Negley v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff in connection with UNABOMB case, and that plaintiff could not challenge redacted documents that were responsive to his previous FOIA litigation in Western District of Texas.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Competitive Enter. Inst. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for years' worth of communications originating with two components that mention "carbon," and (2) agency's withholdings under deliberative process privilege were justified except records concerning "staff commentary on news articles, public comments by non-agency officials, and other media originating outside the Department."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Nat'l Sec. Counselors v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, ruling that FBI's policy of charging $15.00 for preparing CD with 500 pages did not violate statute's requirement that agency recover “only the direct costs of search, duplication, or review.”
Borda v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Criminal Division's supplemental search for records concerning plaintiff's criminal investigation and prosecution was adequate; (2) Criminal Division properly withheld plea agreements that are under court seal, as well as other responsive records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (grand jury material) and 5 (attorney work-product privilege).
Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys performed adequate search for third-party records related to plaintiff's mortgage fraud conviction and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (2) FBI conducted adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E); and (3) plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.
Robert v. CIA (E.D.N.Y.) --
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Jordan v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency improperly withheld email under attorney-client privilege, noting that "simply copying an attorney on a communication does not make that communication privileged.'
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol failed to perform reasonable search for certain policy records and instructions disseminated to customs officials at U.S. ports-of-entry.
Reilly v. DOJ (D. Conn.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 3, 6 and 7(C) to withhold wiretap surveillance tapes concerning criminal investigation of Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim. In reaching its decision, the court stated that exposing Ganim's misconduct as elected official was not in public interest because it would not shed light on misconduct by federal officials.
Yanofsky v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- holding that FOIA's fee scheme was not displaced by the Mutual Educational And Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 and the Appropriations Act of 2016, and thus Commerce improperly billed plaintiff $173,775 in connection with his request about visitors and international flights to United States.
Turner v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (E.D. Cal.) -- concluding that Financial Crimes Enforcement Network performed adequate search for copy of Currency Transaction Report concerning plaintiff.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that State Department properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records originally generated by non-agency employees in preparation for Senate confirmation hearings of Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton and Legal Adviser Designate Harold Koh; further ruling that agency properly withheld private email addresses pursuant to Exemption 6, which plaintiff did not dispute.
Knowles v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that State Department performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff's extradition from the Bahamas, and that State Department and/or DOJ's Criminal Division properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 5, 6, and 7(C).
Tokar v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Criminal Division's creation of chart regarding selection of corporate compliance monitors for fifteen corporations did not satisfy obligation to conduct adequate search for records in absence of agreement with plaintiff; (2) Criminal Division properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold company's compliance program concerning Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; (3) agency improperly withheld, pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C): (a) "names of monitor selection committee members who are not part of DOJ’s senior management;" (b) "names and related personal identifying information concerning the individuals nominated but not selected to be monitors;” and (c) "names of the unselected nominees when those names appeared in a company’s response letter to its submitter notice."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Nat'l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges to withhold certain Attorney General communications related to eleven contested immigration decision; (2) agency's use of deliberative process privilege was not justified by brief descriptions provided in Vaughn Index.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Mertz v. SSA (E.D. Mich.) -- rejecting magistrate judge's recommendation to release certain records, because court found records fell within parameters of attorney-client privilege or Exemption 6 and 7(C).
Russell v. United States (E.D. Tenn.) -- concluding that U.S. Marshals Service conducted adequate search for records pertaining to assault at detention center, and that agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact names, email addresses, and telephone numbers of agency employees and local law enforcement.
James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to sufficiently explain applicability of deliberative process privilege to records concerning Thomas A. Drake.
Rojas-Vega v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency conducted reasonable search for state criminal court transcripts and that it properly withheld records under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Seife v. U.S. Dep't of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process and presidential communications privileges) to withhold records concerning press briefings given "on background" by anonymous senior agency officials; (2) agency did not justify use of Exemption 6 to withhold identities of senior employees who provided briefings, but it properly withheld cell phone numbers and personal email addresses, as well as identities of lower-level Department of Defense employees.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Edelman v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of 36 individuals who complained about transfer of ownership of Empire State Building in New York.
Casey v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI properly refused to confirm or deny -- pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C) -- existence of witness statements of six individuals in connection with agency's investigation of plaintiff for murder.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ariz. v. DHS (D. Ariz.) -- on motion for reconsideration, finding that: (1) public interest in disclosing names of DHS employees accused of mistreating unaccompanied children outweighed privacy interests; (2) court "clearly erred" by previously suggesting that DHS names could be disclosed under protective order.
Fabricant v. DOJ (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court's decision that Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives performed reasonable search and properly withheld certain records; further finding that district court did not abuse discretion in denying plaintiff's motions for in camera review, discovery, striking agency's declaration, and litigation costs.
E.G. v. Dep't of the Air Force (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Air Force properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold certain records from administrative proceeding concerning plaintiff's allegations of sexual assault against staff seargent.
Reep v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff's claims against Executive Office for United States Attorneys, FBI, and Drug Enforcement Agency were filed too late -- that is, six years after his right to file first accrued; and (2) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and properly withelld records pursuant to Exemption 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.