Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and presidential communications privileges to withhold interviews reports related to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. presidential election.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment briefing, finding that, with minor exceptions, U.S. Customs & Border Protection properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold records concerning reference manuals used for inspection and admission process into the United States.
Jurdi v. U.S. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that:DEA properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) to categorically withhold records about third party who testified at plaintiff’s criminal trial, and that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of similar records.
NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- concluding that Office of Community Oriented Policing Service properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft assessment of North Charleston, South Carolina Police Department.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Aug. 31, 2020
In re: Clinton (D.C. Cir.) -- reissuing opinion of August 14, 2020 with nonsubstantive revisions.
Aug. 30, 2020
Stanco v. IRS. (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiffs failed to administratively appeal from agency’s adverse determination, but granting plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to include allegations that they timely appealed agency’s response to a subsequent, duplicate request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOD properly withheld communications concerning agency’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6; and (2) and DOD properly relied on deliberative process, attorney-client, and presidential communications privileges to withhold records, with the exception of certain redactions on five documents.
Nova Oculus Partners. v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that SEC properly relied on Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold records concerning agency’s investigation of plaintiff.
Bryan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Civil Rights Division performed reasonable search for records pertaining to third-party informant who testified at plaintiff’s trial.
Nat’l Pub. Radio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI performed reasonable search for videos depicting ballistics tests of certain types of ammunition, but that agency failed to justify withholding videos under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).
Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that GSA failed to perform reasonable search for agency’s communications with Trump Organization, because agency misconstrued plaintiff’s request and did not justify its decision to limit search to emails.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) performed adequate search for interviews concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City; (2) NIST properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 7306 to withhold interviews of emergency response personnel; and (3) NIST failed to clearly show that it could not segregate non-exempt information from Exemption 6-protected information included in interview of private individual.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Farah v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- concluding that incarcerated pro se plaintiff constructively exhausted his administrative remedies even though Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys allegedly issued partial determination before plaintiff filed suit, because plaintiff alleged that he never received EOUSA’s determination and EOUSA failed to respond to plaintiff’s telephone messages regarding the status of his request.
White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- denying in part plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s summary judgment determination, and ordering hearing with respect to plaintiff’s motion to hold U.S. Marshals Service in contempt for delinquency and misrepresenting the Court.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Machado Amadis v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) State Department and DEA performed reasonable searches for records concerning their processing of plaintiff’s prior FOIA requests; (2) Office of Information Policy properly declined to process certain DEA and FBI documents contained in plaintiff’s OIP appeal files because plaintiff’s request asked for only records “memorializing or describing the processing” of plaintiff’s prior appeals; (3) OIP properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold portions of staff’s appeal recommendation forms; (4) OIP reasonably explained why statute’s foreseeable harm provision was satisfied, noting that agency had considered "information at issue’” and concluded that disclosure “‘would’ chill future internal discussions”; and 5) plaintiff was not excused from administratively appealing “no records” responses issued by DEA and FBI merely because agencies offered to perform additional searches if plaintiff supplied additional information
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
In re: Hillary Clinton (D.C. Cir.) -- finding that district court clearly abused its discretion in authorizing depositions of Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills, and granting the former’s petition for mandamus but not the latter’s because Ms, Mills had other means to attain relief.
Whitaker v. Dep’t of Commerce (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that : (1) the First Responder Network Authority, an independent entity within the Department of Commerce’s (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), was not subject to FOIA; and (2) DOC and NTIA properly declined to search for requested records because such searches would have been futile, adopting D.C. Circuit’s standard.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. U.S Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Department waived use of deliberative process privilege because it disclosed disputed records to third party and took no steps to rectify the disclosure; and (2) Department properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records provided under implied assurance of confidentiality.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
James Madison Proj. v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of the Comptroller of the Currency properly relied on Exemption 8 to withhold its final conclusions of its examinations of forty banks with respect to their sales practices.
Arab Am. Inst. v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- concluding after in camera review of disputed documents that OMB properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft recommendations and proposals concerning use of “Middle Eastern and North African” as race category in 2020 Census.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wattleton v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that plaintiff failed to show that DOJ or OIP received his administrative appeal, which was improperly addressed, and that no extraordinary circumstances existed to excuse his improper mailing.
Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold email distribution lists constructed primarily by individual users who voluntarily signed up to receive agency updates.
Stelmaszek v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency released in full all records in response to one of plaintiff’s requests, and that agency was not responsible for processing second request that plaintiff sent to wrong address.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.