Libarov v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- determining that agency performed a reasonable search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff for entering into a sham marriage, and that it properly withheld an investigatory report pursuant to Exemption 7(A), except for portions that set forth “basic personal information” regarding plaintiff.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics In Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case seeking records about unprosecuted individuals who might have been involved in campaign finance violations committed by Michael Cohen on behalf of Donald Trump, ruling that: (1) portions of portions of DOJ’s declarations related to correspondence between the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and DOJ headquarters were “too conclusory and vague” to justify withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, or 7(C); (2) DOJ properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold search warrant records; and (3) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney-work product privilege to withhold reports and notes of interviews conducted during the SDNY’s investigations into potential campaign finance violations and obstruction of justice.
Pretzman v. Mayorkas (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claim concerning the Secret Service’s disclosure of plaintiff’s cellular number to entities investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, because plaintiff’s request—which the agency processed as a request for an accounting of disclosures under the Privacy Act -- sought answers to questions rather than documents and, alternatively, was not reasonably described.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ -- following in camera review of records related to DOJ’s monitoring of certain elections, finding that: (1) DOJ properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and all of DOJ’s attorney work-product privilege withholdings were proper; (2) DOJ’s single-sentence justification of foreseeable harm was insufficient, but not fatal for withheld information whose sensitivity was “obvious in context”; and (3) DOJ failed to show that records withheld under Exemption 7(A) concerned pending proceedings or that disclosure would interfere with such proceedings.
Buzzfeed v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed adequate search for communications of named U.S. Attorneys pertaining to a criminal case, but it failed to sufficiently specify search terms used to locate communications of named Assistant U.S. Attorneys; (2) granting EOUSA’s withholdings under Exemptions 7(A), 7(D), and 7(F) as conceded by plaintiff, but denying agency’s categorical withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) because agency offered only “broad explanations supporting the applicability of [the exemptions] to generalized categories of documents.”
Abhyanker v. USPTO (N.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) Patent & Trade Office performed reasonably searches for specific records that plaintiff requested concerning agency’s disciplinary case against him; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and deliberative process privilege, as well as Exemptions 6, 7(A), and 7(C).
Rolling Stone LLC v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to compel DOJ to apply for an Open America stay because the motion was “really just a veiled request” to expedite DOJ’s ongoing production of documents and no “compelling need” for expedition existed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Brodsky v. FBI (N.D. Ill.) -- finding after in camera review that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withhold records pertaining to plaintiff; and (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning specific third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Organized Cmtys. Against Deportations v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- following in camera review of sample documents concerning agency’s Citizens Academy, ruling that Agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Aug. 15, 2024
Huddleston v. FBI (E.D. Tex.) -- ruling that FBI could not categorically withhold hundreds of thousands of laptop records of Seth Rich pursuant to Exemption 7(A) without first conducting a document-by document review, and ordering agency to produce Vaughn Indices or to file a summary judgment motion by February 7, 2025.
Huddleston v. FBI (E.D. Tex.) -- denying plaintiff’s “corrected” summary judgment motion and concluding that: (1) plaintiff’s use of news articles as summary judgment evidence was inappropriate under the Federal Rules of Evidence; (2) adequacy of FBI’s search was not undermined by plaintiff’s speculation about the existence of unproduced records; and (3) plaintiff was not entitled to discovery regarding FBI’s search because he failed to establish agency acted in bad faith.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Pomares v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (9th Cir.) -- affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision regarding the agency’s search for and processing of records concerning possible misconduct investigated by agency’s Inspector General; finding that: (1) the VA performed a reasonable search for responsive records, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that FOIA prohibits manual review of records for responsiveness; (2) the VA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold records obtained from consulting company pursuant to IG’s subpoena, rejecting plaintiff’s objections to the form of company’s objection letter and its incorporation by reference in agency’s Vaughn Index; (3) agency properly redacted names and contact information of employees and third parties under Exemption 6, except for names of third parties who lobbied Congress or the VA; and (4) agency failed to sufficiently explain how Exemption 7(E) applied to withheld interview transcripts generated by agency’s IG investigation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DOJ (W.D. Wash.) -- denying government’s motion to amend court’s prior judgment that the Drug Enforcement Administration improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of alleged agency tortfeasors from settlement claims records; finding that DEA did not present new evidence or show that the court’s analysis of the private and public interest at stake resulted in “manifest injustice.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Reclaim the Records v. U.S Dep’t of State (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that the State Department performed adequate search for pre-existing index or list of birth and death records for residents of the Panama Canal Zone between 1904 and 1979, and that the agency’s computer system was unable to generate the requested records; further finding that fulfilling plaintiff’s request would involve creating new records via extraordinary manual measures, which the agency was not required to do.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Connell v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.C. Cir.) — in a case concerning the CIA’s “operational control” over detainees at Guantanamo, affirming the agency’s use of a “Glomar response” to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of responsive records lest the CIA reveal classified intelligence sources and methods; rejecting the requester’s argument that the CIA waived its ability to assert Glomar based on a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report because that report was not “official” and could not be attributed to the agency; further rejecting the requester’s alternative argument that disclosure of records from a database of materials “previously disclosed to the public” foreclosed the use of Glomar as to other potentially responsive records; noting that while the CIA’s supporting declarations “could have provided more detail” to support the use of a Glomar response they were adequate.
Am. Small Business League v. Small Business Admin. (N.D. Cal.) — on a motion for attorney’s fees and costs, granting the motion in part and denying it in part; holding that plaintiff was not “eligible” for fees pertaining to the production of Small Business Administration “PPP loan data” because the relevant “judicial order” ordering production was actually issued in another case (Washington Post Co. v. Small Bus. Admin., No. 20-1240 (D.D.C.)), despite the instant court relying on that order, and therefore there was no “causal nexus” between the agency’s production and plaintiff’s own lawsuit; further holding that plaintiff was eligible for fees pertaining to the production of supplemental data that was discovered after (and independent of) the Washington Post case, as well as certain interbranch communications; as to “entitlement,” ruling that plaintiff should not receive fees for certain records whose production was not unreasonably delayed; reducing the ultimate fee award due to plaintiff’s use of “block billing.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
Cox v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that a congressional committee’s report concerning the CIA’s post-9/11 detention and interrogation program was a “congressional” record, not an “agency” record subject to FOIA, even though it was disseminated to various federal agencies; in reaching its decision, the Second Circuit found that because the Committee “manifested a clear intent to control the report at the time of its creation, and because the Committee's subsequent acts did not vitiate that intent,” the agencies that possessed the report did not “control” it under the “intent test” adopted by the Circuit in Behar v. DHS (2nd Cir. 2022).
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.