Court opinions issued Nov. 30, 2022

Immerso v. DOL (2nd Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s “well-reasoned” decision that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery and concluding that district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing filing sanctions on plaintiff and her attorney.

Berk v. Exec. Office of United States Attorneys (5th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that multiple agencies performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution and properly withheld certain records; further affirming district court’s ruling that plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.

Farahi v. FBI (D.D.C.) --ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff’s immigration removal proceedings, but agency’s 2019 ex parte declaration was now outdated on the issue of whether enforcement proceedings remained pending or reasonably anticipated; and (2) for reasons that could not be stated on public record, FBI needed to provide additional information to the court in order to satisfy statute’s segregability requirements.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 28, 2022

Ryan, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Interior (5th Cir.) -- in reverse-FOIA case concerning tax adviser’s “formula” for recovering overpaid royalties, vacating and remanding district court’s decision after concluding that district court and agency did not “fully explore the record or the Supreme Court’s decision in Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 139 S. Ct. 2356 (2019).”

Shem-Tov v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case for failure to prosecute because plaintiff, who sought records to defend herself in her criminal trial in Israel, neglected to contact the court for nearly five months and disregarded three court orders during that time period.

Competitive Enter. Inst. v. Podesta (D.D.C.) -- dismissing two defendants from case, John Podesta and the National Climate Task Force, because neither are agencies subject to FOIA.

Accuracy in Media v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records related to the 2012 attack on the United States Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation finding that: (1) DOD performed adequate search for records and properly withheld 12 pages of maps pursuant to Exemption 1; (2) CIA properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the CIA Act of 1949 and National Security Act of 1947 to withhold records related to a complaint sent to CIA’s Inspector General; and (3) issue of FBI’s Glomar response was moot because FBI agreed to search for requested records after the magistrate issued his recommendation.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 22-23, 2022

Nov. 23, 2022

Democracy Forward Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation finding that EOUSA adequately searched for records of communications with Trump Transition Team, except for agency’s failure to actually search for emails records of certain employees rather than merely asking those employees whether requested communications exist.

Nov. 22, 2022

Wattleton v. DOJ (D.D.C. ) -- determining that EOUSA performed adequate search for records indicating whether any individuals or entities accessed case information from various databases related to plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 21, 2022

Clemente v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s unopposed motion for summary judgment after finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search for records related to Jeffrey Epstein and his alleged criminal activities; and (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 5, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), and that it also properly withheld records previously sealed by court order.

Dalal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s antisemitic crimes, ruling that: (1) FBI’s search was not entirely adequate because it failed to explain why it would be unduly burdensome to search Special Agent’s informant files; (2) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges, but it improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 7(A); (3) EOUSA conducted an adequate search, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 and attorney work-product privilege, and failed to show that Exemption 7(C) protected a search warrant application in full; and (3) FEMA conducted an adequate search, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, and failed to establish the applicability of Exemption 7(E).

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

Court opinion issued Nov. 18, 2022

Nat'l Ass'n of Minority Veterans v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- ruling that correspondence between the parties after litigation commenced concerning the scope of plaintiff’s request was not an improper attempt by plaintiff to expand request, and therefore the agency was required to justify the withholdings that it had made in the course of processing plaintiff’s modified request.

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

Court opinion issued Nov. 4, 2022

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- in case concerning records of an attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship during the 1967 Six-Day War, ruling that government properly redacted one document pursuant to Exemption 1 but failed to establish the adequacy of its segregability analysis or its remaining withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 2, 2022

Cato Inst. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search concerning plaintiff notwithstanding agency’s decision not to search database identified by plaintiff; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names and identifying information of third parties of investigative interest.

Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility Proj. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D.N.Y.) -- after reviewing representative sample of disputed records in camera, ruling that agency’s declaration and Vaughn Index failed to adequately describe and justify withheld information concerning “Tactical Terrorism Response Teams,” and that agency failed to provide reasonably specific segregability analysis.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 1, 2022

Luedde v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s uncontested motion for summary judgment regarding its response to plaintiff’s request for records concerning himself, and declining to consider at this stage whether pro se plaintiff would be entitled to litigation costs.

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

Court opinions issued Oct. 31, 2022

Emery v. DOJ-FBI (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose government’s motion; and (3) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not oppose.

Emery v. DOJ-ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) ATF conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose agency’s declarations; (3) ATF properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), as well as Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), none of which plaintiff contested; and (4) plaintiff was ineligible to receive costs of litigation because he did not substantially prevail.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 21, 2022

Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold pseudonyms used by agency in its investigation of Clive Bundy; (2) FBI properly withheld names of four Special Agents pursuant to Exemption 7(C), notwithstanding their trial testimony or news reports associating them with the Bundy investigation, because plaintiff failed to show that those Special Agents were involved in specific aspect of the investigation covered by records at issue; (3) FBI properly withheld four categories of records pursuant to Exemption 7(E), rejecting plaintiff’s argument that foreseeable harm provision applies to Exemption 7(E).

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