Court opinions

2024

Dates of decisions below. Please contact us if any of the links are broken. For additional sources of FOIA case law, see "Federal court cases" in Useful Links.

Apr. 23, 2024

Juul Labs v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning agency’s denial of market approval for plaintiff’s e-cigarette products, concluding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold certain review memos drafted by agency scientists, as well as one “Technical Project Lead” review memo, but ordering FDA to review records submitted in camera that appeared to contain “purely descriptive” material; and (2) FDA established that disclosure would cause foreseeable harm by confusing the public and chilling agency deliberations.

Apr. 19, 2024

Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that the Office of Legal Counsel’s “formal, written opinions resolving interagency disputes” are subject to FOIA’s reading room provision, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(A) because such opinions are “final opinions . . . made in the adjudications of cases.” In reaching its decision, the court rejected the government’s argument that because OLC opinions may not resolve questions of agency policy, they were not “final” opinions for purposes of section 552(a)(2)(A).

Apr. 10, 2024

Malone v. USPTO (E.D. Va.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff could not in litigation expand scope of his original request, which sought certain information about patent cases in which expanded panels were used or in which panels were advised by agency personnel to change their decisions; (2) plaintiff’s request would impermissibly require the agency to conduct research and create new records; and (3) agency was required to process one document concerning expanded panels that was partially responsive to plaintiff’s request.

Col. Wild Pub. Lands v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case as moot, except with respect to matters relating to attorney’s fees and costs, because agency complied with court’s earlier decision to release certain records to plaintiff; refusing to consider plaintiff’s belated argument that agency has a “systemic policy of delaying the release of records”; and rejecting plaintiff’s various protests about how agency released records, remarking that “[b]y continuing to litigate, it seems [plaintiff] is having a hard time accepting ‘yes’ for an answer.”

April 4, 2024

Abissi. v. USCIS (D. Md.) -- granting government’s motion to transfer case involving asylum records to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia because only two of seven plaintiffs reside in Maryland and the responsive records are maintained in Missouri; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that venue could be established in Maryland based on the Maryland location of the agency’s Asylum Division headquarters.

Mar. 31, 2024

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from the D.C. Circuit, holding that: (1) the names of federal contractors who supplied the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) with pentobarbital qualified as commercial information under Exemption 4 because disclosure would reveal that “the contractors have sold a product and/or service to the government, thereby ‘actually reveal[ing] basic commercial operations” of the contractors.’”; (2) BOP established that the disputed contract terms were confidential under Exemption 4 by “showing how the contract terms at issue could be cross-referenced with public information to identify the contractors”; (3).BOP established that foreseeable harm would result from disclosure of the contractors’ names and contract terms by explaining that identified companies are “‘commonly subject to harassment, threats, and negative publicity leading to commercial decline’”; and (4) certain records needed to be reviewed in camera review to resolve whether DOJ had publicly shared withheld information.

Mar. 29, 2024

McKathan v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) plaintiff’s request to DHS for all records mentioning his “name, address, phone number, the investigation number listed in a seizure custody receipt, or subscriber or identifying information about U.S.-based users of ‘imgsrc.ru’” was not reasonably described, and plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (2) State Department conducted an adequate search in response to plaintiff’s similarly broad request; and (3) denying plaintiff’s request for discovery from DHS and the State Department; denying his request for Vaughn indices from DOJ and EOSUA, which were still processing plaintiff’s requests; and denying an expedited summary judgment schedule.

Mar. 28, 2024

Clay v. Dep’t of the Navy (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case as moot after determining that agency had released all previously withheld records disputed by plaintiff.

Staszak v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his requests to EOUSA and FBI pertaining to his son’s criminal conviction, noting that plaintiff obtained his son’s express written consent for those agencies to search for and process responsive records only after filing suit.

Mar. 27, 2024

Groenendal v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that (1) EOUSA and ICE performed adequate searches for various records pertaining to plaintiff’s imprisonment on child pornography-related charges; and (2) EOUSA properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 7(C), and 7(E), and met any applicable foreseeable harm requirement.

Mar. 26, 2024

James Madison Project v. Office of the Dir. of Nat'l Intelligence (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that the government properly redacted a report containing ODNI’s intelligence assessment regarding the source of Havana Syndrome” pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E); stating further that the government “would easily satisfy” the foreseeable harm requirement if plaintiffs had contested it, noting that reasonable foreseeable harm “is always present when the Government properly invokes exemption 1, because significant harm from disclosure is a requirement for classification in the first place.”

Mar. 25, 2024

Zaid v. DOJ (4th Cir. ) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(A) to withhold records concerning the criminal investigation of plaintiff’s client, who was charged with production and possession of child pornography; remarking that “to hold against the government in this case would set the burden so high as to risk writing the exemption out of the statute.”

Mar. 22, 2024

Hettena v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency’s Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to redact information from its report concerning the death of Manadel al-Jamadian, an Iraqi national who was detained for carrying out an October 27, 2003, terrorist attack on Red Cross offices in Baghdad.

