FOIA Advisor

FOIA News: Requests to FDA & SEC are more likely to be commercial, new analysis reveals

FOIA News (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

FOIAengine Reveals Trends Behind the Big Numbers at FDA, SEC  

By Randy Miller, Law St. Media, June 26, 2024

This week we analyze the sources of Freedom of Information Act requests made during May to the Food and Drug Administration and the Securities and Exchange Commission. This analysis provides a macro view of who is submitting the 20,000 plus requests made each year to the two agencies.

FOIAengine, the competitive-intelligence database that tracks FOIA requests in as close to real-time as their availability allows, organizes the entities who submit FOIA requests into ten categories: Commercial, Educational, Federal Government, Financial Institution, Law Firm, News Media, Non-Profit, Organization Not Identified, Other, and Local and State Government. The following charts show the number of requests to the FDA and the SEC for each of these categories.

Read more here.

FOIA News: Archivists issue statement re: NIH controversy

FOIA News (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

SAA Urges Adherence to FOIA and FRA Rules by NIH

Press Release, Society of American Archivists, June 24, 2024

The Society of American Archivists (SAA) notes with concern the correspondence released by the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic from Dr. David Morens and other officials at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) referencing the use of private email accounts for the specific purpose of avoiding disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). SAA leadership is particularly concerned by the implication from a subset of the released correspondence that dedicated records staff within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may be providing guidance for avoiding FOIA requests. 

Read more here.

Court opinion issued June 25, 2024

Court Opinions (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

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.

Jobs, jobs. jobs: Weekly report 6/24/24

Jobs jobs jobs (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Federal positions closing in the next 10 days

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Navy, GS 12, Jacksonville, FL, closes 6/24/24 (non-public).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Air Force/ANG, GS 12, Arlington, VA, closes 6/25/24.

Att’y-Advisor, Dep’t of Justice/OIP, GS 12-15, Washington, D.C, closes 6/27/24.

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, GS 14, Wash, D.C., closes 6/28/24 (non-public).

Sup. Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Army, GS 13, Fort Meade, MD, closes 6/28/24.

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Justice/CRM, GS 9, Wash., D.C., closes 6/28/24 (recent graduates).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of Justice/NSD, Wash., D.C., GS 7-9, closes 7/1/24 (recent graduates)

Sup. Att’y Advisor, Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., GS 15, Wash., D.C., closes 7/1/24 (internal to NLRB).

Gov’t Info. Specialist, Dep’t of the Treasury/IRS, GS 14, various locations, closes 7/2/24 (non-public).

Court opinion issued June 21, 2024

Court Opinions (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

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.

FOIA News: Deadline approaching to comment on Stars & Stripes regulations

FOIA News (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Military paper moves to defend its 1st Amendment rights

By Liam Scott, Voice of America, June 21, 2024

Supporters of the U.S. military newspaper Stars and Stripes are using a public consultation period on the outlet’s regulations to try to roll back what they say are restrictive rules.

Funded in part by the Department of Defense but editorially independent by order of Congress, the Stripes has operated under the same Federal Register regulations since 1993.

But with updates to those rules open to public comment until Monday, journalists and media analysts are drawing attention to three longstanding articles they believe should be relaxed or scrapped entirely.

These include vague wording that doesn’t explicitly authorize reporters to ask questions of Defense Department officials, as well as regulations that block the paper’s staff from filing Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests or from publishing classified information that was legally obtained.

Read more here.

See proposed regulations here.

Court opinion issued June 20, 2024

Court Opinions (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

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

Court Opinions (2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

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.