FOIA Advisor

Court opinion issued Oct. 6, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Barrack v. DOJ (D. Colo.) -- concluding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the National Security Division’s denial of his attorney’s FOIA request, because the request did not indicate that it was made on behalf of plaintiff; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that NSD was sufficiently aware on whose behalf the request was submitted so as to confer standing, noting that plaintiff was mentioned only once in an email to the Office of Information Policy.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

FOIA News: DOJ opposes suit against DEA for repeated delays

FOIA News (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

DOJ Wants Drug-Related FOIA Practices Suit Thrown Out

By Mike Curley, Law360, Oct. 6, 2022

Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Drug Enforcement Agency are asking a Texas federal court to throw out claims that the DEA has a practice of stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests, saying the complaint doesn't show that the DEA's response to requests about psilocybin were improper. . . .

Read more here (accessible with free trial subscription).

See article about lawsuit here.

Court opinion issued Oct. 4, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Nat'l Sec. Archive v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- relying on government’s ex parte, in camera declarations, holding that CIA properly invoked on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold in full a memo drafted by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1989, notwithstanding State Department’s subsequent publication of memo’s transcribed text with minor redactions.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Q&A: The survey says . . .

Q&A (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Q. I saw three FOIA requests get denied in full:
1. This request for communications between the Consumer Financial Trade Commission (CFTC) and an outside entity that had received a no action letter that was later revoked was denied in full, claiming Exemption 7(A).
2. This request for all DOJ’s Office of Inspector General reports was denied in full, claiming the request doesn't describe the records sought.
3. This request for FOIA requests received by the Drug Enforcement Administration about Paul Le Roux was denied in full, claiming Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Do these seem like reasonable denials to you? Any advice on how to proceed?

A. I'll briefly comment on each request in turn.

1. Yes, the CFTC's Exemption 7(A) denial seems reasonable to me on its face. As you probably know, PredictIt filed a lawsuit on September 9, 2022. challenging CFTC's revocation of its No-Action Letter. Public disclosure of the three categories of requested records could very well interfere with the government's legal defense in that pending case. The exemption would not, of course, apply to CFTC's August 4, 2022 letter to PredictIt, because CFTC posted it online. But keep in mind that an agency relying upon Exemption 7(A) need not justify its withholdings on a document-by-document basis, but may focus upon categories of records.

2. Either the request to DOJ/OIG is unreasonably described (i.e., vague) or the request is moot, I'm not sure which is the case. To wit, DOJ/OIG publishes reports on its website and those reports are searchable by date, keyword, type, and component. If the request seeks documents other than those published reports, it is entirely unclear to me what OIG is supposed to look for.

3. The DEA appears to have reflexively issued a privacy Glomar response, which it typically does when asked for records about a third party. An administrative appeal might be successful if accompanied by evidence that DOJ prosecutors or DEA officially acknowledged that Mr. Le Roux had a connection to DEA. First-hand evidence, e.g., press release, trial transcripts, or other court filings, would be more persuasive than media reporting. Note that even if DOJ’s Glomar response were to be defeated, that does not mean the government would be required to release responsive records. Rather, the government would be required to conduct a search, acknowledge whether records existed or not, and process any responsive records with all of the exemptions at its disposal.

Court opinions issued Sept. 30, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

McMichael v. DOJ (D. Del.) -- determining that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to an award of costs and nearly all requested attorney’s fees in case involving FBI’s investigatory records concerning theft of jewels from Royal Family of Hesse by U.S. military officers during World War 2.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) EOUSA and OIP conducted adequate searches for travel, budget, and expense records pertaining to John Durham’s investigation of the 2016 presidential campaign; and (2) DOJ properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(A), 7(C), and 7(F).

Jarvis v. HUD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s housing complaints, rejecting plaintiff’s allegations of a conspiracy between the agency and property company to conceal records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Sept. 28, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Kendrick v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), and met the foreseeable harm requirement; noting that satisfying the terms of exemptions outside of Exemption 5 by itself “goes a long way to meeting the foreseeable harm requirement.”

Nat'l Pub. Radio v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DHS improperly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold mostly factual information contained in investigatory reports of immigrant detention facilities, and it failed to show that any of its withholdings met the foreseeable harm requirement.

Am. Small Bus. League v. OMB (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that OMB performed a reasonable search for records indicating the total federal acquisition budget for FY 2017, FY 2018, and FY 2019, and that plaintiff impermissibly expanded the scope of its request after commencing litigation.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 27, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2023)Allan BlutsteinComment

Hall & Assocs. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed adequate search for records transmitted between headquarters and Region 7 concerning November 2013 meeting; (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges to withhold portion of email discussing possible enforcement action; and (3) in camera inspection was required to ascertain whether eleven documents concerning contemplated regulatory action contained purely factual material; (4) agency conducted adequate search for certain enforcement orders and properly withheld most, but not all, records pertaining to draft administrative order pursuant to multiple Exemption 5 privileges.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

FOIA News: OIP Releases FY 2022 FOIA Reporting Deadlines

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

Announcing Upcoming FOIA Reporting Deadlines

Dep’t of Justice, Office of Info. Policy, Sept. 28, 2022

As the fiscal year draws to a close, the Office of Information Policy (OIP) looks to the beginning of the FOIA reporting season. Today, OIP announces the deadlines for the submission of agencies' Fiscal Year 2022 Annual FOIA Reports, Fiscal Year 2023 Quarterly FOIA Reports, and 2023 Chief FOIA Officer Reports, along with updated resources.

Read more here.

FOIA News: OIP Updates Exemption 3 Resources

FOIA News (2015-2023)Ryan MulveyComment

Key FOIA Resources: 2022 Updates to Exemption 3 Statutes

Dep’t of Justice, Office of Info. Policy, Sept. 27, 2022

The Office of Information Policy (OIP) has posted updates to its compilation of Exemption 3 resources, aimed at assisting agencies in their administration of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and increasing public understanding of the use of Exemption 3.  These materials are located on the FOIA Resources page of OIP's site. 

The first resource is an updated list of Statutes Found to Qualify Under Exemption 3 of the FOIA.  This resource contains the most current listing of federal statutes that federal courts have affirmatively found to qualify as Exemption 3 statutes.  The second resource is the Fiscal Year 2021 list of Statutes used in Annual FOIA Reports in conjunction with Exemption 3 of the FOIA.  This resource includes a listing of the statutes used by all federal agencies subject to the FOIA, as reported in their FY 2021 Annual FOIA ReportsCSV and PDF versions of this resource provide the citation of each statute used, the type of information protected by the statute, the agencies that cited each statute, and the number of times the statute was cited during the preceding fiscal year.  Charts dating back to FY 2010 are also available on OIP's FOIA Resources page. 

Read more here.