Court opinions issued May 21, 2024

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DOJ (W.D. Wash.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that: (1) DEA improperly relied on Exemption 6 in redacting “publicly available dates and attorney contact information connected to civil lawsuits”; (2) DEA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names and identifying information of individuals who filed administrative claims against DEA, but that in camera review was required to evaluate certain records containing block redactions; and (3) DEA properly withheld remaining disputed information under Exemption 6, but failed to provide sufficient information to allow the court evaluate whether redacted information about a former DEA Academy trainee was truly identifying.

Driggs v. CIA (E.D. Va.) -- denying plaintiffs’ motion to compel a search of the CIA's operational files for records concerning Americans allegedly held as prisoners of war following the Korean War; finding that the requested records—if they exist—were protected by Exemption 3 in conjunction with the CIA Information Act, 50 U.S.C. § 3141, and that plaintiffs failed to show that any exceptions to the CIA Information Act applied.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 17, 2024

Am. Oversight v. HHS (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing the district court’s decision granting judgment to the government and ruling: (1) in a unanimous opinion, that HHS failed to perform an adequate search for records concerning healthcare reform because it omitted “obvious alternative terms,” such as the unabbreviated names of the ACA and AHCA statutes, “without a detailed explanation”; and (2) in a 2-1 opinion, that communications between agencies and Congress (or their staffs) did not fall within the Exemption 5’s consultant corollary doctrine, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Klamath, because “each side had an independent stake in the potential healthcare reform legislation under discussion”; the dissent contended that FOIA’s “text, purpose, structure, and legislative history” supported withholding under Exemption 5, notwithstanding Klamath, and that “the ramifications of the majority’s contrary interpretation of FOIA are actually quite breathtaking.”

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 16, 2024

Guarascio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment uncontested by plaintiff, ruling that: (1) FBI established that it performed a reasonable search for records related to plaintiff’s conviction for manufacturing child pornography, in part, by averring that it “searched all locations and files reasonably likely to contain responsive records, and there is no basis for the FBI to conclude that a search elsewhere would reasonably be expected to locate responsive records subject to the FOIA”; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withheld certain records from a file received from the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, which contained “clear indicators,” including express markings, that the material was confidential.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 15, 2024

Luthmann v. FBI (M.D. Fla.) -- concluding that: (1) for portion of request concerning third parties, FBI properly used a Glomar response pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (2) FBI performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s investigation for fraud and extortion; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold grand jury records, pen register information, wiretap information, intelligence information, bank records, and export control enforcement information; and (4) government properly withheld other records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6. 7(C), and 7(E), as well as court-sealed records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 14, 2024

Pickering v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- ruling on disputed portions of magistrate judge’s report and recommendations that: (1) magistrate did not err in finding that ATF failed establish that voices on audiotapes were not reasonably segregable; ordering agency to explain in a sworn declaration what happened to 16 tapes that ATF now claims are missing and two that were destroyed; (2) because FBI did not withhold handwritten notes pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, magistrate erred in granting summary judgment to plaintiff on this ground; (3) FBI’s failure to identify which pages of 14,000 withheld pages fell within Exemption 7(A), combined with the FBI’s “exceedingly vague and amorphous characterization of any prospective law enforcement proceeding,” made it “impossible” for the court to assess the FBI exemption claim; and (4) magistrate did not err in finding that ATF’s justification for its use of Exemption 7(F) lacked reasonable specificity.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 10, 2024

Borowski v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (W.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) agency failed to adequately explain its search methodology in response to request for records concerning plaintiff; and (2) agency’s Vaughn Index lacked sufficient detail to allow court to evaluate withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E); and (3) agency’s withholding claim under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege also lacked a sufficient basis, nor did agency meet its foreseeable harm burden.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 3, 2024

Boundaoui v. FBI (N.D. Ill.) -- following in camera review of sample documents, deciding that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to redact race, ethnic information, and nationality of people investigated, because disclosure would not increase risk of identification; (2) FBI properly withheld various categories of records pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) FBI met its burden to show that the withheld information could not be further segregated and released.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued May 1, 2024

VRA Enters. v. CMS (M.D. Fla.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss and oddly ruling that: (1) HHS Office of Inspector General’s response that it did not maintain requested records (and forwarding request to CMS) was not an adverse determination triggering exhaustion requirement; and (2) OIG's response letter failed to notify plaintiff of its right to seek assistance from a FOIA Public Liaison, and therefore it did not trigger actual exhaustion.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinion issued Apr. 29, 2024

Heritage Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning various communications about Timothy Thibault, a former Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, determining that: (1) DOJ properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but not for administrative records that plaintiff’s request conceivably sought; and (2) DOJ properly withheld—on a categorical basis—records of communications containing the terms “Thibault” and “Grassley” pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), except as to any responsive administrative records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.

Court opinions issued Apr. 26, 2024

Accuracy in Media v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- holding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to categorically withhold certain FBI interview reports and corresponding handwritten notes of interviews conducted with American personnel who were present during the 2012 Benghazi attacks.

Henderson Parks v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (N.D. Ill.) -- finding that BOP properly withheld certain records pertaining to the death of plaintiff’s former client while imprisoned pursuant to Exemptions 5, 7(C), (7(E), and 7(F); denying plaintiff’s request for in camera review and for “attorney’s eyes-only” access to withheld records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.