Sept. 23, 2024
First Look Media Works, Inc. v. U.S. Agency for Global Media (D.D.C.) — adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that found plaintiffs ineligible for attorney’s fees because plaintiffs failed to establish that their lawsuit caused agency to change its position; taking into account that plaintiff sued after only 55 days after making its request and that agency’s delay was credibly explained by a sudden spike in requests.
Heritage Found. v. DHS (D.D.C.) — following in camera review of certain immigration records concerning the Duke of Sussex (“Prince Harry”) and associated declarations, deciding that DHS properly withheld records, or refused to confirm or deny their existence, pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); in reaching its decision, the court found that the Duke had more than a de minimis privacy interest in his immigration material despite being a public figure and that “disclosure of records about a single admission of a foreign national . . . would provide the public, at best, limited information about the Department’s general policy in admitting aliens.”
Wright v. FBI (D.D.C.) — on renewed summary judgment, concluding that it would be unduly burdensome for agency to fulfill a request for certain records concerning mosques because the responsiveness review would take 88,570 hours to 154,526 hours, respectively, and cost millions of dollars
Donahue v. NARA (D.D.C.) — concluding that NARA and the CIA performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff, a former merchant marine servicing a life sentence for sex crimes, and that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records whose association with the agency was classified.
Sept. 20, 2024
Project on Gov't Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — holding that DOJ properly relied Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege to redact certain titles of Office of Legal Counsel opinions and the names of corresponding agency clients from lists of OLC opinions covering 21 years.
Grand Marina Inv'rs v. IRS (D.D.C.) — ruling that plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to multiple requests, but allowing a portion of one request to proceed because the IRS discretionarily accepted and fully processed an administrative appeal of an interim response.
Deryck v. DOD (D.D.C.) — finding, in most relevant part, that the Department of the Navy performed a reasonable search for records concerning the revocation of plaintiff’s security clearance.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. ICE (N.D. Cal.) — concluding that electronic law library materials provided to ICE detainees were controlled by a private company, not ICE, and therefore were not agency records subject to FOIA.
Conley v. ICE (E.D. Tenn.) — determining that ICE performed an adequate search for records related to certain agreements between ICE and the Knox County Sheriff's Office, and that ICE’s processing delays and failure to adjudicate plaintiff’s request for expedition did not entitle plaintiff to any relief.
Brown v. USCIS (D.D.C.) — deciding not to dismiss plaintiff’s claim even though plaintiff filed his suit prematurely, because plaintiff subsequently amended the complaint after agency missed its response deadline; discounting government’s “slippery slope” concern that future litigants would intentionally sue in the same manner.
Sept. 18, 2024
Bierly v. DOD (D.D.C.) — concluding, in relevant part, that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to three of six requests to the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency concerning the loss of his security clearance; (2) agency performed an adequate search and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Bank Secrecy Act), 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(E).
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) — finding that plaintiff was entitled to and eligible for attorney’s fees for only one of its multiple requests, and reducing plaintiff’s proposed award to account for plaintiff’s unsuccessful work, lack of billing judgment, and excessive time spent on its fee motion.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. Wolf (D.D.C.) — ruling that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because its litigation was the “most natural explanation for the sudden movement” on plaintiff’s FOIA requests; (2) plaintiff was also entitled to attorney’s fees, notwithstanding the government’s seemingly valid argument that plaintiff was “a front for the collection of attorney’s fees”; and (3) no award was warranted, however, because plaintiff’s time records were “vague, inadequately descriptive, or made in error,” the request was “grossly out of line with requests in similar cases, reflecting an extraordinary lack of billing judgment,” and plaintiff has been “admonished repeatedly” for engaging in the “same unreasonable and improper billing practices.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.
