Court opinions issued Oct. 29, 2019

Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in dispute over records concerning involvement of medical professionals in interrogation programs, finding that: (1) Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense properly withheld four documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but failed to show that privilege applied to fifth document generated in part by non-government entity; (2) U.S. Navy properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) U.S. Army properly withheld all but six documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege and properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold two documents, but it failed to justify most withholdings that were based on various combinations of Exemption 5 privileges and failed to establish that it released all segregable, non-exempt records; (4) U.S. Special Operation Command failed to show that comments by former prisoner of war on were protected by deliberative process privilege; (5) Defense Intelligence Agency failed to explain how Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 justified withholding document in full; (6) U.S. Central Command properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 1; and (7) Joint Task Force Guantanamo failed to justify its withholdings under Exemption 7(E).

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 28,2019

DBW Partners v.. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) USPS improperly issued Exemption 6 Glomar response to request for ethics investigatory records of agency’s Chief Customer and Marketing Officer; and (2) Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act to redact report concerning agency’s partnership programs, but if failed to demonstrate that it released all segregable non-exempt information.

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

Court opinion issued October 22, 2019

Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) -- (1) affirming district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 2 to withhold minimum passing score for assessment test used to hire air traffic controllers; plaintiff’s assessment score; and applicant information for a particular air traffic controller opening; (2) affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact personal email addresses of FAA employees from emails sent or received by FAA employee suspected of misconduct; (3) vacating and remanding district court’s ruling that certain emails sent or received by FAA employee were not agency records; declining to fully embrace D.C. Circuit’s four-factor test to determine whether agency “controls” records and holding that a court may consider “a range of evidence.”

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 18, 2019

Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s motion to transfer case challenging EPA’s FOIA regulations to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 16, 2019

Heffernan v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) HHS performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to 2007 review of agency’s Department of Spiritual Ministry, and (2) HHS properly withheld draft press release exchanged with third party pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, in conjunction with the consultant corollary doctrine. The court’s initial opinion is here.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 15, 2019

Nightingale v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (N.D. Cal.) -- granting class certification to plaintiffs seeking access to immigration files, specifically Alien Registration files, citing government’s “systematic failure of making timely determinations” on their FOIA requests.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 4, 2019

Scott v. Treasury Inspector Gen. for Tax Admin. (11th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that TIGTA properly withheld — pursuant to Exemption 6 — certain investigatory records concerning plaintiff’s complaint against IRS employee.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 30, 2019

Gwich’in Steering Comm v. U.S Dep't of the Interior (D. Alaska) -- granting government’s motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which is already adjudicating a similar case between overlapping parties.

Highland Capital Mgmt. v. IRS (N.D. Tex.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for records concerning 2008 audit of plaintiff; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 (in conjunction 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a)) and Exemptions 6 and 7(E); (3) agency’s withholdings under the deliberative process and attorney-client privileges were proper in part and improper in part; and (3) agency failed to justify withholdings under Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(e)(7).

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) Veterans Affairs properly relied on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records pertaining to Brady Act regulations; (2) FBI conducted adequate search for various records concerning regulation of firearm ownership and it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C); (3) Office of Attorney General failed to perform adequate search for requested records; and (4) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives properly withheld internal talking points pursuant to deliberative process privilege.

Sigler v. HHS (C.D. Cal.) -- finding that agency conducted a reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s HIPAA complaints and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 4, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

O'Brien v. DOJ (E.D. Pa.) -- dismissing case against FBI because agency averred that it did not receive plaintiff’s requests, all of which were misaddressed.

Osen v. U.S. Central Command (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that plaintiff was barred by collateral estoppel from challenging redactions of names and identifying information of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in attacks on Americans in Iraq; alternatively holding that government’s redactions were proper pursuant to Exemption 6.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 29, 2019

Barton v. U.S. Geological Survey (D.D.C.) -- awarding plaintiffs $61,619.81 in attorneys fees and costs for substantially prevailing in case involving research report about Rock Creek Park; deducting $44,000 from amount requested by plaintiffs after concluding that their attorneys’ hourly rates were too high and that their “fee on fees” request was excessive.

Judicial Watch v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records concerning investigation of Michael Flynn; (2) Glomar responses of Treasury Department and CIA were not undermined by public statements of President Trump or White House.

Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) court did not have sufficient information to resolve question whether certain emails were Army, EOP, or both Army and EOP records; and (2) Army properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names of Army personnel below the rank of Colonel and civilian personnel below the GS-15 pay grade who did not otherwise interact with the media.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 28, 2019

Schneider v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI conducted adequate search for background investigation records pertaining to plaintiff and that it properly withheld contested records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).

Brady Ctr. To Prevent Gun Violence v. DOJ (D.D.C.) --finding that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives failed to perform adequate search for records concerning 2017 White Paper about reducing firearm regulations; and (2) ATF properly withheld email attachments wholly unrelated to subject of request as “out of scope.”

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