Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request to reconsider court’s July 2, 2020 opinion, noting that plaintiff failed to identify a legal basis for its motion and concluding that none existed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pichardo-Martinez v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s detainment and medical treatment and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y) -- concluding that FDA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records pertaining to its accelerated approval of a muscular dystrophy drug; noting that statute’s foreseeable harm provision applied to Exemption 4 and was met in this case.
Yanofsky v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency did not sufficiently establish that it either provided plaintiff with requested data files or that it did not maintain those files.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pub. Justice Found. v. Farm Service Agency (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that agency’s declarations were too conclusory to show that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to its FOIA policies and directives.
Council on American-Islamic Relations v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) agency failed to show that it conducted reasonable search for records pertaining to heightened screening instructions issued by Seattle Office in January 2020; (2) agency improperly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold discussions of “public-facing” statement; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold employee email addresses and names of lower-level officials, but was required to release names of two senior officials who implement policy at issue; (4) agency did not provide sufficient details to permit court to evaluate its Exemption 7(E) claim and ordering in camera review of disputed documents.
Bragg v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiff failed to respond to government’s motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Peak v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI performed reasonable search for DNA records pertaining plaintiff’s first-degree murder conviction.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — after reviewing Mueller Report in camera and holding ex parte hearing with DOJ, ruling that: (1) DOJ properly withheld grand jury information and intelligence sources and methods pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and the National Security Act of 1947, respectively; (2) DOJ properly withheld FBI file names and serial numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(A), identifying information about third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C), and FBI investigative techniques and procedures pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (3) DOJ improperly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, because disputed information was not predecisional.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Nat’l Immigration Proj. of the Nat’l Lawyers Guild v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE properly redacted draft version of investigations handbook pursuant Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, noting that agency met foreseeable harm standard under D.C. Circuit’s recent ruling in Machado Amadis v. U.S. Dep’t of State.
Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI’s initial declarations failed to adequately explain how disclosure of draft talking points related to investigation of Hillary Clinton would harm interests protected by the deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Catholic Legal Immigration Network v. USCIS (D.Md.) -- determining that government properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to adjudication of “Special Immigrant Juvenile Status” classification, with exception of a subset of documents withheld under the deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s death-row client and properly withheld third-party records pursuant to Exemption7(C); and (2) FBI also performed adequate search, but its Vaughn Index did not provide court with sufficient information to evaluate agency’s withholdings.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Boundaoui v. FBI (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff’s motions to find FBI in contempt for violating court’s previous orders, but instructing FBI to increase its rate of document production to 1000 pages per month and to search an electronic surveillance database in response to plaintiff’s request for records pertaining to government surveillance of Muslim Americans in Chicago area in the 1990s
James Madison Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records regarding agreements with President Bush and two corporations, but that agency’s declarations were too conclusory to permit evaluation of whether agency properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C), or whether the agency has disclosed all reasonably segregable materials.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.