Court opinions issued Jan. 13, 2021

N.Y Times v. HHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) Indian Health Service improperly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 25 U.S.C. § 1675, to withhold consultant’s report about sexual abuse of agency patients, because agency failed to show that the report constituted a medical quality assurance record; and (2) agency demonstrated that the report fell within the deliberative process privilege, but if failed to comply with the foreseeable harm requirement; and (3) agency could redact information protected by Exemption 6 before producing report to plaintiffs, who reserved the right to challenge redactions.

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 4 and 8 to withhold an independent monitor’s report concerning a bank’s anti-money laundering policies, but that DOJ’s segregability analysis was too brief to warrant summary judgment. Notably, in its discussion of Exemption 4, the court considered the alleged harms from disclosure identified by the government and found that they satisfied the foreseeable harm provision.

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

Court opinion issued Jan. 6, 2020

Rich v. EOIR (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) pro se attorney-plaintiff was not eligible for attorney’s fees , consistent with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to litigation costs because production delays were caused by COVID-19 and plaintiff’s lawsuit was not necessary to trigger agency’s response.

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

Court opinions issued Jan. 5, 2021

Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency’s searches for records pertaining plaintiffs’ multi-billion-dollar tax-shelter scheme were adequate with “relatively minor exception” of its failure to search certain employee emails.

Ballow v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that pro se prisoner-plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies after agency demonstrated that it had not received plaintiff’s request.

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

Court opinion issued Dec. 30, 2020

Rocky Mountain Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to certain property that it had considered for oil and gas leasing in 2018.

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

Court opinions issued Dec. 23, 2020

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. ATF (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and holding that data requested from agency’s Firearms Trace System was protected from disclosure pursuant to a congressional rider even though that rider did not specifically cite Exemption 3 per the OPEN FOIA Act.

Berryhill v. Bonneville Power Admin. (D. Or.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s property and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.

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

Court opinion issued Dec. 21, 2020

Rich v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for award of attorney fees because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her lawsuit caused agency to release requested documents.

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

Court opinion issued Dec. 17, 2020

Nightingale. v. USCIS (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that USCIS, ICE, and DHS “have a pattern of unreasonable delay in responses to A-FIle FOIA requests,” and permanently enjoining defendants from failing to adhere to statutory deadlines for adjudicating A-File FOIA requests; further ordering defendants to make determinations on all A-File FOIA requests in backlog within 60 days.

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

Court opinion issued Dec. 14, 2020

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. CEQ (W.D. Va.) -- following in camera review, ruling that agency failed to meet statute’s “foreseeable harm” requirement, which agency asserted was a "foreseeable harm of chilling speech and stifling frank and open discussions" and a general "risk of public confusion."

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

Court opinion issued Dec. 9, 2020

WP Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees because: (1) legal relationship between the parties was not changed by court’s issuance of “a routine scheduling order” imposing deadline on agency to make a final determination on plaintiff’s request; and (2) plaintiff failed to show that its lawsuit was “necessary” to or “caused” production of documents.

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

Court opinions issued Dec. 8, 2020

Sierra Club v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- declining to order plaintiff to destroy records that EPA alleged were protected by Exemption 6 and erroneously released in response to plaintiff’s FOIA request

[See related article here]

Open Soc'y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that Office of the Director of National Intelligence was required to produce a Vaughn Index concerning a tape of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and that the CIA was required to produce a Vaughn Index for the agency’s report on the killing, because the government officially acknowledged existence of both records.

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