Court opinions issued Aug. 9, 2023

Bonner v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that government properly relied on Exemption 3 to redact records prepared by former FBI agents concerning the detention of terrorist Abu Zubaydah; stating that government’s classified declarations “reflect an unusual and commendable degree of care in the Government's approach to classification and redactions. They reflect, as well, that the redactions to the materials in this case were made judiciously, not excessively, and based on a sophisticated and informed understanding of the ongoing national security threats posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

N.Y. Times v, FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- in case concerning FBI’s report about “Havana Syndrome,” ruling that: (1) agency failed to sufficiently establish the applicability of Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E), thus warranting in camera review of the report; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold the names and phone numbers of Special Agents, locations of victims and their health information, and identifying information of certain witnesses, none of which plaintiff disputes.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- determining after in camera review that ICE properly used Exemption 5 or Exemption 7(E) to withhold many, but not all, communications from senior attorneys to trial attorneys counting case descriptions, practice pointers, legal strategies, and other guidance.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 7, 2023

Ctr. for Medical Progress v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that HHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identities of two NIH employees who worked on university grant application pertaining to the collection and distribution of fetal stem cell tissue, noting that the potential for violence and harassment outweighed plaintiff’s asserted public interests.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 2, 2023

Vaskas v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s criminal conviction for possession of child pornography, holding that: (1) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Federal Victims’ Protection & Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d); (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications pertaining its investigation, case planning and surveillance of plaintiff; (3) agency properly withheld identifying information of government employees and third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 1, 2023

La Union DEL Pueblo Entero v. FEMA (S.D. Tex.) -- in most relevant part, (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R) that FEMA failed to show that it adequately searched for records concerning its “Individuals and Households Program”; and (2) agreeing with R&R that FOIA authorizes prospective injunctive relief as a remedy, but declining to decide whether it can enforce the electronic reading room requirement.

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

Court opinions issued July 31, 2023

Biear v. DOJ (M.D. Pa) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 3, 7(D), and 7(E), per magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R) ; (2) with two exceptions, including the names of deceased individuals, R&R would be granted with respect to FBI’s withholdings pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- holding that NSA and CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to redact portions of records records relating to a 1967 attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship.

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

Court opinion issued July 25, 2023

Down Law Grp. v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Coast Guard did not conduct adequate search for certain records concerning the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill clean-up, because agency erroneously narrowed scope of plaintiff’s first request and failed to sufficiently explain its search methodology; and (2) agency failed to show how Exemption 6 protected the names of Coast Guard personnel who were given awards for their service in connection with the oil spill response, rejecting agency’s explanation that disclosure would subject personnel to harassment and violence.

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

Court opinion issued July 24, 2023

McCann v. USCIS (E.D. La.) -- deciding that: (1) agency failed to sufficiently explain how it searched for records pertaining to plaintiff; (2) agency conducted adequate segregability analysis, noting that agency’s Vaughn Index was “detailed and meticulous”; and (3) ICE properly processed 16 pages referred to it from USCIS, but ICE failed to account for a 17th page that USCIS reportedly referred to it.

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

Court opinion issued July 21, 2023

Harvard Immigration & Refugee Clinical Program v. DHS (D. Mass. 2023) -- determine that: (1) government neglected to adequately search for records concerning ICE's use of solitary confinement in immigration detention centers; (2) government failed to show that certain redacted emails and memoranda were pre-decisional under Exemption 5 or that factual materials in expert reports were Inextricably Intertwined with policy making recommendations; and (3) government properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold four types of records concerning detainees.

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

Court opinion issued July 20, 2023

Rocky Mountain Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- finding that: (1) Bureau of Land Management’s supplemental filings established that agency had properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met the foreseeable harm standard with respect to withheld records concerning a field office’s amendment of its “Resource Management Plan”; (2) BLM’s supplemental search, which yielded additional responsive records, was adequate; and (3) BLM properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact two newly discovered pages, but it failed to explain how Exemption 5 redactions on one page met the foreseeable harm standard.

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

Court opinion issued July 18, 2023

Am. First Legal Found. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. (D.D.C.) -- holding that 14 agencies properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privliege to withhold in full strategic plans each agency had prepared “in response to an Executive Order regarding promoting access to voting Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and head of the Domestic Policy Council within the White House”; further holding that White House Special Counsel adequately showed foreseeable harm by identifying potential chilling effects on confidential and canid presidential decision-making, consistent with other rulings withun the Circuit.

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