Greene v. DOJ (D. Minn.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s untimeliness claim was moot because EOUSA responded to plaintiff’s request, which sought statistical information about grand juries, after plaintiff filed his Complaint; (2) plaintiff constructively exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to the adequacy of EOUSA’s search, but granting summary judgment in agency’s favor.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Apr. 6, 2021
Cox. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- dismissing claim because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from Internal Revenue Service’s responses to his requests.
Apr. 5, 2021
Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DHS (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that DHS improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees from certain civil settlement agreements.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Aguiar v. DEA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DEA was not required to use GPS data spreadsheets to recreate map images that had been used in plaintiff’s criminal trial but no longer existed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that government properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold biological evaluations and biological opinions on certain pesticides under the Endangered Species Act, but failed to identify segregable material in two records.
Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI performed inadequate search for records relating to the documentary film “Cowspiracy,” the term “ag-gag,” and certain pieces of enumerated legislation.
Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- granting in part and denying in part EPA’s summary judgment motion relying on Exemption 5 to withhold twelve documents pertaining to agency’s non-acquiescence to Eighth Circuit’s decision in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA.
Burnett v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that DEA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal prosecution and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shem-Tov v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, determining that the U.S. National Central Bureau properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff provided by a foreign law enforcement entity.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that USMS conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, but that EOUSA’s search was inadequate because it failed to explain its use of inconsistent search terms across multiple electronic searches.
N.Y. Times Co. v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that agency had failed to justify its invocation of Exemption 4 to withhold a variety of records pertaining to electronic cigarette manufacturer. Of note, the court sidestepped the application of the “foreseeable harm” requirement and rejected plaintiff’s suggestion to adopt a public interest exception or balancing test.
Humane Soc'y Int'l v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed briefing following the Supreme Court’s intervening Exemption 4 decision in Food Marketing Institute, holding that agency improperly withheld disputed records concerning wildlife import and export. In reaching its decision, the court found that many third-party declarations objecting to disclosure constituted inadmissible hearsay and that the remaining declarations failed to show that disputed records were customarily and actually treated as private. The court also considered that the government had a history of releasing the disputed records.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that GSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold three categories of records concerning renovation of FBI headquarters, but that agency failed to justify use of same privilege to withhold two other categories of records.
Barry v. Haaland (D.D.C.) -- dismissing FOIA claim because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from agency’s denial of access to any Inspector General records concerning plaintiff’s former supervisor.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
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.
[ALB comment: The genesis of this FOIA action, which is not discussed in the opinion, is worth reading. See “incident” link above]
Stahl v. DOJ E.D.N.Y.) -- finding that BOP properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(F) to withhold certain segments of video that identified employees involved in force-feeding inmate, but rejecting agency’s use of Exemption 7(E) and rejecting agency’s argument that it could not edit video to segregate and release non-exempt portions.
Protect Democracy Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of memo concerning a 2020 airstrike against an Iranian general to determine whether any portion of memo was officially disclosed by the government.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Soc'y for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. APHIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold revenue, sales volume, and license fee information of animal dealers, as well as animal care instructions appearing in one photograph; (2) agency properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold certain records pertaining to facility inspection, but failed to show that all of its deliberative process privilege claims were proper; (3) plaintiff did not assert a valid policy-and-practice claim because Congress enacted legislation to address the polices and practices disputed by plaintiff.
Flete-Garcia v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies regarding his request for discovery material from his criminal case; (2) agency failed to demonstrate that it did not receive three of plaintiff’s requests for various records concerning his criminal case, noting that plaintiff proved that two of those requests were received at agency’s screening location for processing mail; and (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), to withhold certain grand jury records, but it failed to show that orders reflecting the commencement, extension, and termination of specified grand juries were exempt.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
White v. FBI (7th Cir.) (nonprecedential opinion) -- concluding that it had jurisdiction to consider plaintiff’s interlocutory appeal and affirming district court’s decision to deny plaintiff request for the immediate processing of 55,000 pages of records instead of FBI’s pace of 500 pages per month.
Flete-Barcia v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) agency’s supplemental search for records about plaintiff was adequate in most respects, but agency’s declaration indicated that it might have used incorrect spelling of plaintiff’s name; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).
Allen v. BOP (D.D.C.) -- on sixth renewed summary judgment (which plaintiff did not oppose), ruling that BOP properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identification information used by employees to log into agency’s network.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.