Court opinions issued Mar. 20, 2020

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ (D.D.C) -- holding that: (1) plaintiffs’ claims were not barred by doctrines of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel because exemptions and/or documents at issue were new (2); FBI properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records related to FBI’s impersonation of media.

Gellman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records about plaintiff, concluding that: (1) Office of Information Policy properly withheld records as non-responsive, including portions of email chains; (2) Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemption 1 to withheld all but one category of records; (3) National Security Agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 in conjunction with the National Security Act; (4) ODNI properly withheld the formatting, design, and organization of commercial entity’s new bulletins pursuant to Exemption 4; but that text of individual articles mentioning plaintiff’s name must be released; (5) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5 (DPP) to withhold discussions about investigative techniques and how to respond to press inquiries, but it did provide adequate information for court to assess withholding of agency reactions to news articles; and (6) FBI properly wiitheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and 7(E).

Petrucelli v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (2) EOUSA did not sufficiently describe how it performed its search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 19, 2020

Butt v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was not entitled to waiver of duplication fees because his request for records from the FBI about his criminal prosecution would not serve public interest.

Katchadourian v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Defense Intelligence Agency properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records concerning task force that conducted damage assessment from Wikileaks, and that it also performed adequate search; (2) DIA properly determined that all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 1 were classified, but that it failed to demonstrate that it performed adequate segregability analysis; (3) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024; (4) DIA failed to show that records withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 were predecisional or deliberative; and (5) DIA was entitled to summary judgment regarding its use of Exemption 7(C) because plaintiff did not challenge it.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 17, 2020

White v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (S.D. Ill. 2020) -- ruling that: (1) FBI’s processing rate of 500 pages per month was reasonable given the “large volume and complexity” of responding to plaintiff’s requests and because plaintiff “failed to articulate any real public interest in the records he seeks”; (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (3) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of alleged informants pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E); (4) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on requests that he either failed to reasonably describe or failed to appeal; (5) FBI did not improperly withhold records that Federal Bureau of Prisons refused to accept delivery of due to security concerns; and (6) plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on request for records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A) because FBI agreed to recheck the request when the status of the investigation is likely to have changed to closed; and (7) FBI performed adequate searches on remaining requests.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 16, 2020

Dillon v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to agency’s anthrax investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins, and that it properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold portions of FBI’s “Interim Major Case Summary.”

Porup v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s “pattern-or-practice” claim was mooted by new agency guidance instructing officials not to decline requests solely because they pertain to matters outside of CIA’s primary mission; (2) CIA performed adequate search for records about its use of poison for covert assassinations, and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 13, 2020

Burton v. Wolf (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that DHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold information referencing plaintiff in his estranged wife’s alien file.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 12, 2020

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Exemption 7(C) protected docket numbers of terrorism cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals, but not cases that resulted in convictions.

Pronin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that BOP performed adequate search for staff lists at three facilities where plaintiff was incarcerated and that agency’s withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemption 6.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 10, 2020

Evans v. BOP (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff did not reasonably describe his request for records pertaining to a screwdriver used in a prison attack against him, and reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency properly withheld security camera footage in full pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

White Coat Waste Proj. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 to withhold names of principal investigators who conducted animal research at agency facilities; and (2) agency properly withheld the title of a research protocol pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 3710a, which protects confidential information within cooperative research and development agreements.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 9, 2020

James v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the handwritten signatures and initials of an Assistant United States Attorney and other third parties.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 6, 2020

Eddington v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his request seeking government plans to detain individuals in event of war or national emergency was not reasonably clear.

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing prisoner-plaintiff’s FOIA claim against FBI because agency averred that it never received the request and plaintiff offered “no evidence beyond his own say-so.”

KXTV v. USCIS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that government properly withheld records concerning extradition of Omar Abdulsattar Ameen pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and (7(E), but not 7(A).

Protect Democracy Pro. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera inspection of memorandum memorializing telephone conversation between President Trump and former NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers, which NSA asserts is protected in full under the presidential communications privilege.

Bales v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records relating to visas requested by or issued to seven Afghan witnesses who testified at plaintiff’s court martial.

Day v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s imprisonment in Mexico and that it properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 5, 2020

Okeayainneh v. DOJ (N.D. Tex.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the National Personnel Records Center conducted reasonable searches for records about government lawyers associated with plaintiff’s criminal case, and sanctioning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, for filing frivolous complaint.

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report because, in court’s view, Attorney General Barr——and by extension DOJ—lacked credibility about this matter.

Lukas v. FCC (D.D.C.) -- in most relevant part, determining that FCC properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact company’s pricing strategy, negotiating positions, and sales history.

Rosenberg v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- on second renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) DOD properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold certain emails sent by Marine General John Kelly, except for information DOD publicly acknowledged; and (2) DOD’s justified its use of the deliberative process privilege and met the reasonable foreseeable harm requirement for most, but not all, disputed records.

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