Court opinion issued July 24, 2024

Children's Health Def. v. CDC (D.D.C.) -- in dispute concerning COVID-19 vaccine safety-monitoring records sent to FDA for consultation, ruling that: (1) HHS was not a party to the case by operation of law, but allowing it to move for a stay as an intervenor; and (2) granting stay for six months because several judges in same district had already issued stays affecting access to the same documents, and because FDA was burdened by an “extraordinary production” schedule imposed by a federal court in Texas.

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

Court opinion issued July 22, 2024

Cole v. Locascio (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation finding that: (1) Federal Emergency Managment Agency performed an adequate search for records concerning agency’s study of the collapse of the World Trade Center in 2001, rejecting plaintiff’s objections that FEMA failed to produce specific, non-exempt documents or that it was obligated to search 490,000 pages maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration; (2) plaintiff’s claim against the National Institute of Standards and Technology was moot because plaintiff received all the records he sought.

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

Court opinion issued July 16, 2024

Kowal v. DOJ (D.C. Cir) -- affirming district court’s 2022 decisions—following multiple rounds of summary judgment—that: (1) the FBI, DEA, and ATF justified the adequacy of their searches for records concerning plaintiff’s client, Daniel Troya, who was sentenced to death for murder in 2009; and (2)(a) defendant agencies properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 7(C); (b) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–12, to withhold a narrative summary of a wiretap conversation; (c) FBI and DEA properly withheld source information pursuant to Exemption 7(D), noting that “grisly nature” of the crime “easily” supported inference of confidentiality for each source.

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

Court opinion issued July 11, 2024

Franklin v. Wormuth (D. Md.) -- determining that: (1) Department of the Army established that it performed adequate search for three of four categories of records pertaining to agency’s response to plaintiff’s EEO complaint, but denying summary judgment for one category because agency’s search description was “remarkably thin”; and (2) Army properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact identifying information about third parties from Army police report.

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

Court opinion issued July 9, 2024

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.

Court opinion issued July 3, 2024

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.

Court opinion issued July 2, 2024

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.

Court opinions issued July 1, 2024

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.

Court opinion issued June 25, 2024

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.

Court opinion issued June 21, 2024

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.