Court opinion issued June 20, 2024

Nat'l Pub. Radio v. U.S Cent. Command (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- in a partially split decision, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court’s decision that agency adequately searched for records pertaining to a 2004 friendly-fire incident during the Iraq War. The majority held, in part, that plaintiff pointed to clear leads of overlooked records that were “likely created to investigate one of the worst friendly-fire incidents in Marine Corps’ modern history.” The partial dissent opined that the search was adequate “beyond a reasonable doubt” because the agency’s good-faith declarations were reasonably detailed, and no genuine evidence indicated that a different database also should have been searched.

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

Court opinion issued June 17, 2024

Malone v. USPTO (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between certain panelists and non-panelists—all agency employees—about draft decisions, and declining to conclude that those communications were unconstitutional or violated the Administrative Procedures Act; and (2) plaintiff was ineligible for an award of attorney’s fees because he failed to establish that his lawsuit had any more than a minimal impact on the agency’s responses to his requests.

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

Court opinion issued June 7, 2024

Nat’l Sec. Archive v. CIA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s district decision that the CIA properly invoked Exemption 1 to withhold a 1989 report drafted by Leonard Peroots concerning a 1983 nuclear crisis with the Soviet Union; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that the CIA was precluded from withholding the memo because the State Department previously published a version of the memo with the CIA’s blessing.

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

Court opinions issued June 6, 2024

Proj. for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act of 1947, as well as Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), to partially redact its “Intelligence Program Policy Guide” and an email summarizing counterterrorism investigations.

Williams v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of certain third-party information relating to plaintiff’s criminal case; and (2) USMS performed adequate search for certain records the agency did not locate pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case.

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

Court opinion issued May 31, 2024

Biear v. DOJ (M.D. Pa.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to reopen his FOIA case, which sought investigatory records about himself, because agency components complied with the court’s previous order regarding the re-processing of records.

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

Court opinion issued May 23, 2024

Cohodes v. DOJ (N.D. Cal.) -- following in camera review, finding that DOJ could not rely on Exemptions 6 and/or 7(C) to redact the following information originating from a dispute between plaintiff, a Wall Street short-seller, and biotech company MiMedx, specifically: (1) name of email author sent under a pseudonym to an attorney; (2) name and email address of attorney who forwarded email to FBI; (3) names of MiMedx witnesses interviewed by the government in 2018; and (4) anonymous email address from a person who sent an email to a witness offering to provide information about the plaintiff.

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

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.