Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of 50 sample documents concerning Donald Trump before his presidential campaign, ruling that FBI was not required to expend “considerable” resources in order release non-exempt information because “it would result in negligible, if any, meaningful information going to Plaintiffs.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Apr. 14, 2022
Vollmann v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was both eligible for and entitled to attorney’s fees regarding his pursuit of records concerning himself, but reducing amount of the award due to excessive time and excessive hourly rates charged.
Apr. 13, 2022
Buzzfeed Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because DOJ had been ordered to produce one email by a certain date, but that plaintiff was not entitled to fees because DOJ’s untimely response was reasonably excused by its backlog of prior FOIA requests and the breadth of plaintiff’s request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) USCIS did not conduct adequates searches for guidance materials used for new asylum officers or concerning FOIA’s reasonable harm provision; (2) USCIS did not justify its reliance on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but other records were properly withheld under attorney work-product privilege; (3) USCIS properly withheld names of third party trainers under Exemption 6; and (4) except for one page, USCIS properly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold “sensitive techniques used by asylum officers to conduct interviews and consider applications.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Matthews v. EOUSA (5th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester’s timeliness claims became moot once agencies responded to his requests.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Knight First Amendment Inst at Columbia Univ. v. USCIS (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision in case related to vetting immigrants entering the country and ruling, in most relevant part, that: (1) Department of State properly withheld portions of its Foreign Affairs Manual pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (2) USCIS properly withheld terrorism-related questions pursuant to Exemption 7(E), rejecting argument that law enforcement techniques or procedures must be “special or technical” to be protected; further finding that requester did not carry its burden to show that the questions at issue were ”publicly available.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Khatchadourian v. DIA (D.D.C.) -- in dispute concerning records of task force that reviewed WikiLeaks disclosure, holding that: (1) DIA’s unprompted second-round review and production of records was not evidence of bad faith, as plaintiff asserted, but indication of agency’s commitment to FOIA compliance; (2) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1. Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024, and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege); and (3) agency was not required to unredact names of certain task force members because agency already disclosed that information on the record.
McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) - - ruling that ATF properly relied on Exemptions 6 & 7(C) to withhold portions of a recording of a rock concert in which 100 people died by fire, but that it neglected to address whether the last 8 minutes of the recording, when no human voices are audible, was segregable or exempt.
Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient new or relevant evidence to overturn decision that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s mortgage fraud conviction; and (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s sentencing judge and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 and 7(A), among others undisputed by plaintiff; and (3) parties were required to file joint status report or proposed briefing schedule as to FBI’s processing of records concerning former government informant.
SE Legal Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Ga.) -- deciding that DOJ performed reasonable search for records of attorney misconduct in connection with Carter Page’s FISA application, explaining that DOJ’s Mail Referral Unit reasonably forwarded request to the National Security Division and that plaintiff “accepted the inherent risk that the MRU [would] send the request to fewer or none of the components that [plaintiff believed were] relevant.”
Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not provide sufficient information to justify its reliance on Exemption 4 to withhold agency’s draft report that included information prepared by the State of Mississippi regarding its proposed flood control project; and (2) agency could not use Exemption 5 to withhold draft report because state agency was not a “quasi-federal” agency nor a consultant.
Jackson v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding that FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact faces of third parties and license plate numbers from videos pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest and beating by a Joilet police officer in 2012.
Magassa v. TSA. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing an administrative appeal that challenged the entirety of TSA’s response, noting that he was not required to “challenge each component of TSA’s responses individually”; (2) TSA conducted adequate search for various records pertaining to plaintiff; (3) TSA properly invoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) to withhold records, as well to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records indicating whether plaintiff’s name appears on a watch list; and (4) TSA properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Trotter v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees because plaintiff failed to identify a public benefit derived from the litigation and agency acted reasonably even though court ultimately ordered minimal disclosures.
Shapiro v. SSA (D. Vt.) -- reducing requested award of attorney fees by fifty percent because plaintiff failed to submit billing records and achieved only limited success in the litigation.
Free Sacred Trinity Church v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that IRS was required to perform search for records pertaining to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration inquiry and denying, for lack of good cause, plaintiff’s bid to expedite proceedings.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Neese v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility performed adequate search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff for professional misconduct, and (2) OPR and/or FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (grand jury material), 5 (deliberative process privilege), and 6 & 7(C), but FBI failed to meaningfully explain applicability of Exemption 7(E)
Cabezas v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C) and 7(E).
Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that plaintiff’s request for certain clinical trial records was not reasonably described because it contained several latent ambiguities, and that FDA’s willingness to process broader set of records satisfied agency’s obligation to assist plaintiff.
Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that multiple components of DOJ performed reasonable searches for records concerning a 2018 meeting with Associated Press reporters, but that DOJ failed to ask EOUSA to search email account of one Assistant United States Attorney who had attended meeting at issue.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Sanders v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning an initiative of the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency to tackle child sexual exploitation.
Brown v. FBI (D. Or. 2022) -- finding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning witness to 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack and declining to credit plaintiff’s allegation that shooting was episode of government-sponsored terrorism.
Cayuga Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning agency’s 2020 visit to plaintiff’s reservation; (2) BIA failed to justify withholding certain redacted portions of a “trip report” pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, or attorney-client privileges; and (3) with limited exceptions, BIA properly withheld portions of a “briefing report” pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D), but it failed to justify its deliberative process privilege claims.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cannady v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold records concerning plaintiff’s criminal co-defendant, specifically inventories of items seized from co-defendant and notes of interviews between the FBI and co-defendant.
Gun Owners of Am. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly denied two requests as unreasonably described because plaintiff’s first request embedded “a fundamental uncertainty about whose communications [were] requested,” and its second request sought “all documents related to a certain question without providing further limitations or providing the FBI with a basis to narrow its search”; and (2) plaintiff’s remaining request was reasonably described “despite using the word ‘involving’ due to its inclusion of a discrete state agency whose communications are requested, specific search terms, explicit temporal parameters, and sufficient basis for the agency to narrow which custodians it must search to find responsive records.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.