Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service performed adequate search for records concerning prisoner-plaintiff; (2) USMS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly withheld records (collectively or individually ) pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6. 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F) and met statute’s foreseeable harm requirement, which it noted did not apply to Exemption 3.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cole v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim concerning his request for FBI records about the Junior Black Mafia because he failed to file an administrative appeal with DOJ’s Office of Information Policy.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of agency’s interaction with Twitter, finding that: (1) CBP properly withheld certain, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges, citing in some instances the lack of foreseeable harm; (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of “non-public-facing” employees, except for two Special Agents whose names were in public domain; and (3) CBP properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Friends of Animals v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (10th Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision and holding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of individuals importing African giraffe parts or products; (2) Exemption 7(C) did not protect names of individuals importing African elephant skins and parts because names were publicly available elsewhere and prospect of harassment was “primarily speculative”; and (3) agency could not sustain its Exemption 4 withholdings using agency affidavit containing inadmissible hearsay.statements. A partial dissent argued that the majority undervalued the privacy interests of elephant importers and overvalued the public interests at stake.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pitts v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Civil Rights Division performed adequate search for records concerning Jamar Clark’s death notwithstanding lack of details about agency’s search; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney work-product privileges and Exemption 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Stalcup v. DOD (D. Mass.) -- approving and adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation finding that DOD’s Missile Defense Agency and its Joint Staff performed adequate searches concerning TWA Flight 800, and that the Office of the Secretary of Defense did not conduct an adequate search.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
N.Y Times v. HHS (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that Indian Health Service improperly withheld a third-party’s report evaluating agency’s management and administration as a “medical quality assurance record” under 25 U.S.C. § 1675.
Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that FBI’s Vaughn indices were adequate and that FBI properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s capital defendant client pursuant to Exemptions 3 in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. § 3510), 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Citizens For Responsibility & Ethics In Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons properly withheld records concerning its procurement of drugs used in federal executions, but that it could not withhold records pursuant to Exemption 7(E) because the exemption does not cover punishment phase of law enforcement.
Perioperative Servs. & Logistics v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold records identifying a third party who filed a complaint against plaintiff.
Wash. Post v. SIGAR (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, determining that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records of interviews concerning agency’s “Lessons Learned Program”; (2) agency properly used Exemption 7(D) to withhold records identifying individuals who spoke “off the record,” but it could not use the exemption for “on the record” interviews; (3) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold identifying information of various interviewees and third parties named in interviews; (4) agency properly withheld information on intelligence methods pursuant to Exemption in conjunction with the National Security Act; and (5) agency failed to justify ifs withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it justified some but not all of its withholdings under the presidential communications privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Byrnes v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration did not perform adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff, a private attorney who represented DEA employees in litigation against DEA; and (2) agency did not demonstrate that names of DEA attorneys were protected from disclosure under Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Amiri v. Nat'l Sci. Found. (D.D.C.) -- finding that; (1) NSF conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and a grant he worked on; and (2) NSF properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 6, noting that agency’s inadvertent disclosure of certain unredacted pages did not waive agency’s right to use Exemption 6 to protect other material.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that DOJ properly invoked Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) to withhold records concerning various grant programs, and that it properly withheld some, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 6.
Lawrence v. SBA (E.D. Mich.) -- finding that: (1) agency’s argument that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies was incorrect but not “objectively unreasonable” so as to warrant sanctions; and (2) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because his lawsuit was a contributing cause to disclosure of Paycheck Protection Program loan records, and he was entitled to a reasonable award based on the balance of relevant factors.
Hawkinson v. EOIR (D. Mass.) -- finding that agency conducted adequate search for certain Board of Immigration Appeals decisions notwithstanding omission of single document that plaintiff already possessed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Sept. 24, 2021
Campo v. NARA (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff’s complaint properly alleged that NARA improperly withheld agency records and that NARA’s factual assertions as to whether the agency retained legal custody of requested records could not support a motion to dismiss.
Cox v. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold handwritten signatures from agency employees’ oaths of office.
Sept. 23, 2021
Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, denying petition for rehearing en banc and amending its December 3, 2021 opinion (but not its ultimate decision) to reverse district’s ruling as to whether Exemption 3 protected certain trace database data.
Sept. 22, 2021
Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff failed to show that its request for records concerning senior advisor Elizabeth Klein satisfied statutory standard for expedited processing.
Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that three DHS components properly relied on Exemptions 5 and 7(E) to protect some, but not all, disputed records pertaining to social media surveillance.
Sept. 21, 2021
Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- concluding that Exemptions 5, 7(C), 7(D) protected some, but not all, records pertaining to DOJ’s investigation into a 1988 arson prosecution in Kansas City, Missouri.
Lewis v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D. Md.) -- finding that: (1) good cause existed to deny dismissal of pro se plaintiff’s FOIA claims on grounds of improper service; (2) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal 37 of 40 decisions by various Treasury components and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA); and (3) with respect to the 3 requests that plaintiff did appeal, two Treasury components provided no additional arguments for dismissal and the VA failed to adequately justify its withholdings under Exemptions 5 and 6.
Bragg v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of third parties from records concerning plaintiff, and (2) plaintiff conceded agency’s argument that she failed to administratively appeal denial of separate request for records concerning third party.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.