Court opinions issued Apr. 6, 2020

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) DOJ properly withheld certain questions to and responses of congressional witnesses as “non-responsive” even though all material appeared in a single document, but that agency could not treat sub-questions and responses thereto as distinct records; (2) plaintiff did not have standing to challenge legality of Office of Information Policy’s guidance on definition of a “record.”

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold background papers associated with “Nuclear Posture Review;” (2) agency properly withheld names of contractors pursuant to Exemption 6, but domain email addresses were not similarly protected; (3) agency properly withheld information relating to security at nuclear facilities pursuant to Exemption 7(F); and (4) based on court’s in camera review, government did not previously disclose any information requested by plaintiff.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 3, 2020

Lewis v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that government properly withheld records concerning an Andorran bank pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 7(A), and 7(D).

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

Court opinions issued April 1, 2020

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and ordering release of one component of EPA computer program after finding that it did not fall within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Argus Leader v. USDA (D.S.D.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial and ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees following U.S. Supreme Court’s Exemption 4 decision involving same parties and same records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2020

Am. Oversight v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- concluding that OMB failed to perform adequate searches for agency’s communications with the White House concerning the FBI headquarters building and the Old Postal Office Pavilion, and that OMB properly withheld some, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege.

Webster v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff Carl Oglesby, and the government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Mabie v. EOUSA (S.D. Ill.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claims as sanction for using profane, belligerent, and abusive language when speaking to opposing counsel, leveling unfounded accusations and threatening opposing counsel, insulting the judge and Court employees, and impugning the integrity of judicial proceedings.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2020

Williams v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiff conceded agency’s supplemental motion for summary judgment.

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment for government as to plaintiff’s claims relating to three of his FBI requests; twenty-one of his BOP requests; all six of his EOUSA requests; both of his OIP requests, and his single USMS request; denying summary judgment for plaintiff’s claims relating to twelve of his FBI requests; twenty-seven of his BOP requests; and all four of his OIG requests; and dismissing claims relating to plaintiff’s CIA requests.

Democracy Forward Foun. v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that agency demonstrated that consultant corollary applied to emails of third-party consultant and that it met its burden to segregate and release all non-exempt records.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 27, 2020

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D. Ariz.) -- concluding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of costs and attorneys’ fees, but reducing fee award from $88,889.93 to $76,928.80 because of insufficiently detailed time entries, excessive time billed on assorted communications, and for time spent on unsuccessful motion.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 26, 2020

Pub. Citizen v. U.S Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev. (D.D.C.) -- deferring decision as to whether HUD properly withheld records as “non-responsive” because agency had not completed its document production; stating, however, that court was “skeptical” that the government could justify treating “a single bullet point from a PowerPoint slide or a single email in a chain (or subdivision thereof)” as a separate record “outside extraordinary circumstances.”

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 25, 2020

Ramdeo v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s incarceration and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (ACP), 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Civil Rights Division failed to adequately describe its search for requested records concerning State compliance with voter registration list laws; (2) agency properly withheld three categories of emails pursuant to Exemptions 5 or 7(A), but did not provide sufficient information about fourth category of records to permit court to determine whether withholdings under those same exemptions were proper.

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that IRS did not perform reasonable search for records concerning its correspondence with third parties about plaintiffs’ tax liabilities, but that it properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to a confidential informant.

Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for an exhibit originating from plaintiff’s criminal case and for the interview notes of Ramzi Yousef.

Hall v. Stoneman (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of victim from grand jury testimony and that agency’s disclosure of copies of documents instead of originals was “irrelevant.”

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 24, 2020

Goldwater Inst. v. HHS (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- vacating and remanding district court’s opinion and finding that FDA improperly relied on agency regulations to categorically withhold entire contents of Investigational New Drug file instead of evaluating whether specific records in file fell within Exemption 4.

Trent v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that USPS tracking notice was insufficient to establish that DHS received plaintiff’s administrative appeal letter, which was sent to address listed in DHS’s response letter instead of address listed in DHS regulations.

Reclaim Records v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold two databases concerning deceased beneficiaries, rejecting agency’s argument that categorical withholding was warranted because it would be too burdensome to segregate commingled data of living individuals; further noting that one database had been released nine years earlier and remained in public domain; and (2) additional briefing was required on data field for “cause of death.”

ACLU v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed inadequate search for records concerning its participation in National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) conference in 2019, and granting plaintiff limited discovery concerning search; (2) draft conference agenda created and shared by NSA did not meet threshold requirement of Exemption 5; (3) draft talking points and related emails did not not fall within deliberative process privilege as interpreted by First Circuit.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2020

Nat’l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications exchanged between the Attorney General and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation or the Solicitor General regarding certain immigration proceedings, rejecting appellant’s argument that such communications were ex parte and outside bounds of Exemption 5.

The Prot. Democracy Proj. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communication privilege to withhold memorandum that memorialized ”advice solicited by, and provide to, the President that directly related to presidential decision-making with respect to foreign relations and intelligence-gathering activities.”

Muhammad v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s conviction for transportation of a minor for prostitution under Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney work product privilege).

Freedom Watch v. Robert S. Mueller III (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ performed adequate search for medial-related records concerning Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).

Rocky Mtn. Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- ordering BLM to perform supplemental search for records concerning certain land offered for oil and gas leasing, but denying plaintiff’s request for discovery and agreeing that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney-client, and commercial privileges.

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