Court opinion issued May 8, 2023

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- in cases concerning communications of seven agency officials regarding indictment of state judge and court officer for obstruction of justice, (1) denying agency’s renewed motion for summary judgment because it was prematurely filed and did not comport with local rules; and (2) ordering agency to provide additional information concerning its search for text messages on government-issued telephones.

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

Court opinion issued May 3, 2023

Cato Inst. v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff’s request for “any records from any . . . component pursuant to” Directive 5300.27 was not reasonably described, and rejecting plaintiff’s attempt in litigation to reframe the scope of its request; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the Department failed to notify plaintiff that its request was too vague, as required by Department regulations.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 24, 2023

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that FBI reasonably foresaw that disclosure of certain talking points related to agency’s investigation of Hilary Clinton’s private email server would cause harms protected by Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; noting that FBI articulated “the connection between the information at issue . . . and the chilling effect of disclosure, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument that a chilling effect that is “highly likely” is not “reasonably foreseeable.”

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 17, 2023

Council on American-Islamic Relations v. USCIS (D. Conn.) -- ruling that: (1) government failed to demonstrate that an immigration-related report was “closely held” within the Executive Branch, which precluded withholding it in full pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege; the presidential communications privilege covering the report was not waived by official disclosure; and government satisfied the foreseeable harm standard; (2) government properly withheld portions of the report pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, as well as Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E); and (3) State Department properly invoked Exemption 7(E) to withhold information from “State Cable” and “Operational Q&A” documents. and it properly withheld a draft Paperwork Reduction Act-related document pursuant to the attorney-client and deliberative process privileges.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 14, 2023

Heritage Found. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in connection with its request for expedited processing of its request for records concerning a freight-train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio; reasoning that although one of the plaintiffs appeared to qualify as a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that they were likely to succeed on the merits as to whether there was an “urgency to inform the public” or that plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm.”

Cunningham v. HUD (E.D. Pa.) -- dismissing with prejudice plaintiff’s FOIA claims against individual employees and for money damages, but permitting plaintiff to amend complaint that failed to allege that he had exhausted his administrative remedies.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 6, 2023

Jordan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that pro se prisoner’s request was improper because it essentially asked DEA to provide answers to questions plaintiff had about agency’s investigation, as opposed to asking for certain documents; rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to clarify and expand scope of his request to any records that pertained to his initial inquiries; and stating in dicta that if merits of the withholdings had been reached, agency’s categorical approach to withholding the names of all law enforcement agents under Exemption 7(C) would have been improper, despite the “substantial privacy” interests involved.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 4, 2023

O'Brien v. DOJ (3rd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision concerning FBI’s investigatory records concerning plaintiff (a former physician convicted of multiple drug-related charges), noting that source’s trial testimony did not waive government’s ability to withhold records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 3, 2023

Am. Immigration Council. v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that some (but not all) remaining disputed documents concerning “credible fear interviews” were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2023

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- in most relevant part, finding that agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search for records located on personal devices and agency cell phones by searching agency’s email accounts to which employees were required to send them by existing policy.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was not required to submit a separate request to the agency’s Office of Inspector General concerning COVID measures in immigration facilities (including complaints and grievances), but rather that agency’s Privacy Office should have forwarded plaintiff’s request to OIG based on nature of the request or, at the very least, after clear leads developed during agency’s search that OIG likely maintained responsive records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2023

Gandhi v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold employer identification numbers (EINs) of health care organization and taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) of their parent organizations, noting that SEC and Department of Labor release EINs to the public and that EINs are available through “pay-for-subscription” services; further noting that CMS failed to offer providers any assurances of confidentiality for their EINs or TINs, and that CMS offered no competent evidence that a foreseeable harm would occur if the requested records were released; and (2) agency’s reliance on Exemption 6 to withhold the same information was likewise improper, because Exemption 6 did not protect privacy interests of business entities.

Del Cid v. EOIR (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff was ineligible for award of attorney’s fees and costs because he did not prove that his lawsuit was the catalyst behind EOIR’s production of his immigration records; pointing out that agency demonstrated that it had started to process plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed his lawsuit and that agency’s FOIA backlog and the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its final response.

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