Court opinions issued Feb. 22, 2018

Burke v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because Executive Office for United States Attorneys adequately demonstrated that it never received plaintiff's request before plaintiff filed suit.

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that DOJ properly determined that plaintiff was not entitled to expedited treatment of request concerning Noel Francisco, then Acting Solicitor General.  Although plaintiff demonstrated existence of widespread media interest in Mr. Francisco's nomination as Solicitor General, DOJ "correctly concluded" that plaintiff failed to show that media's interest "raised possible questions about government integrity that affect public confidence."  Notably, in reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that DOJ's interpretation of applicable regulation, 28 C.F.R. §16.5(e)(2), was not entitled to deference.   

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 21, 2018

Rodriguez v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ's Criminal Division and Executive Office for United States Attorneys failed to demonstrate that they performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff's criminal case.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 20, 2018

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- in witty-styled opinion, ruling that settlement agreement between parties concerning tax matters did not preclude plaintiff from filing FOIA lawsuit, nor did the doctrines of collateral estoppel or res judicata.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 16, 2018

Carlson v. USPS (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that plaintiff did not present "clear and convincing" evidence that judgment -- which was partially favorable to plaintiff -- should be vacated to permit plaintiff to revive challenges to Exemption 5 withholdings and adequacy of agency's search.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 15, 2018

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning Attorney General's recusal from certain matters related to 2016 presidential campaign.  Although plaintiff did not dispute DOJ's search methodology, it argued that the agency's search nonetheless was unreasonable because plaintiff believed that certain documents should have been located, such as an updated calendar and written advice to the Attorney General.  The court rejected plaintiff's belief as "nothing but supposition," noting that it was "hardly surprising that a busy day might turn out differently for a senior government official than was planned on his calendar.  Nor is it unheard of that an official might receive sensitive advice orally rather than in writing."

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinions issued Feb. 13, 2018

Pulliam v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving investigation into toxic contamination at former Army base, finding that: (1) DOD's renewed searches were inadequate and plaintiff was entitled to "limited telephonic deposition" regarding agency's search for electronic records; (2) EPA's supplemental searches were adequate except with respect to one office, and that EPA properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 6; and (3) DOJ's renewed search was inadequate in multiple respects and noting that agency's declarant had already "wasted everyone's time the first time around."

Sharkey v. DOJ (N.D. Ohio) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff (who believes federal government has been surveilling him),  and that it properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold certain information from records generated in response to plaintiff's complaints.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 12, 2018

Otero v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly declined to complete search for responsive records because plaintiff had failed to pay fees in connection with an earlier request.   

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 7, 2018

Judicial Watch v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 as grounds for refusing to confirm or deny existence of unclassified report assessing Moscow’s interference in foreign elections.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinion issued Feb. 6, 2018

Hill v. Exec. Office for the U.S. Attorneys (W.D. Va.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search notwithstanding failure to locate files that it possessed prior to plaintiff's request; (2) plaintiff's Constitutional rights as criminal defendant did not apply to FOIA case.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here. 

Court opinions issued Feb. 5, 2018

Mount v. Nielsen (D.D.C.) -- holding that DHS Office of Inspector General properly refused to confirm or deny, pursuant to Exemption 7(C), existence of records concerning allegation that Supervisory Special Agent "lost his official credentials to a prostitute and the credentials had to be retrieved by local police."

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly refused to confirm or deny, pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 6, existence of records pertaining to "Trump Dossier" and that President's tweet did not constitute public acknowledgment of existence of requested records.

Evans v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold video of prison altercation involving plaintiff, and (2) agency was not required to answer plaintiff's questions concerning screwdriver that might have been used in altercation.

N.Y. Times v. U.S. Secret Serv. (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F) to withhold certain records regarding air transportation costs during 2016 presidential campaign; (2) plaintiff was not entitled to attorney's fees  or other litigation costs because it failed to obtain any judicial relief. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.