Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (6th Cir.) -- in 2-1 decision, affirming district court’s ruling that government properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold records concerning U.S. Attorney’s decision not to prosecute a state prosecutor with obstruction of justice.
McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- amending court’s memorandum opinion of March 31, 2022.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Telematch, Inc. v. USDA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) USDA properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2)(B), to withhold farm numbers and tract numbers associated with its farm subsidy programs; and (2) USDA properly used Exemption 6 to withhold customer numbers assigned to individual farmers, because release “substantial probability” existed that release would reveal financial condition of farmers and plaintiff did not establish an overriding public interest.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Aug. 11, 2022
Climate Investigations Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- following five rounds of summary judgment, deciding that: (1) agency performed adequate supplemental search of Secretary’s office; (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold some, but not all, disputed documents, and it met the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement.
Aug. 10, 2022
Protect the People’s Trust v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that Department’s Privacy Office received plaintiff’s request and was required to search for responsive records, because: (1) the request was addressed to the Privacy Office, among others; and (2) another DHS component referred records to the Privacy Office, as well as a copy of the request; (3) plaintiff repeatedly informed DHS that the Privacy office maintained responsive records'; and (4) DHS regulations did not require plaintiff to resubmit request if misdirected.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Seife v. FDA (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that Exemption 4 protected portions of pharmaceutical company's successful application for accelerated approval of a drug. Of note, concluding that government met statute’s foreseeable harm provision, which the Court held, in the Exemption 4 context, required the government to address “the submitter's commercial or financial interests.”
Pub. Citizen v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency failed to submit any admissible evidence to support its claim that Exemption 4 protected records concerning the operations of certain meat- and poultry-processing facilities during the early months of the COVID-19.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hamad v. Myorkas (S.D. Ohio) -- determining that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services properly relied on Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records concerning agency’s investigation of plaintiff for marriage fraud.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Fair Lines Am. Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Census Bureau properly withheld certain aggregated data under Exemption 3 in conjunction with 13 U.S.C. § 9(b), because agency plausibly explained that disclosure “would contribute to the ability of a third party to reconstruct the dataset.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review, deciding that government properly withheld all but one record pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- granting agency’s motion for protective order and denying plaintiff’s request to depose agency declarant, because agency’s declaration already addressed topics raised by plaintiff and plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that declaration was made in bad faith.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Blake v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- determining that National Security Agency properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with National Security Act of 1959, in refusing to confirm or deny existence of intelligence records related to the disappearance and death of Nicholas Blake, a United States citizen, in Guatemala in 1985.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Moore v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff did not waive issue of the adequacy of CIA’s search for records concerning Korean War-era prisoner of war and CIA neglected to address plaintiff’s related arguments; (2) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, and, with limited exceptions, properly issued Glomar responses using same exemption; and (3) CIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6, and it performed adequate segregability analysis.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving redactions to 4-page document concerning origin of agency’s investigation of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, finding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of non-senior executive FBI officials at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels; and (2) FBI properly withheld other information pursuant to Exemptions 1, 7(D), and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.