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.