Court opinions issued Sept. 20, 2021

Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (S.D. Ohio) -- finding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold in full records pertaining to criminal investigation of drug trafficking by third party.

Tobias v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney-client, commercial information, and attorney work-product privileges (the application of which plaintiff did not dispute), and that agency adequately demonstrated that foreseeable would result from disclosure of records related to activities of then-Secretary Zinke and other senior employees.

Waterman v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- On remand from D.C. Circuit to examine issue of segregability of documents concerning plaintiff, reaffirming that IRS properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 and expressly finding that all reasonably, segregable non-exempt records had been released.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 17, 2021

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v CDC (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that: (1) agency did not perform adequate search for records concerning communications policies about coronavirus, because it improperly interpreted scope of request, failed to use relevant search terms, and did not provide sufficient detail about its search methodology; and (2) CDC improperly relied on Exemptions 5’s presidential communications and deliberative process privileges to withhold certain documents (which were ordered to be released), and it failed to provide adequate information to permit ruling on another document (necessitating in camera review).

Webster v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of attorneys’ fees in nearly 20-year-old case; reducing requested award from $692,925 to $225,714, because plaintiffs’ attorney did not qualify for requested $1,000 hourly rate and plaintiff’s time entries contained clear recordkeeping errors and improperly included time spent on failed motions, as well as excessive time on litigating fees.

Leopold v. USCIS (D.D.C) -- (1) dismissing claims against DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and USCIS because plaintiff declined to oppose government’s motion; and (2) granting government’s motion for summary judgment with respect to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because plaintiff’s narrowed request for certain records of “any and all immigration and enforcement actions was too vague.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 16, 2021

Flyers Rights Educ. Fund v. FAA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FAA properly relied on Exemption 4 in withholding records concerning the Boeing Company’s design changes to its 737 MAX jet airplane. In reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff’s arguments that FAA’s public commitment to “transparency” undermined agency’s assurances of confidentiality to Boeing or that alleged “importance” or “necessity” of withheld materials to public had any relevance under Exemption 4.

Office of Fulton Cnty. Dist. Att’y v. DOJ (N.D. Ga.) -- deciding that plaintiff was eligible for and entitled to attorneys' fees and litigation costs in case involving internal investigative records of U.S.Marshals Service employees, noting that the agency’s initial reliance on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records had been unreasonable.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 13, 2021

Prot. Democracy Proj. v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that HHS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold record related to agency’s discontinuation of advertising for healthcare.gov in 2017-2017, but ordering in camera review of remaining disputed records in order to determine whether certain factual material is deliberative or not readily segregable and to determine whether other information is pre-decisional or post-decisional.

Taylor v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that IRS performed reasonable searches for records pertaining to plaintiff’s requests and that agency released all responsive records in full.

Ameen v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was not precluded from filing suit pro se, because the underlying FOIA requests “(1) indicated that counsel was requesting the documents in connection with and for use in the representation of plaintiff, and (2) contained release forms signed by plaintiff ‘authoriz[ing] and request[ing]’ the release of records to counsel.”

Shaklee & Oliver, P.C. v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- denying award of attorney’s fees in case involving plaintiff’s requests for his Alien files, because no judicial order, written agreement, or consent decree existed and USCIS provided “compelling reasons” for its delay in processing records; further deciding that plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees improperly included references to settlement discussions with USCIS.

Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y) -- determining that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold its 2018 report concerning death of Jamal Khashoggi, and denying plaintiff’s reconsideration motion that permitted government to submit a “no numbers, no list” response pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 8, 2021

Savage v. Dep’t of the Navy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of third parties from investigative report concerning plaintiff’s racial discrimination complaints; and (2) agency did not meet its burden to show that its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege met statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 2-3, 2021

Sept. 3, 2021

Jordan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling, in most relevant part, that: (1) EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prior FOIA litigation with the Department of Labor; (2) collateral estoppel barred plaintiff from re-litigating government’s use of Exemption 4 to withhold certain email; (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s work-product and deliberative process privileges, as well as Exemption 6, except for certain contact information that was publicly available.

Sept. 2, 2021

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- finding that ICE was not required to produce various fields of data pertaining to immigration removals because such production would require the creation of new records, not merely sorting a preexisting database of information.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 27, 2021

Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that four intelligence agencies properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pertaining to Jamal Khashoggi. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected the appellant’s primary argument that Glomar responses were precluded by official statements made by a State Department spokesperson.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 26, 2021

Marino v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning third party, timely invoked exemptions to withhold certain records, and released all reasonably segregable, non-exempt records

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 25, 2021

N.Y. Times v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that DOD properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to redact portions of a report concerning thee removal of Rear Admiral John Ring from his position as Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 24, 2021

Prot. Democracy Proj. v. NSA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that NSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold in its entirety a memo documenting a telephone call between the NSA Director and President Trump, rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that the privilege was subject to FOIA’s segregability requirement and waived by disclosures in the Mueller Report.

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