Court opinion issued Sept. 8, 2023

Gun Owners of America v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI reasonably interpreted the scope of plaintiff’s request regarding website visitor information as seeking “preexisting aggregate records, not each underlying document that would allow it to construct the record itself,” and that FBI performed an adequate search (finding no responsive records); rejecting as irrelevant plaintiff’s arguments that other DOJ components produced individualized records and that DOJ’s counsel understood which records plaintiff was interested in, because the plain meaning of the actual request controlled.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 5, 2023

Am. Oversight v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not adequately search for various documents relating to people who had died in ICE’s custody; (2) because ICE did not even attempt to justify its Exemption 3 withholdings (failing to file a promised ex parte declaration), it must release documents withheld solely under that exemption; and (3) ICE’s generalized assertions about foreseeable harm were inadequate to justify its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 1, 2023

Wilderness Workshop v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Forest Service performed adequate search for records concerning landowner’s request for access to national forest in Colorado, but USDA’s Office of Information Affairs failed to adequately explain its search methodology; (2) government’s declarations and Vaughn indices did not contain enough information to justify withholdings under the deliberative process privilege; (3) government properly withheld records pursuant to the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges and the foreseeable harm requirement was met; (4) government properly withheld information about federal employees under Exemption 6; and (5) government produced records in the format plaintiff requested (searchable PDF files), and it was not required to transmit those records via the means plaintiff requested (flash or jump drive).

Martin v. Garland (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted a reasonable search for records concerning the medical leave of an Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted him, and that EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Polidi v. Mendel (E.D. Va.) -- deciding that U.S. Patent and Trade Office properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact information pertaining to third parties appearing in records concerning plaintiff’s expulsion from the Patent Bar.

Yadav v. USCIS (D. Md.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to agency’s denial of plaintiff’s application to adjust his residency status, and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 30, 2023

Cullen v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) pro se prisoner waived his right to dispute adequacy of agency’s search for records pertaining to its investigation of plaintiff because he failed to mention the issue in his briefing; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), including images of adult pornography that plaintiff failed to establish were commercially produced.

Mountgordon v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning investigatory records generated from plaintiff’s complaint, finding that: (1) agency failed to expressly address the foreseeable harm requirement with respect to the withholding in full of its investigative report under the deliberative process privilege, nor did the agency sufficiently support its segregability analysis; and (2) regarding requested witness statements, the agency properly excluded “UCMJ rights forms” as non-responsive, but that agency’s declaration “conflates Exemptions 5 and 6 and offers too little detail to sustain the withholdings on the present record.” Of note was the court’s criticism of the agency in the opinion’s introduction: “Here, the Coast Guard’s motion for summary judgment is poorly supported and lacking essential detail. Many of its withholdings are likely proper, but the Coast Guard has not taken the time to support its position. That means more work for the Coast Guard, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court. And, more importantly, it also means unnecessary delay, which is antithetical to FOIA.”

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons improperly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold records describing guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain lethal injection substance, because those records did not involve agency “investigations” or “prosecutions”; (2) in accordance with recent D.C. Circuit decision, BOP did not sufficiently explain how information that could lead to identify the suppliers of lethal injection substances to the federal government was commercial information for Exemption 4 purposes'; and (3) BOP’s foreseeable harm argument “failed to connect any particular document to the stated harm” or to explain how deliberations would be harmed by disclosure.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 29, 2023

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Park Police (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of tort claimants, and—invoking the court’s inherent powers—ordering plaintiff not to use or disseminate names of claimants that agency inadvertently disclosed; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of police officers involved in same tort claims, noting that disclosure would reveal “little more about Park Police’s conduct than what has already been disclosed,” e.g., settlement amounts and officers’ employment status.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 25, 2023

Found. for Gov't Accountability v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- in case concerning DOJ’s strategic plan to promote voter registration and participation in response to Executive Order 14019, determining that: (1) DOJ properly withheld some, but not all, disputed emails pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; and (2) DOJ improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold the final version of DOJ’s strategic plan because it was not pre-decisional; and (3) ordering in camera review of DOJ’s strategic plan to evaluate DOJ’s presidential communications claim, noting that DOJ’s sworn statements “lack sufficient detail and are contradicted by the record evidence.”

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 24, 2023

Thompson v. DOJ (W.D.N.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that the Environmental & Natural Resources Division had adopted a pattern or practice of delaying responses to plaintiff’s FOIA requests; rejecting government’s argument that because all of plaintiff’s requests had received a response, plaintiff’s pattern-or practice claim was moot; noting government’s delays in responding to plaintiff’s requests and to other FOIA requesters, as indicated in DOJ’s annual FOIA reports.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 18, 2023

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) affirming district’s decision that FBI and DOJ performed adequate searches for records pertaining to veterans prohibited from purchasing firearms due to mental defects, and rejecting appellant’s argument that DOJ should have expanded its search from the Attorney General’s Office to the Office of Legislative Affairs based on results of AG’s searches; and (2) vacating and remanding district court’s decision that Department of Veterans Affairs properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges, because VA’s declaration described the documents at a “very high level of generality” and stated only “in conclusory fashion” that documents documents fell within those privileges.

Brown v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for witness interviews pertaining to the 2015 San Bernardino attack and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 17, 2023

Smartflash, LCC v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because underlying FOIA requests were not submitted by plaintiff, but by its attorney, who failed to clearly indicate that the requests were submitted on behalf of his client; rejecting attorney’s assignment of his FOIA rights to plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes because it occurred eight months after the lawsuit was filed.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 10-11, 2023

Aug. 11, 2023

Magassa v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C). 7(E), and 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; further determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny whether plaintiff appeared on any “watch list” records,

Aug. 10, 2023

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case involving detention records from DHS database, ruling that: (1) Customs and Border Protection properly withheld alien registration numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C), likening them to social security numbers; (2) CBP did not sufficiently explain how disclosure of anonymized A-numbers or fingerprint identification numbers would compromise anyone’s privacy; and (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold locations of Border Patrol stations, and both parties failed to explain scope of their Exemption 7(E) dispute concerning database definitions.

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