Court opinions issued Nov. 19, 2018

Charles v. DOJ (M.D. Pa.) -- dismissing suit against Bureau of Prisons because pro se plaintiff, a former prisoner, failed to prosecute claim after being released from custody.

Edmond v. United States (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s request for USPS file on plaintiff was not reasonably described because agency does not maintain centralized files on members of public.

Gonzales v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and dismissing suit because plaintiff failed to respond to agency’s notice pertaining to estimated search fees.

Am. Marine LLC. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for plaintiff’s administrative files; (2) IRS properly withheld return information of plaintiff’s corporate alter ego pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); and (3) IRS properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff’s “risk score” pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Nov. 15-16, 2018

Nov. 16, 2018

Talbott v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that CIA and State Department performed reasonable, supplemental searches for records relating to President Kennedy’s assassination, and denying plaintiff’s bid to overturn six aspects of the court’s previous opinion.

Nov. 15, 2018

Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily ruling that DHS performed reasonable search and properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest at U.S.-Mexico border, which led to dueling lawsuits between plaintiff and the arresting agent.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Nov. 13, 2018

Anguiano v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that : (1) ICE failed to show that its search was adequate in all respects; (2) court could not evaluate ICE's use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) without reviewing certain documents in camera; and (3) ICE properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect information regarding third parties and ICE employees.

Chase v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff had offered no new arguments that warranted changing court’s earlier opinion that government had performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’ criminal conviction and that it properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

Pubien v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for grand jury information regarding plaintiff’s criminal case, and that it properly withheld the names of government employees pursuant to Exemption 6.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 7, 2018

Liounis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney-work product).

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 2, 2018

Roseberry-Andrews v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- granting agency’s renewed summary judgment after finding that agency’s supplemental declaration demonstrated adequacy of search for plaintiff’s employment records and that agency had segregated and released all non-exempt material.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 1, 2018

Baker v. CFPB (D.D.C.) --denying plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction seeking production of as many as 630,000 pages of responsive records about Zillow Group, because plaintiff failed to show that he has a likelihood of success on the merits, that he will face irreparable harm, or that the balance of the hardships and the public interest weigh in plaintiff’s favor.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Oct. 30, 2018

Beard v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (E.D. La.) -- summarily ruling after in camera review of disputed documents that agency properly withheld records pursuant to deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued October 26, 2018

Bloomgarden v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold two letters pertaining to firing of lead prosecutor in plaintiff’s murder case two decades ago, because prosecutor maintained privacy interests in avoiding disclosure of embarrassing information despite passage of time and that public interest “in negligent job performance and unremarkable misconduct of a staff-level attorney is relatively low.”

Arledge v. IRS (N.D. Tex.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, because: (1) plaintiff incorrectly submitted request to Assistant United States Attorney at field office instead of to main office in Washington D.C.; and (2) plaintiff requested protected “return” information from IRS without submitting agency forms establishing his right of access.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Oct. 24, 2018

Canning v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- in consolidated case, ruling that: (1) agency performed adequate search for records requested by plaintiff SAE Productions concerning Muslim Brotherhood; (2) agency properly justified its use of Exemption 1 for all but four withheld records; (3) agency failed to adequately explain how three draft letters sought by plaintiff Canning fall within deliberative process privilege, but that agency properly withheld other draft material disputed by plaintiff SAE.

Godaire v. Rosentstein (D.D.C.) -- finding that Office of Information Policy properly informed plaintiff that DOJ’s leadership offices, including Deputy Attorney General, typically do not maintain copies of search warrants pertaining to individuals, and that plaintiff was required to contact FBI and DHS directly for records maintained by those agencies.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Oct. 16, 2018

Hughes v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding that U.S. Marshals Service properly issued Exemption 7(C) Glomar in response to plaintiff’s request for records concerning his brother, who is alive and did not consent to disclosure; rejecting plaintiff’s personal interest in records for probate proceeding as sufficient to override subject’s privacy interests.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.