Huggans v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI, ATF, DEA, and EOUSA properly refused to search for records pertaining to third-party informant because the responsive records were categorically exempt under Exemption 7(C).
Stonehill v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency erroneously relied on doctrine of res judicata to deny request for records related to agency’s processing of plaintiff’s earlier FOIA request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
A.B. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between the Attorney General’s office and the Office of Legal Counsel regarding her asylum case.
Mullane v. DOJ (D. Mass.) -- deciding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the Securities and Exchange Commission performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff, whose legal internships were terminated and rescinded by EOUSA and SEC, respectively, due to an incident with a federal judge; (2) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, and it properly withheld unsigned draft records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege; the agency improperly withheld email with University of Miami, however, and failed to adequately explain other deliberative process privilege claims; (3) both agencies properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 6, which plaintiff did not dispute.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that IRS performed adequate supplemental search for records pertaining to plaintiff.
Legal Eagle, LLC v. Nat'l Sec. Council Records Access (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) National Security Council and its components were not agencies subject to plaintiff’s FOIA request, which sought records related to prepublication review of John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened; (2) multiple federal agencies properly denied plaintiff’s request for expedited processing because plaintiff failed to demonstrate why requested records were time sensitive.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Moeller v. EEOC (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency failed to demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for certain records concerning employment advertisements, and (2) agency failed to adequately support its withholding claims under Exemption 5, 6, and 7(C), and failed to articulate “a specific foreseeable harm that is adequately connected to the underlying materials.”
Watkins Law & Advocacy v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment that: (1) DOJ adequately performed supplemental search for communications and agreements with the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding persons prohibited from purchasing firearms; (2) DOJ improperly withheld portions of two congressional reports as “non-responsive,” but rejecting plaintiff’s APA claim challenging validity of DOJ’s guidance on definition of a record; and (3) DOJ properly withheld memorandum pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rifle Remedies, LLC v. IRS (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for records pertaining to its audit of plaintiff and policy documents or guidance pertaining to marijuana vendors; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 I.R.C. § 6103, and Exemptions 5, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(E).
DaVita Inc. v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Centers for Medicare and Medicaid did not adequately explain how it performed certain aspects of its search for 36 public comments received in responsive to a rule proposed in 1990 and finalized in 1995.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hucul v. HHS (S.D. Cal.) -- granting summary judgment to government because plaintiff declined to oppose two of three requested items and because agency reasonably interpreted scope of plaintiff’s remaining request and performed adequate search for responsive records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Secret Service properly relied on Exemptions 7(E and 7(F) to withhold hotel room rates paid by the government to Trump resort in Scotland, as well as the estimated amount the Secret Service spent on meals and incidental expenses at the resort, because “releasing the requested data could help outsiders predict the size of future Secret Service details, which could render the Secret Service more vulnerable to circumvention and increase the risk of physical harm to agents and protectees alike.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judicial Watch v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- in case involving government’s acquisition of human fetal tissue for research, concluding that: (1) government improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold names and addresses of laboratories because it failed to adequately explain how such information qualified as “commercial” information; and (2) government improperly withheld unit prices and line-item amounts pursuant to Exemption 4, because plaintiff demonstrated that such information was in the public domain. Lastly, the court noted that Exemption 4 could not be used to protect illegal business practices and that there was reason to believe that the government’s transactions with a laboratory were unlawful, but the court found it unnecessary to reach a decision on that issue,
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. ICE (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that ICE was not required to create and substitute unique identifiers for alien numbers maintained in database, notwithstanding agency’s prior practice of providing different identifiers to other FOIA requesters.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kwoka v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- vacating denial of request for fees; holding that the district court abused its discretion by weighing several factors in the entitlement analysis against the requester; directing the district court to “evaluate the reasonableness of the IRS’s” argument that, at the time of the initial request, it believed segregating exempt and non-exempt materials would impose an unreasonable burden; further directing the district court to re-balance the factors of the fee entitlement analysis.
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. BLM (D.D.C.) -- denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment concerning adequacy of the agency’s search for records responsive to a pair of requests about E.O. 13783 and Secretary’s Order 3338; noting the requester’s belief that certain draft records, which were missing from the agency’s production, exist “carries more than just speculative weight,” and calling alternative theories advanced by the agency “implausible and, if true, deeply troubling”; describing much of the agency’s supporting declaration as conclusory and deficient; directing the agency to request that former Secretary Zinke “search his own [personal] files for any agency records they may contain, to detail ‘its best efforts’ to retrieve records from the former Secretary, and to provide ‘any further evidence it is able to obtain’”; further directing the agency to seek the former Secretary’s assistance with accessing two work-issued cell phones, and to better describe efforts to obtain records from the phones; and requiring clarification from the agency with respect to records reflecting communications with the Trump Transition Team.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.