Court opinions issued Mar. 29, 2023

Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case apparently of first impression, holding that DOJ could not rely on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to withhold statistics concerning deaths of individuals in custody that were reported by states to DOJ in compliance with the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013.

Hand v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of communications between a retired FBI Special Agent and DOJ personnel concerning the criminal investigation and prosecution of plaintiff.

Connell v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in issuing Glomar response to request for certain records concerning Guantanamo Bay detention facility, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that declassified records constituted a public acknowledgment of existence of requested records.

Scarlett v. Nat’l Sci. Found. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Inspector General’s declaration did not adequately explain agency’s search methodology in response to request for complaints concerning plaintiff’s company; and (2) OIG’s declaration did not sufficiently address whether responsive records withheld under Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C) were compiled for law enforcement purposes; and (3) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee names, email addresses, and signatures, but it did not adequately explain what “identifying information” it withheld from the body of a responsive complaint.

Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to exploratory gold mining in Clack Hills National Forest and that agency was not required to extend its initial search cut-off date for supplemental searches; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and deliberative process privileges and Exemption 6; and (3) agency’s transmittal of responsive records via file-sharing website was compliant with plaintiff’s formatting request, which allowed for “‘other electronic media’ in whatever way was ‘most expeditious.’”

Yim v. NIH (D.N.J.) (unpublished) -- deciding that: (1) agency’s recitation of its “standard review process” for handling FOIA requests was sufficient to establish adequacy of its search for COVID Guideline updates that agency had posted on its website; and (2) plaintiff could not expand scope of his request in litigation.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 28, 2023

Blevins v. ATF (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that ATF performed adequate search for plaintiff’s initial request for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and use of a firearm, and therefore the agency was justified in declining to perform a duplicative search in response to plaintiff’s subsequent request for narrower set of duplicative records.

Schaefer v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly redacted record pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment in case concerning Office of Immigration Litigation training materials for appellate lawyers, concluding that: (1) with minor exceptions, agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withold records, the vast majority of which were “training materials discussing arguments or strategies that DOJ attorneys adopt or consider in particular situations”; further concluding that agency met foreseeable harm requirement; (2) agency’s attorney-client privilege claims were deficient because agency failed to explain on how communications rested on “confidential information obtained from the clients”; and (3) agency did not justify its use of the deliberative process privilege, which in any event the agency deemed a “superfluous” claim.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 27, 2023

Vanda Pharm. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that even if agency’s clinical review of pending new drug application fell within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, agency failed to meet statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; reasoning that: (1) disclosure would not likely chill deliberations because underlying reviews are required to be published in NDA is ultimately approved; and (2) FDA’s concern that drug manufacturer might use records to mislead public and medical practitioners was too speculative to meet foreseeable harm requirement.

Carpezzi v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, who believed his email was hacked by the government (among other things); and (2) FBI properly withheld identities of employees under Exemption 7(C), as well as sensitive investigation number and database identifier under Exemption 7(E).

Anand v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DEA performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances, and (2) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Annand v. HHS (D.D.C.) determining that HHS OIG performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances; (2) even though portion of co-plaintiff’s request was too vague, HHS failed to follow agency regulation requiring agency to clarify request; and (3) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project v. ICE (D. Me.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for various records concerning agency’s use of a county jail, except for certain policy documents.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2023

Americans for Fair Treatment v. USPS (D D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge FOIA regulation that did not allow an appeal to the head of the agency himself, because plaintiff did not allege sufficient risk of future harm; (2) USPS did not perform adequate search for records concerning a COVID-related “Privacy Statement” on its website; (3) USPS failed to delineate its Exemption 5 withholdings, failed in part to adequately explain its attorney-client privilege withholdings, and failed to provide specific foreseeable harm justifications.

Pickering v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that ATF and FBI performed adequate searches, and that FBI properly withheld disputed records; and (2) rejecting R&R’s conclusion that plaintiff improperly sued DHS rather than its component agencies and remanding for further proceedings.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 22, 2023

Ghinis v. USCIS (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that agency’s search was deficient because it provided “undetailed and conclusory” explanation for why it believes plaintiff’s Alien file is lost; noting that plaintiff provided documentary evidence that requested records could be in two field offices that agency did not search.

Kurzban v NSA (S.D. Fla.) -- finding that: (1) DIA and FBI performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiffs; (2) NSA and CIA properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pursuant to Exemption 1 and 3; and (3) FBI properly withheld certain record pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(A), 7(D), and 7(E).

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 21, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agency performed adequate search for calendar and meeting records of agency senior advisor, noting that agency was not required to search for in-meeting chats on Zoom, which the agency did not control; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold personal email addresses, email addresses of White House, EOP, DOD, and DHS employees, and a cell phone number; and (3) agency’s generic, boilerplate explanations for its deliberative process privilege claims did not “even come close” to meeting its burden, nor did agency’s justifications for relying on the presidential communications privilege.

Akel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys performed adequate supplemental search for certain archived emails pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case, but that it neglected to adequately explain its search methods in response to broader, second request.

Gatore v. DHS (D.C. Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision to deny class certification under Rule 23(b)(3), principally because agency had rescinded its policy of withholding “Assessment to Refer” documents in full, rendering case moot.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 17, 2023

Mar. 17, 2023

Boundy v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for guidance documents concerning acceptable signatories, even though it did not use plaintiff’s long list of preferred search terms or uncover “secret rules” plaintiff believed existed; and (2) following in camera review, agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges to withhold all but two images that it previously disclosed to plaintiff.

Richardson Bay Envtl. Prot. Ass'n v. FAA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) FAA did not sufficiently explain why, in “this day and age,” it searched for certain potentially responsive records only in a physical filing cabinet and not electronically; and (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records concerning plaintiff’s complaints about third party.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 13, 2023

Vidal-Martinez v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff’s interim petition for award of attorneys fees and costs because agency, not plaintiff, was prevailing party in underlying litigation; rejecting plaintiff’s contention that court’s scheduling orders and minute entries altered parties’ legal relationship or granted plaintiff relief on merits; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that agency changed its legal position under “catalyst theory” of eligibility.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 9, 2023

Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors (N.D. Ill.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that: (1) U.S. Agency for Global Media performed adequate search for contract records and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 4; (2) HHS adequately explained it search process and properly withheld employee names and titles under Exemption 6; (3) USCIS performed reasonable search and properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold contractor’s pricing information; and (4) USAID cured its search deficiency with supplemental search; and (5) ICE adequately justified its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges.

Williams v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DEA properly withheld various records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case pursuant to Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F), that plaintiff was not entitled to special access to records under FOIA to attack his criminal conviction, and that plaintiff was not entitled to appointment of counsel.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 8, 2023

Welsh v. U.S. Dep't. of State (D.D.C. ) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for a list of all posts filled by a specific type of U.S. personnel that had international travel restrictions imposed on them, and that the agency was not required to create such a list for plaintiff.

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