
MacLeod v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DHS demonstrated that it did not maintain records concerning plaintiff's application for "diplomatic status" card; (2) plaintiff failed to appeal CIA's Glomar response regarding himself, and his request concerning "Russia" and the "Cold War" was not reasonably described; and (3) National Security Administration and the General Services Administration demonstrated that it never received requests from plaintiff.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Lindsey v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- denying without prejudice agency's Glomar response concerning request for records of interaction between government and Imad Hage, because FBI interpreted request too narrowly, Mr. Hage publicly acknowledged (to some degree) his contacts with U.S. officials, and agency failed to acknowledge any public interest in subject matter of request.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.