Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s opinion and finding that: (1) FAA failed to demonstrate the adequacy of its search for records concerning employment test; and (2) “consultant corollary” principle relied upon by FAA was “contrary to Exemption 5’s text and FOIA’s policy of broad disclosure, and its legal foundation . . . is tenuous at best.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Statton v. Fla. Fed. Judicial Nominating Comm'n (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that entity formed by U.S. Senators Nelson and Rubio to recommend federal judges to President did not constitute “agency” for FOIA purposes, nor did its individual chairperson.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Apr. 19, 2019
Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff had Article III standing to challenge EPA’s policy or practice of threatening to deem FOIA requests as “voluntarily withdrawn” when: (a) the agency concludes on an initial review that the request does not “reasonably describe” the records sought and so notifies the requester, and (b) the requester fails to contact the EPA within ten days regarding the asserted deficiency in the request; and (2) neither party had sufficiently explained whether plaintiff had statutory standing or could obtain injunctive or similar relief.
Apr. 18, 2019
Kriemelmeyer v. U.S. Dept. of State (W.D. Wis.) -- concluding that: (1) DOJ’s National Security Division performed adequate search for Foreign Agent Registration records and was under no obligation to inform plaintiff that he could have searched pubic database for same records; (2) Department of State properly denied plaintiff’s request for records pertaining to his passport application because plaintiff failed to certify his identity in accordance with agency regulations.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Elec. Frontier Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning agency’s use, training, and recruitment of informants at computer repair facilities; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold certain records concerning use of informants at Best Buy; (3) FBI failed to provide sufficient information to allow court to determine whether Exemption 7(C) protected name of criminal convicted on evidence obtained from Best Buy in Kentucky; (4) FBI did not sufficiently explain grounds for invoking Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to categorically withhold informant files for eight confidential informants acknowledged in criminal case.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rose v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive had no record of receiving of plaintiff’s request, which was addressed to a facility that moved ten years ago.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rose v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosive had no record of receiving of plaintiff’s request, which was addressed to a facility that moved ten years ago.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold third-party information from three criminal case files, but that it failed to adequately explain its search for emails.
Poitras v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees after finding that: (1) plaintiff had self-interested motives to seek records concerning her repeated border and airport detentions; and (2) withholdings by agencies were proper, let alone reasonable.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wessler v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that U.S. Marshals Service improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold medical records of federal pretrial detainees who died in the agency’s custody.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wolk Law Firm v. NTSB (E.D. Pa.) -- concluding that: (1) cell phone video of airplane cockpit was protected by Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 1114(c)(1); (2) agency was required to produce documents concerning the chain-of-custody of airplane wreckage; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 2, 4, 5, and 6.
Jordan v. DOL (W.D. Mo.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration after finding that the agency disclosed to plaintiff the “very documents he sought in one of the formats he sought.”
Rogers v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s civil forfeiture settlement agreement with IRS barred FOIA plaintiff’s request to Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for related records, declining to extend D.C. Circuit’s 2017 holding regarding validity of FOIA waivers set forth in criminal plea agreements.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Siegelman v. DOJ (N.D. Ala.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to a “modest award of fees and costs,” not $72,820 as requested, after the Office of Professional Responsibility released 37 pages pertaining to the prosecution of plaintiff’s father, Don Siegelman, the former governor of Alabama.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.