Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff’s claim concerning family company’s tax return was precluded by prior decision issued by another federal court; (2) agency performed adequate searches for documents associated with plaintiff’s grandfather and the estate of plaintiff’s father.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly redacted national security-related events mentioned on former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s calendars, with one possible exception, pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Dorsey & Whitney v. USPS (D. Minn.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation that Postal Service failed to demonstrate that it properly refused to confirm or deny existence of negotiated service agreements between USPS and private parties pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2) ("good business” exception).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. (D.D.C.) -- determining that Dep’t of Defense did not provide sufficient information to permit court to uphold agency’s Exemption 7(D) redactions on two pages of plaintiff’s employment background investigation.
Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff was not entitled to reconsideration of court’s interlocutory order even if he did not receive DOJ’s motion for summary judgment; (2) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable searches for records concerning three criminal cases'; and (3) following in camera review, Federal Bureau of Prisons properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 7(F).
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) EPA performed reasonable search for records about chemical office’s deputy assistant administrator; (2) EPA properly withheld certain documents pursuant to attorney-client privilege; (3) EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold drafts of agency rules, formal guidance, scoping documents, issue papers, reports, and documents, but it improperly withheld certain “messaging,” briefing, and program documents. In reaching its decision, the court determined that EPA had satisfied the statute’s independent foreseeable harm standard.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Animal Legal Def. Fund v. USDA (9th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, holding that statute authorized courts to order agencies to comply with “reading room” provisions (in this case, online posting of “frequently requested” records generated by the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) and remanding to district court to determine whether plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies.
Junk v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that records concerning three loans issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York do not constitute agency records of the Board.
White Coat Waste Project v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold name of principal investigator on animal research protocol, and that agency failed to provide it with sufficient information to determine whether principal investigator's name was properly withheld under Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Satterlee v. Comm'r of IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- dismissing action against IRS because plaintiff did not send request to appropriate official or address, but finding that request to Treasury used address “very similar” to address provided in agency regulations and should have been forwarded to appropriate office for processing.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Office of Legal Counsel Is Illegally Withholding Opinions from Public Scrutiny, Suit Alleges
Plaintiffs argue that 25-year-old documents are vital to understanding the Trump administration's decisions and should be made public under the 2016 FOIA reform.
By Courtney Buble, Gov. Exec., Aug. 23, 2019
A free speech institution, a nonprofit watchdog and several scholars filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Office of Legal Counsel for failing to fulfill Freedom of Information Act requests for decades-old documents they believe will shed light on current government surveillance activities, immigration policy and other significant issues. They argue the information should be released under a 2016 amendment to the law.
* * *
The suit, brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, the Campaign for Accountability and a group of scholars, is seeking documents related to FOIA requests for formal OLC opinions prior to Feb. 15, 1994.
Read more here.
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold modeling computer program that evaluates cost and effectiveness of certain emission-reduction technologies. In reaching its decision, the court found that EPA had satisfied the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD. (D. Mont.) -- determining that: (1) Army Corps of Engineers failed to perform adequate search for records concerning anticipated protests at Keystone XL pipeline and that if failed to justify withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(A); (2) Bureau of Land Management properly withheld information pursuant to attorney-client privilege, but failed to justify deliberative process privilege withholdings ; and (3) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pursuant to Exemption 7(A).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- vacating its earlier opinion and finding that CIA properly refused to confirm or deny existence of intelligence budget, specifically line items supporting Israel from 1990 through 2015.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.