Lovelace v. DOJ (D. Utah) -- recommending that court dismiss pro se plaintiff’s claim concerning FBI’s 2016 FOIA response, because plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal with DOJ’s Office of Information Policy.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Heritage Found. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that government reasonably searched for records pertaining to Robert Hunter Biden and did not act in bad faith, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that agency custodians were inappropriately tasked with searching their own records about their own alleged misconduct.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Fogg v. IRS (8th Cir.) -- following in camera inspection, affirming district court’s decision that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold portions of section 21.1.3.3 of the Internal Revenue Manual, because the contents concerning third-party authentication are “techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations and their disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law”; further concluding that the agency met the heightened foreseeable harm standard, which the district court neglected to address.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of attorney’s fees, fees on fees, and costs regarding its requests for asylum-related records; for both factors, taking into account agency’s unexplained failure to produce any records in the year or more before litigation began; reducing plaintiff’s requested award for billing “some improper and excessive tasks,” and because “many of the time-keeping records lack sufficient detail to assure the Court that time was reasonably expended.”
Empower Oversight Whistleblowers & Research v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s claims regarding agency’s lack of timeliness were moot, plaintiff had no right to declaratory relief or attorney’s fees on those claims, and plaintiff failed to properly allege a “policy-or-practice” claim; (2) multiple components performed adequate searches for requested records related to inquiry by U.S. Senator Grassley about a senior-level agency employee; and (3) agency properly redacted certain information pursuant to Exemption 5 (DPP) and Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Radar Online LLC v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold certain records pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein because disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with related prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, whose case is on appeal.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Mayor of Baltimore v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- denying renewed motion of the National Sporting Sports Foundation (NSSF) to intervene in case involving certain firearm trace records because NSSF lacked standing. The court noted, among other things, that NSSF failed to explain “why the ATF has not adequately represented its interests with respect to Exemption 3,” that NSSF had been permitted to file an amicus brief, and that NSSF would be permitted to be heard at any oral argument.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
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.
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.
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.
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.