FOIA Advisor

Testing

Court opinions issued June 30 & July 1, 2015

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

July 1, 2015

Pacificorp v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (D. Colo.) -- denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees because it had a commercial interest in agency's rulemaking records and did not disseminate them to the public. 

Ctr. for the Study of Servs. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (D.D.C.) -- rejecting government's Exemption 4 claim that disclosure of certain information related to health plans offered pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would likely cause competitive harm or undermine program effectiveness; denying each parties' motion for summary judgment, however, and warning each party to submit "a clearer presentation of the facts underlying the case."

Kalu v. Internal Revenue Serv. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that request to IRS was deficient because requester's attorney failed to sign form; Transportation Security Admin. properly used Glomar response for watch-list records, but failed to conduct adequate search for other records; and FBI's use of Gomar response for watch-list records likely was proper, but agency's motion for summary judgment inexplicably did not address issue. 

June 30, 2015

Debrew v. Atwood (D.C. Cir.) -- remanding in part and affirming in part Bureau of Prison's action on FOIA requests; finding that BOP's search was adequate with respect to requested telephone records, that requester failed to exhaust administrative remedies as to his request for records about a DNA statute, and that agency neglected to adequately describe its search for records about an internal BOP policy.

Summaries of all cases since April 2015 are available here