Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withhold handwritten notes taken by two Assistant U.S. Attorneys during meetings regarding the potential criminal activity of Paul Manafort, as well an email exchanged by the same attorneys on the same subject.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Def. of Freedom Inst. for Policy Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case on grounds of improper venue after finding that plaintiff did not reside in the Middle District of Florida, but rather was incorporated in Virginia and had its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that venue was proper because plaintiff had “substantial contact” with the district and was registered to do business in Florida.
Def. of Freedom Inst. for Policy Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case on grounds of improper venue after finding that plaintiff did not reside in the Middle District of Florida, but rather was incorporated in Virginia and had its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that venue was proper because plaintiff had “substantial contact” with the district and was registered to do business in Florida.
Castillo v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (N.D. Cal.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs because even if he were eligible, which the court doubted, plaintiff did not meet the entitlement prong because his interest in obtaining agency records “relevant to a tort claim he is considering filing does not implicate any significant public interests . . . .”
Project on Gov't Oversight, Inc. v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel (D.D.C.) -- determining that OSC properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names and identifying information of three Trump administration officials who were investigated for Hatch Act violations, but not the subject of any further law enforcement action.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
NY Times v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold factual material that was "inextricably intertwined" with independent monitor’s subjective analysis; and (2) agency’s declarations described with "reasonably specific detail" how disclosure would result in harm to its deliberative processes, namely, “its ability to ensure candor between the agency and an independent monitor, so that DOJ can enter and effectively enforce plea agreements with companies like VW.”
Ctr. for Inquiry v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FDA did not perform adequate search for communications between certain employees and the Homeopathic Convention of the United States (HPCU); and (2) FDA properly found that entire copies of draft HPUS monographs were “commercial” under Exemption 4 because they are “the very product from which HPCU derives most of its income,” but the agency failed to sufficiently describe remaining withheld material to permit evaluation of its “commercial” nature and it failed to establish that any records were confidential.
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.) -- concluding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for records, noting that agency reasonably defined a “record” as a single text message (as opposed to “threads”) given plaintiff’s request for specific text messages containing certain terms; (2) FERC properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but failed to show foreseeable harm for all but one withholding; and (3) FERC properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold name of a prospective agency employee and all cellphone numbers (and that the foreseeable harm test was met), but it improperly withheld the names of two employees.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Project South v. USCIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- regarding disputed responses from ICE, DHS, and State Department to requests about the removals of Cameroonian and other African migrants in 2020 and early 2021, finding that: (1) State established that it conducted an adequate search, but not that it properly withheld draft talking points pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; (2)(a) ICE did not perform an adequate search for records; (b) ICE did not show that Exemption 3, in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2), applied to detainees' travel documents and immigration proceedings, but such information was properly withheld pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (c) ICE properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold internal discussions about logistics for removal flights; (d) ICE properly withheld an intelligence report, information on removal operations, and negotiations with a foreign government under Exemption 7(E); and (3) DHS failed to prove as a matter of law that they conducted an adequate search.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Delgado v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim against DOJ and ATF because he never submitted a request to either of them, and determining that USDA performed an adequate search for records concerning ATF’s contributions to plaintiff’s pension (and finding no records).
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Wash. Lawyers' Comm. For civil Rights & Urban Affairs v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies to maintain a pattern-or-practice claim alleging delays in responses by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to counsel requests for client records; (2) government was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s pattern-or-practice claim because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence that it did not have a policy or practice of violating FOIA; and (3) in the interest f judicial economy, plaintiff’s 39 individual FOIA requests would severed (with one exception), requiring plaintiff to refile them as separate actions.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Mar. 8, 2024
Maritime Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision granting summary judgment to agency with respect to its Exemption 6 redactions of personally identifiable information of owners of Coast Guard-registered vessels.
Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff an award of attorney’s fees because: (1) the court’s supervision of agencies’ search, review, and production of responsive documents occurred while plaintiff was pro se; and (2) documents produced after plaintiff’s attorney filed an appearance were not produced pursuant to court order, all but two of 12 agencies produced all of their records before the attorney’s appearance, and plaintiff’s appearance did not prompt production of records from those two agencies.
Jordan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names of agency agents involved in plaintiff’s criminal investigation.
Mar. 7, 2024
WP Co. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA failed to adequately explain how it searched for 56 “CIA Histories,” and it failed to perform a promised supplemental search; (2) CIA properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 1, but did not establish “how the apparently innocuous information that [plaintiff] has identified could cause the harms that the CIA asserts; (3) CIA failed to show how release of information withheld under Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act could harm national security; (4) CIA properly withheld information pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the CIA Act, as well as identifying information of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
United for FBI Integrity v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) DOJ improperly issued Exemption 6 and 7(C) Glomar responses as to the existence of records that concern former FBI employee’s role in the loss of plaintiff’s security clearance and any records about allegations that the SAC violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) DOJ properly issued Exemption 6 and 7(C) Glomar responses as to the existence of various records concerning sexual misconduct allegedly committed by the same former FBI employee.
Scarlett v. OIG (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, deciding that National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General reasonably described its search for records pertaining to plaintiff or her company.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Leopold v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision because neither the agency nor the lower court fully addressed whether the disclosure of information withheld from an independent monitor’s report under Exemption 8 met the statute’s foreseeable harm test.
Tobias v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold internal agency communications concerning how to respond to arguments in a permit applicant’s white paper, and that the agency adequately demonstrated foreseeable harm.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.