Aguirre v. NRC (9th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his four requests concerning the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and notably joining other circuits in holding that “a requestor must exhaust his administrative remedies under FOIA so long as an agency properly responds before suit is filed.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cause of Action Inst. v. OMB (D.C. Cir.) — affirming district court’s decision that Internet browsing histories of OMB and USDA officials did not qualify as “agency records,” because “the agencies’ retention and access policies for browsing histories, along with the fact that they did not use any of the officials’ browsing histories,” indicated that the agencies did not control the requested records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pickard v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- deciding, in most relevant part, that plaintiff’s challenge to authenticity of a document released by the Drug Enforcement Agency was beyond the court’s jurisdiction and remedial powers to address.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act, to withhold Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s financial disclosures, recusal and divestiture obligations, and related communications with the Office of Government Ethics; (2) Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege did not apply to records exchanged between DeJoy or USPS and OGE’s ethics counsel; and (3) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 5’s deliberative process privilege, as well as Exemption 6, to withhold recusal memoranda.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to CrowdTangle, a social media monitoring program, and that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was met despite agency’s generic explanations for certain redactions.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
King v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate search for audio recording made by an informant in 2003 in connection with an agency investigation of a murder.
Kovalevich v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) case was moot because plaintiff conceded that EOUSA has fulfilled its obligation to provide him with records about himself, notwithstanding redactions; and (2) pro se plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and the parties failed to adequately brief plaintiff’s request for litigation costs.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hawkinson v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- finding that: (1) ICE and DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review properly withheld certain training material and related communications pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(C); (2) plaintiff had standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to timely provide accurate estimated completion dates, but that plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits; and (3) plaintiff did not have standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to properly report their FOIA response times; and (4) DHS complied with section 552(j)(1) by publicizing the identity and contact information of its Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, who “could be readily inferred” as serving as Acting Chief FOIA Officer while the Chief FOIA Officer position was vacant.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that with the exception of a few documents, FDA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to news embargoes between 2010 and 2014; stating that statute’s “foreseeable harm” provision did not apply to requests made before 2016, but that in any event FDA “met any applicable burden.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Envtl. Integrity Proj. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- rejecting magistrate’s recommendation that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and ruling that plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to an award in case involving reports of travel by EPA and Department of the Interior officials.
Selgjekaj v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s indictment; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), Exemption 5 (attorney work-product), and Exemption 7(C), but it did not carry its burden regarding withheld orders reflecting the commencement, termination, and extensions of the grand jury.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Brown v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, and 7(C).
Zynovieva v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- stating that some or all of requested visa records were likely protected by Exemption 3 in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f), but that agency’s refusal to disclose the number or specific nature of each withheld record precluded summary judgment.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DEA’s Vaughn indices were adequate and that agency properly withheld records under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), except for its Exemption 7(E) withholdings pertaining to a law enforcement manual.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for Hillary Clinton’s emails and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.
King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that EOUSA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal cases and denying his request to recover litigation costs because records were sought “purely for his own benefit” and litigations delays were primarily his responsibility.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.