Castro v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that IRS performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s status as Enrolled Agent and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and Exemption 3 in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a), (b), (e)(7).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ward v. DOJ (N.D. Tex.) -- dismissing case as moot because agency processed all records responsive to plaintiff’s request concerning his criminal case and none of plaintiff’s pleadings challenged the substance of agency’s response.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Washington v. GSA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.
Washington v. OMB (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.
Washington v. NARA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Swick v. U.S. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment, determining that the Army had satisfied plaintiff’s request for her personnel records and performed a reasonable search for test results related to plaintiff’s psychiatric report.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency did not carry its burden to show that it adequately searched for records concerning plaintiff, because it failed to invoke magic words that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched.
Pejouhesh v. USPS (D.D.C) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment that: (1) agency failed to justify using Exemption 7(C) to withhold arrest warrant affidavit, because the criminal docket for plaintiff’s prosecution appeared to contain same document in unreacted form; (2) upon ex parte, in camera review, agency properly withheld an operation plan pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (3) no evidence exists that agency failed to include any documents in its Vaughn Index.
Jackson v. DHS (D. Idaho) -- dismissing pro se prisoner’s complaint in light of the “fanciful nature of the allegations underlying his FOIA requests,” which sought “government records related to transforming inmates into zombie slaves.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) CBP failed to perform adequate search for various records pertaining to pilot program allowing CBP officials to conduct asylum-related interviews; (2) DHS and USCIS did not provide sufficient information to justify its withholdings pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, nor did they satisfy statute’s foreseeable harm provision; and (3) government improperly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of CBP officers appearing on one document.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
S. Poverty Law Ctr. v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that IRS properly invoked Exemption 3 to withhold records prepared, furnished, or collected in connection with its criminal investigation of Tennessee slaughterhouse, because such records constituted return information under 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a).
Long v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t (N.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate database search concerning “Form I-247 Requests” relating to detainers and notices of release, and that agency was not mandated to create ‘new, complex queries and new records resulting from those newly created queries.’
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Block v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(F).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Braun v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff and properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact identities of law enforcement personnel.
Bagwell v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of investigations into possible child sexual abuse on Penn State’s campus, concluding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys could not categorically withhold set of records consisting of 11,648 pages of emails pursuant to Exemptions 3 (FRCP 6(e)), 6, 7(C), and 7(D); and (2) EOUSA properly relied on Exemptions 3 (FRCP 6(e)) and Exemption 5 (attorney work-product) to withhold second set of records; and (3) foreseeable harm provision enacted in 2016 did not retroactively apply to request made in 2014.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Naumes v. Dep’t of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Army performed reasonable search for records concerning online survey, but ordering agency to produce webpages available as embedded links in documents already released to plaintiff; (2) with respect to agency’s use of Exemption 4 to withhold survey questions from copyrighted sources, (a) agency failed to explain whether it copied or modified questions from the copyrighted sources; (b) agency must release withheld questions from any sources which are available publicly at no charge; (c) agency must confer with copyright holders for remaining non-public source materials about whether they treat those materials as confidential; (3) agency sufficiently showed foreseeable harm from disclosing copyrighted information.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.