Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (9th Cir.) (unpublished)-- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that Exemption 4 did not protect intervenor’s information regarding importation and exportation of wildlife, because U.S. Supreme Court decided Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media while case was pending on appeal.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rocky Mountain Wild. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning specific lease sale, except with respect to its use of search cut-off date; (2) agency’s Vaughn index did not permit court to determine whether agency properly withheld records pursuant to attorney-client privilege or released all non-exempt segregable material.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning a “nonacquiescence decision,” because the court erroneously resolved inferences about the predecisional nature of records against plaintiff instead of requiring EPA to conclusively demonstrate that the threshold was met.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that General Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Office of Information Policy failed to conduct reasonable searches for records concerning White House meetings relating to consolidation of FBI Headquarters
Reyes v. Dep’t of the Interior (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily finding that agency performed adequate search for records, but ordering in camera review of records withheld by agency pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hardway v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff and his former colleagues who worked on congressional committee that investigated assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Of note, holding that it was reasonable for the CIA to use the date it commenced the multistep “search process” as the search cut-off date instead of the date the agency executed searches in agency databases.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
LegalForce RAPC Worldwide v. USPTO (N.D. Cal.) -- following in camera review, ruling that U.S. Patent & Trade Office performed adequate search for records concerning agency’s misconduct investigation against one of plaintiff’s attorney, and that agency properly withheld all disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege or Exemptions 6 and 7(C); in dicta, cautioning USPTO to prepare complete and accurate Vaughn indices because even inadvertent errors can seriously prejudice FOIA plaintiffs.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA conducted adequate search for background investigation records concerning various Trump administration candidates, but improperly redacted their names pursuant to Exemption 6; (2) FBI properly interpreted plaintiff’s request for agency’s security clearance procedures, but nonetheless failed to perform adequate search; (3) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from DOD HQ’s “no records” response; DOD’s Defense Manpower Data Center properly interpreted plaintiff’s request and demonstrated that performing search would be futile; (4) DOJ failed to show that its Mail Referral Unit properly referred request; (5) plaintiff was not required to appeal from of Office of Personnel Management’s “interim” responses; OPM properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold personally identifying information, but court lacked information to evaluate other contested records; (6) ODNI performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, but its segregability analysis was insufficient; (7) Department of Education failed to show that it would be futile to search for security clearance records concerning Betsy Devos; (8) Department of State did not provide court sufficient information to determine whether it properly withheld records concerning Rex Tillerson pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. DOT (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery or costs.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Stevens v. DHS (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that: (1) Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) performed adequate search for records concerning its detainee volunteer work program; (2) ICE properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege, but improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold “messaging communications”; and (3) Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not protect names of federal employees mentioned in emails.
Vietnam Veterans of America v. DOD (D. Conn.) -- ruling that DOD properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of service members who were tested for plutonium contamination related to 1966 Palomares nuclear accident, including names of deceased veterans.
Canning v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- on third round of briefing, finding that State Department properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 and properly withheld draft letters from President Obama to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pursuant to Exemption 5.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Office of Solicitor and National Park Service properly invoked the deliberative process privilege in withholding records, but failed to demonstrate that statute’s foreseeable harm standard had been met.
Flete-Garcia v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that : (1) agency’s “barbones declaration” failed to demonstrate that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prison transportation; and (2) agency properly withheld records concerning third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- after evaluating six factors, declining to seal law firm’s billing records filed in connection with its motion for attorney’s fees in FOIA case.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.