Court opinion issued Apr. 4, 2019

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s recommendation to deny plaintiff’s request for nearly $104,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with request for assassination records concerning Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that court should abandon D.C. Circuit’s four-factor entitlement test and concluding that CIA acted reasonably in response to plaintiff’s request.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 3, 2019

Gizmodo Media Grp. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that DOJ’s National Security Division properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to alleged wiretaps of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, notwithstanding President Trump’s statements on the subject.

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

Court opinion issued April 1, 2019

Hohman v. IRS (6th Cir.) (unpublished)-- concluding that appellant offered no compelling reason for failing to appeal magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to district court, and thus affirming district court’s decision that government properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records from Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration concerning agency misconduct.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 30, 2019

Am. Oversight v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that:HHS and Office of Management & Budget improperly redacted as “non-responsive” portions of email chains between agencies and Congressional Republicans concerning the Affordable Care Act, and that they also improperly withheld records based upon “consultant corollary” theory to deliberative process privilege.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 29, 2019

Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records related to alleged program of CIA payments to Syrian rebels; and (2) CIA performed adequate search for records pertaining to President Trump’s tweet and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6.

Palmarini v. IRS (E.D. Pa.) -- concluding that: (1) IRS conducted adequate search for plaintiffs’ tax audit records; (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 , 4, 5, 6, and 7(E), except for disk password provided by financial institution.

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning role of medical professionals in interrogation tactics, determining that: (1) government properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold all but seven documents, (2) government properly withheld Guantanamo Bay interrogation log pursuant to Exemption 1; and (3) government failed to justify use of Exemption 6 to withhold government email domain addresses, or its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Corley v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys properly relied on Exemptions 3, 6 and 7(C) to withhold four documents pertaining to arrest of third-party minor.

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

Court opinion issued March 28, 2019

Mo. Coal. for Env't v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- declaring that agency employed unlawful policy and practice of withholding Clean Water Act permit records pursuant to Exemption 5, but declining to issue injunction requested by plaintiff.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 27, 2019

Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- reserving judgment on most Exemption 4 withholdings pending Supreme Court’s decision in Food Market Inst. v. Argus Leader, but ordering agency to release information already in public domain.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that EPA performed reasonable search for records pertaining to its assessment of a new pesticide and that it properly withheld records pursuant to attorney-client and deliberative process privileges, except with respect to certain factual information contained in PowerPoint slides.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to agency’s revisions to water quality criteria for the heavy metal cadmium. In reaching its decision, the court found that EPA’s consultations with its outside contractor did not undermine agency’s Exemption 5 withholdings and that factual material was protected from disclosure because it was deliberatively culled from larger body of information.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 26, 2019

Kapende v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly withheld portions of assessment memoranda concerning plaintiffs’ asylum applications pursuant to deliberative process privilege, even though agency ultimately followed memoranda’s recommended decisions.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 25, 2019

Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of fees in connection with requests concerning Attorney General Jeff Sessions and White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus, but reducing requested award by one-third because of plaintiff’s overstaffing and inefficiencies in case that required no substantive briefing. Of note, the court ruled that plaintiff “substantially prevailed” by virtue of the issuance of judicial orders establishing document production schedules.

Crisman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that properly redacted portions of documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege, but only after FBI had supplementally released information from those documents upon applying reasonable foreseeable harm standard set forth in FOIA Improvement Act of 2016.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 21, 2019

Sikes v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy (S.D. Ga.) -- denying award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff who substantially prevailed before Eleventh Circuit, because public benefit of obtaining duplicate documents was “very limited” and agency’s actions were not unreasonable.

Judge Rotenberng Educ. Ctrv. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly withheld information as “non-responsive” by reclassifying documents as distinct records midway through litigation; (2) plaintiff conceded agency’s attorney-client privilege claims by failing to reply to agency’s counter-arguments; (3) agency’s Vaughn Index inadequately described certain deliberative process privilege withholdings, e.g., by failing to identify decision-making authority of authors and recipients of agency communications, but agency properly withheld draft documents; (4) agency failed to properly identify privacy and public interests of third parties whose identities were withheld pursuant to Exemption 6.

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