Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. Exec. Office for Immigration Review (D.D.C.) -- on remand from the D.C. Circuit, ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of certain, but not all, immigration judges against whom complaints had been filed.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Corley v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys released all reasonably segregable records containing third-party information and properly withheld all but five documents pursuant to attorney work-product privilege.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Hardy v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiff $20,095.95 in attorney's fees and costs for substantially prevailing in case against DOJ's Office of Inspector General, but not against ATF, and reducing award for its limited success and for time spent on certain non-compensable tasks.
Brick v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI's declarations were too sweeping and vague to permit review of agency's withholdings on 12 pages of records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed summary judgment motion regarding use of Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold records about pen registers or trap and trace devices, except with respect to certain redactions that government failed to address.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Dubuque v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force (E.D. Mo.) -- ruling that agency properly relied upon Exemption 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff's polygraph examination.
Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records concerning the United States's unpublished international agreements.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Sandoval v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, failed to administratively appeal the Federal Bureau of Prison's FOIA determination before filing lawsuit; (2) Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to demonstrate that it had conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff; and (3) FBI conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Bloomgarden v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold proposed job termination letter issued to the Assistant United States Attorney who prosecuted plaintiff's criminal case, noting that the letter revealed "only alleged unprofessionalism of a sort in which any junior attorney might engage, not allegations of prosecutorial misconduct or other abuse of a federal prosecutor's powers."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Emanuel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact third party names from incident report.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. HHS (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court's order requiring agency to prospectively release health insurance plans, because: (1) agency had not withheld records pursuant to improper practice or policy, (2) agency had not withheld records solely for purposes of delay, and (3) agency was not likely to continue to withhold disputed records in future.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- granting agency's motion for reconsideration after concluding that information contained within two Hillary Clinton emails pertaining to Benghazi attack were properly protected under Exemption 1.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Wren v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration was not required to create list of cases in which Special Agency had testified; and (2) pro se plaintiff-inmate was not entitled to fees or costs even though DEA released records about Special Agent after unilaterally changing position during litigation, because disclosure was primarily in plaintiff's interest and agency's initial withholding had a "colorable basis in law."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.