Ghassan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff failed to show that he actually submitted requests to FBI for records concerning alleged court-ordered assassination program, and FBI averred that it had never received them and sufficiently explained agency’s search process.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Adams v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to plaintiff in its classified databases.
WP Co. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible for and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs in case concerning agency payments to Donal Trump-owned properties, but reducing requested award from $91k requested to $55k for excessive and unproductive hours billed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Brody v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) (unpublished) -- less than two weeks after oral argument, affirming district court’s decision that appellant’s requests to FBI required unduly burdensome searches.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision and concluding that: (1) agency failed to establish that the names of companies that supply the government with a drug used for lethal injections qualify as “commercial” information under Exemption 4; and (2) agency failed to show how certain “key contract terms” were “confidential” under Exemption 4.
Sherven v. Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Bd. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff neglected to file an administrative appeal with agency after receiving agency’s final determination.
Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s renewed summary judgment motion after finding that CBP conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (attorney work product), 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rts. Proj. v. ICE (2nd Cir.) -- in a questionable ruling, reversing and remanding district court’s decision that requiring agency to substitute unique identifying numbers for FOIA-exempt alien identification numbers constituted the impermissible creation of new records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
State of Indiana v. President Joseph R. Biden (S. Ind.) -- in suit by 14 States against Executive Office of the President, President Biden, the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Garland, U.S. Department of Education, and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, ruling that: (1) individual defendants are not agencies subject to FOIA requests “whether named in an official capacity or not”; and (2) neither EOP, as a whole, nor the White House Office’s Domestic Policy Council are agencies to which a FOIA request may be directed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Microsoft Corp. v. IRS (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for records concerning its longstanding audit of plaintiff, noting that agency was not required to search records created and maintained by private contractors; and (2) IRS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 2, 3 (in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103), 4, 5, 6, and 7(A).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Perioperative Services & Logistics, LLC v. Dep’t of Veteran Affairs (D.C. Cir.) — on appeal, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in choosing to accept and rely upon an ex parte declaration because, as the court below explained, “[t]his is one of the rare cases . . . where the ex parte submission, with its detailed description of the nature of the withheld document and the reasons underlying the exemption, was necessary to preserve the privacy of the third party” implicated in the underlying record; holding, further, that the agency properly applied Exemption 6 and satisfied its obligation to release reasonably segregable non-exempt portions of the record at issue.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Bahrampour v. Dep't of the Army (D. Md.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from agency component’s final response to his request concerning bioeffects of non-lethal weapons, but allowing plaintiff 20 days to amend his Complaint to address actions of three other Army components.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.