Gov’t Accountability Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning the provision of nuclear technologies to countries in the Middle East, but reserving judgment with respect to unsolicited communications received by the agency.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Platsky v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records indicating whether plaintiff appeared on watch list.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming in part, reversing in part, and dismissing in part district court’s decision concerning records of FBI’s impersonation of the media, and concluding that: (1) the government “properly withheld the emails in which FBI leadership deliberated about appropriate responses to media and legislative pressure to alter the FBI’s undercover tactics, as well as internal conversations about the implications of changing their undercover practices going forward;” and (2) the government “did not satisfy its burden to show either that the other documents at issue in this case were deliberative or that their disclosure would cause foreseeable harm.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting part and denying in part DOJ’s motion for reconsideration and holding that Exemption 7(C) protected only the docket numbers of cases that were accidentally designated as terrorism-related, involved terrorism-related investigations but not terrorism-related prosecutions, or were categorized as terrorism-related for agency’s internal purposes with no public connection to terrorism.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Schoenberg v. FBI (9th Cir.) -- in case concerning FBI’s search warrant to recover Hillary Clinton’s emails, affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because FBI’s redactions were legally reasonable and that factor outweighed all other factors.
Murder Accountability Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s response to his request for certain unreported crime data; (2) National Park Service performed adequate and reasonable search for unreported crime data; (3) Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to explain why it did not search for records requested prior to 2014; (4) Army, Navy, and Air Force did not demonstrate the adequacy of their search, but they properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact third party names, social security numbers, and alien registration numbers.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Withey v. FBI W.D. Wash.) -- denying attorney’s fees to attorney plaintiff who pursued records in order to further his personal interests and awarding only $21,015 of$69,680 requested for other attorneys’ fees because plaintiff obtained no post-complaint relief.
Ferrera v. DHS (D.N.M.) -- determining that Exemption 6 applied to a letter that plaintiff’s ex-wife sent to USCIS withdrawing her previous immigration petition, but that agency could segregate and release information from the letter that agency had described, i.e., date, author, and withdrawal of petition.
Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Farm Service Agency improperly relied on Exemptions 3, 4, and 6 to withhold loan recipient names, addresses, and operation types; the intended use of loans; and documents FSA created during its environmental review of loans.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Okeayainneh v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that Federal Bureau of Prisons supplementally released in full all remaining records at issue and no further dispute remained.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
June 24, 2021
Informed Consent Action Net. v. NIH (D. Ariz.) -- concluding that: (1) NIH performed adequate search for safety and efficacy data concerning Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, and (2) NIH failed to show that certain information, such as patients’ age or adverse events, was properly redacted under Exemption 6.
Maehr v. IRS (D. Colo.) -- ruling that agency performed adequate search for certain tax assessment documents concerning plaintiff and that plaintiff was not entitled to a court declaration that such documents do or do not exist, or have ever existed, within the IRS's record-keeping system.
June 23, 2021
Satterlee v. IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss after finding that: (1) plaintiff’s certified mail delivery receipts were sufficient evidence that IRS received plaintiff’s requests; and (2) construed liberally, plaintiff’s second request was valid despite also containing a demand for non-FOIA action.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cole v. Olthoff (D.D.C. ) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that the National Institute for Standards and Technology properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with section 7(c) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, to withhold notes of interviews of former employees of Salomon Smith Barney regarding collapse of World Trade Center buildings on 9/11.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v.EPA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold in full a working draft version of a formaldehyde assessment.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Jobe v. NTSB (5th Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision and holding that “outside parties solicited by the NTSB qualify as ‘consultants’ under Exemption 5’s corollary; rejecting district court’s view that technical personnel employed by aircraft manufacturers and operators have too much “self-interest” in outcome of NTSB investigations to be regarded as consultants.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.