Almeda v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Department of Veterans Affairs properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold emails (including names of email authors) discussing inter-agency working group focused on Filipino veterans of World War II; and (2) plaintiff failed to support his allegation that Department of Education did not process attachments to responsive emails.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Gunter v. U.S. Secret Serv. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff, who sought records concerning himself, failed to administratively appeal the agency’s Exemption 7(A) denial before filing his lawsuit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C) — determining that: (1) plaintiff was not required to file administrative appeal before filing lawsuit contesting agency’s denial of plaintiff’s expedition request; and (2) DOJ’s one-sentence assertion that plaintiff expedition request did not meet regulatory standard was entitled to “little deference” and “did not stand up to judicial review.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Allen v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons: (1) properly refused to release plaintiff-inmate’s pre-sentence investigative report, but that she could review it and take notes; (2) properly withheld information from disciplinary reports pertaining to another inmate, Special Investigative Supervisors (SIS) Report, and from SIS Manual under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F); (3) properly withheld Program Statement 1380.09 in full under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F); and (4) properly withheld plaintiff’s Security Threat Group and Security Threat Profile from Counter Terrorism Unit memo under Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shaerr v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) FBI, NSA, CIA , State Department, DOJ, ODNI properly issued Glomar responses pursuant to Exemptions 1 and/or 3 for requests seeking records of “unmasking” and “upstreaming“ of twenty-one named individuals; (2) FBI, NSA, and DOJ failed to perform adequate searches for policies, procedures, and reports concerning unmasking, but State, ODNI, and CIA performed adequate searches.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pichardo-Martinez v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency’s declaration failed to provide sufficient facts to allow court to determine that an adequate search had been conducted.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y) -- ruling that Defense and/or State Departments properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold five of six categories of records pertaining to U.S. military raid in Yemen, but requiring in camera review of certain military orders to determine whether any information contained therein had already been officially acknowledged by the government.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
McDonald v. Barr (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that the Department of Justice conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s alleged reinstatement to his job with the U.S. Postal Service, whom plaintiff had previously sued for employment discrimination.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Personnel Management failed to perform adequate search for names and titles or occupations of employees of Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and that OPM raised exhaustion argument too late for court to consider it; (2) Treasury properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of non-senior Treasury employees who perform law enforcement functions, as well as the cell phone numbers of all Treasury employees; (3) Treasury improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold office telephone numbers of FinCEN employees, as well as telephone numbers of Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence employees; and (4) Treasury properly invoked exemption 1 to withhold names, titles, and phone numbers of non-leadership Office of Intelligence and Analysis employees.
Baldwin v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff, a former DOE employee; and (2) agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges), as well as cell phone numbers and conference call phone number pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Grey v. Cuccineli (D.S.C.) -- denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Vaughn Index after concluding that it would be more appropriate to wait until after summary judgment briefing to determine necessity of the index.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Grand Canyon Trust v. Bernhardt (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester was ineligible for attorney’s fees because its lawsuit did not cause a voluntary or unilateral change in agency’s position; further ruling that the proper standard of review for causation was “clear error,” not de novo. In a concurring opinion, Judge Randolph stated that FOIA’s 2007 amendment did not restore the “catalyst theory” because the amended provision “requires only correlation not causation.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.