US Right to Know v. Nat'l Nuclear Sec. Admin. (D.N.M.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to the origin of COVID-19 and/or SARS-CoV-2.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Nat’l Assoc. of Minority Veterans v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review, ruling that: (1) agency did not forfeit right to invoke exemptions on renewed summary judgment, because the only issue argued on initial briefing was adequacy of the agency’s search (which located no records); (2) “most—but not all—of the information redacted by the VA could create “a reasonably expected risk” of circumvention of the law if released,” thus warranting agency’s Exemption 7(E) claims; (3) agency’s survey questions and responses fell within the deliberative process privilege, but agency’s general contentions that disclosure would ”stifle” communications and cause “public confusion” failed to meet the foreseeable harm test.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
AMA Sys. v. FDA (D. Md.) -- concluding that: (1) with exception of one email authored by FDA, agency properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold its file concerning company’s unsuccessful application to produce single-use surgical masks as personal protective equipment during COVID pandemic; (2) agency was not required to meet the foreseeable harm test because all information protected under Exemption 4 was barred from disclosure under the Trade Secrets Act.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing remaining portion of plaintiff’s case after holding that plaintiff’s request for “all records concerning” a DHS research unit was “too amorphous to constitute a valid FOIA request.”
McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that ATF properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold portion of a tape recording made by one of the 100 victims of a Rhode Island nightclub fire in 2003; crediting ATF declaration that faint human voices could be heard on the recording and that surviving family of the deceased had privacy interests even if voices could not be attributed to specific victims; further, rejecting plaintiff’s asserted public interest as nothing more “than having the information for its own sake,” similar to case involving the recording of the last minutes of NASA’s Challenger shuttle.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Feb. 16, 2024
Insider, Inc. v.. GSA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that GSA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold the names of several low-level members of President Trump’s and Vice President Pence’s outgoing transition teams; reasoning that such individuals were not government employees, disclosure would not shed light on GSA activities, and the mere possibility that such individuals might be aware of government conduct was too speculative to qualify as a public interest.
US Inventor, Inc. v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Patent & Trade office performed reasonable searches for various records concerning a vacant Director’s position.
Geddis v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that agency never received his request, which was indisputably sent but misaddressed.
Protect the Public’s Trust v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because IRS thrice refused to search for requested records and it changed its position only after plaintiff filed suit and the court ordered the filing of a dispositive motion; rejecting agency’s argument that a plaintiff cannot substantially prevail without obtaining responsive records, and (2) plaintiff was entitled to fees and its requested fee amount was reasonable, especially given the “interesting legal questions” raised by the request for fees.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Feb. 14, 2024
Sherven v. Nat’l Reconnaissance Office (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s summary judgment motion after finding that NRO performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff, including records of any use of spy satellites against him.
Feb. 13, 2024
Am. for Prosperity Found. v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) all of D.C. Circuit’s requirements for relying on an ex parte declaration had been met; and (2) agency sufficiently demonstrated that three-decades old information protected by the attorney-client privileged met the foreseeable harm test.
Anthony v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) BOP properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning correctional officer’s misconduct; and (2) BOP properly redacted the names of employees from plaintiff’s administrative complaints pursuant to Exemption 6.
Black Hills Clean Water All. v. United States Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- in consolidated cases involving motions for attorney’s fees, ruling that: (1) plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees in first case, which the agency did not contest; and (2) plaintiff’s lawsuit was unnecessary to obtain requested records in second case, and thus plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) FERC conducted an adequate search for calendars of two Commissioners; (2) with respect to FERC’s deliberative process privilege claims, the agency “failed to provide any details or explanation as to why each (or any) of the policy proposals, internal meetings, and external meetings redacted from the calendar concern predecisional material or what sort of “definable decision-making process” the agency aims to protect”; and (3) FERC properly withheld some records pursuant to Exemption 6, but it did not justify withholding the name of a lobbyist who met with a Commissioner or the names of “lower-level staff” on a categorical basis.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Frost Brown Todd LLC v. Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Serv. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) of six requests, only the portion of one request reasonably described the records sought, resulting in dismissal of all claims based on the deficient requests; rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that two agency regulations precluded dismissal; and (2) plaintiff’s allegation that CMS had a pattern or practice of unreasonably delaying the release of non-exempt documents was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Wilson v. FBI (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision denying plaintiff attorney’s fees after finding no “abuse of discretion” in lower court’s analysis of relevant “entitlement” factors; noting that although plaintiff was “eligible” for fees because district court had ordered FBI to conduct an additional search for records concerning plaintiff, FBI’s original decision not to search a particular database was reasonable given that no responsive records were located.
Schubert v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- (1) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, because plaintiff impermissibly sought to expand the time scope of his request from nine months to 10 years; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny records showing who accessed plaintiff’s criminal history; (3) FBI’s search for first-party records was not required by the request, but nevertheless finding that FBI’s voluntary search was adequate; and (4) Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search despite also finding no records.
N.Y. Times v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- following in camera review of report about “Havana Syndrome,” deciding that: (1) FBI properly redacted information concerning third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C); and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to redact certain portions of report, but it could not withhold the report in full using that exemption because one law enforcement technique was known to the public and the report’s introduction and conclusion did not reveal any techniques, procedures, or guidelines at all.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Hensley v. DOJ (E.D. Ark.) -- concluding that FBI performed reasonable search for an alleged recording or transcript of agency’s interview of plaintiff prior to his indictment.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.