Court opinions issued Feb. 5, 2021

Accurso v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff’s prosecution for distributing child pornography.

NY Legal Assistance Grp. v. Bd. Immigration Appeals (2nd Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, vacating and remanding district court’s decision that agency was not required to affirmative publish its non-precedential opinions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2).

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

Court opinions issued Feb. 4, 2021

Renewable Fuels Ass’n v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- holding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold the names and locations of oil refineries that applied for relief from the agency’s Renewable Fuel Standard program, except for a small number of refineries that did not appear to customarily treat all of its applications as private. Notably, the court stated that a government assurance of privacy was not required under binding D.C. Circuit law in order for information to qualify for Exemption 4. The court further stated that even if it was able to ignore binding precedent, it believed that the “better approach would be that privately held information is generally confidential absent an express statement by the agency that it would not keep information private, or a clear implication to that effect (for example, a history of releasing the information at issue).”

Bd. of Comm'rs of Clermont Cnty. v. EPA (S.D. Ohio) -- finding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records about a closed hazardous waste dump.

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

Court opinion issued Feb. 3, 2021

N.Y. Times v DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ordering in camera review of independent monitor’s report pertaining to intervenor-Volkswagen AG’s compliance with a 2018 plea agreement, rejecting claims by government and intervenor that withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemptions 4 and 5.

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

Court opinions issued Feb. 2, 2021

Sea Shepherd Legal v. NOAA (W.D. Wa.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold records about the Māui dolphin, except for internal discussions about the content and timing of a Federal Register notice; (2) agency properly withheld identifying information about New Zealand government officials pursuant to Exemption 6; and (3) agency met foreseeable harm requirement for both exemptions under the criteria enunciated by the D.C. Circuit in Machado Amadis v. U.S. Department of State.

Albaladejo v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency failed to show that it performed adequate search for records concerning air transportation of noncitizen detainees with certain medical conditions, especially in light of internal agency documents that suggested ICE overlooked specific locations of responsive records.

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

Court opinions issued Jan. 28, 2021

Diocesan Migrant & Refugee Serv. v. ICE (W.D. Tex.) -- awarding plaintiff more than $52,000 in attorney fees and costs after considering, among other things, that agency “failed to establish even a colorable basis . . . to support the adequacy of its search” and “gave no reasonable basis” for its Exemption 5 withholdings.

Stylianos v. USCIS (D. Mass.) -- ruling that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold plaintiff’s marriage certificate maintained in his estranged wife’s A-file, but chiding the parties for not considering alternative resolutions.

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

Court opinion issued Jan. 27, 2020

Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that government properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning 2015 proposal to integrate women in all Marine Corps occupational specialties, and that agency met the foreseeable harm requirement.

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

Court opinions issued Jan. 26, 2021

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service, Treasury, and DHS performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff; and (2) USMS and DHS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act), 6, 7(C), and 7(E).

Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- deciding that: (1) IRS performed reasonable search for records pertaining to a private letter ruling; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, except for a few redactions, and it met the foreseeable harm requirement.

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

Court opinions issued Jan. 25, 2021

Mertes v. IRS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that agency’s full disclosure of Form 709 that plaintiff requested did not moot case because agency failed to process a related document (Form 706) and both forms constituted a single “record” under DOJ’s guidance.

Eddington v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff failed to rebut agency’s sworn declaration that it had not received any of fourteen requests reportedly sent by plaintiff via email.

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

Court opinions issued Jan. 21, 2021

WP Co. v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- awarding litigations costs and all but around twenty percent of attorney fees in case involving loans approved pursuant to COVID-19 relief programs. In reaching its decision, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to fees even though government had a reasonable basis for initially withholding requested data.

White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- declining to hold U.S. Marshals Service in contempt or to award plaintiff litigation costs, but stating that: (1) agency’s delay in responding to plaintiff’s 2013 request was “appalling”; (2) it was “inexcusable” that agency was unprepared for “foreseeable and regular complications”; and (3) USMS “must upgrade its FOIA processing protocols to avoid such delinquencies in the future.”

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

Court opinion issued Jan. 14, 2021

Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold a report prepared for the President, except for portions of the report directly quoted in a presidential proclamation.

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