Phillips v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that U.S, Customs and Border Protection properly withheld two videos of detainees pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C) and that it could not reasonably segregate and release non-exempt portions; noting that even if a video “that blurred the individuals’ faces and muted the audio might still convey the detainees’ emotional state, it is unclear that that information would be responsive to the FOIA request—and in any event, that marginal information would be substantially outweighed by the excessive costs of redaction.”

Mar. 21, 2024

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withhold handwritten notes taken by two Assistant U.S. Attorneys during meetings regarding the potential criminal activity of Paul Manafort, as well an email exchanged by the same attorneys on the same subject.

Mar. 19. 2024

Def. of Freedom Inst. for Policy Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case on grounds of improper venue after finding that plaintiff did not reside in the Middle District of Florida, but rather was incorporated in Virginia and had its principal place of business in Washington, D.C.; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that venue was proper because plaintiff had “substantial contact” with the district and was registered to do business in Florida.

Castillo v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (N.D. Cal.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs because even if he were eligible, which the court doubted, plaintiff did not meet the entitlement prong because his interest in obtaining agency records “relevant to a tort claim he is considering filing does not implicate any significant public interests . . . .”

Project on Gov't Oversight, Inc. v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel (D.D.C.) -- determining that OSC properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names and identifying information of three Trump administration officials who were investigated for Hatch Act violations, but not the subject of any further law enforcement action.

Mar. 14, 2024

NY Times v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold factual material that was "inextricably intertwined" with independent monitor’s subjective analysis; and (2) agency’s declarations described with "reasonably specific detail" how disclosure would result in harm to its deliberative processes, namely, “its ability to ensure candor between the agency and an independent monitor, so that DOJ can enter and effectively enforce plea agreements with companies like VW.”

Ctr. for Inquiry v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FDA did not perform adequate search for communications between certain employees and the Homeopathic Convention of the United States (HPCU); and (2) FDA properly found that entire copies of draft HPUS monographs were “commercial” under Exemption 4 because they are “the very product from which HPCU derives most of its income,” but the agency failed to sufficiently describe remaining withheld material to permit evaluation of its “commercial” nature and it failed to establish that any records were confidential.

Mar. 13, 2024

Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency conducted adequate search for records, noting that agency reasonably defined a “record” as a single text message (as opposed to “threads”) given plaintiff’s request for specific text messages containing certain terms; (2) FERC properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but failed to show foreseeable harm for all but one withholding; and (3) FERC properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold name of a prospective agency employee and all cellphone numbers (and that the foreseeable harm test was met), but it improperly withheld the names of two employees.

Mar. 12, 2024

Project South v. USCIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- regarding disputed responses from ICE, DHS, and State Department to requests about the removals of Cameroonian and other African migrants in 2020 and early 2021, finding that: (1) State established that it conducted an adequate search, but not that it properly withheld draft talking points pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; (2)(a) ICE did not perform an adequate search for records; (b) ICE did not show that Exemption 3, in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1367(a)(2), applied to detainees' travel documents and immigration proceedings, but such information was properly withheld pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (c) ICE properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold internal discussions about logistics for removal flights; (d) ICE properly withheld an intelligence report, information on removal operations, and negotiations with a foreign government under Exemption 7(E); and (3) DHS failed to prove as a matter of law that they conducted an adequate search

Mar. 11, 2024

Delgado v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim against DOJ and ATF because he never submitted a request to either of them, and determining that USDA performed an adequate search for records concerning ATF’s contributions to plaintiff’s pension (and finding no records).

Mar. 10, 2024

Wash. Lawyers' Comm. For civil Rights & Urban Affairs v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff was not required to exhaust administrative remedies to maintain a pattern-or-practice claim alleging delays in responses by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to counsel requests for client records; (2) government was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s pattern-or-practice claim because plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence that it did not have a policy or practice of violating FOIA; and (3) in the interest f judicial economy, plaintiff’s 39 individual FOIA requests would severed (with one exception), requiring plaintiff to refile them as separate actions.

Mar. 8, 2024

Maritime Documentation Ctr. Corp. v. U.S. Coast Guard (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision granting summary judgment to agency with respect to its Exemption 6 redactions of personally identifiable information of owners of Coast Guard-registered vessels.

Stevens v. Broad. Bd. of Governors (N.D. Ill.) -- denying plaintiff an award of attorney’s fees because: (1) the court’s supervision of agencies’ search, review, and production of responsive documents occurred while plaintiff was pro se; and (2) documents produced after plaintiff’s attorney filed an appearance were not produced pursuant to court order, all but two of 12 agencies produced all of their records before the attorney’s appearance, and plaintiff’s appearance did not prompt production of records from those two agencies.

Jordan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the names of agency agents involved in plaintiff’s criminal investigation.

Mar. 7, 2024

WP Co. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA failed to adequately explain how it searched for 56 “CIA Histories,” and it failed to perform a promised supplemental search; (2) CIA properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 1, but did not establish “how the apparently innocuous information that [plaintiff] has identified could cause the harms that the CIA asserts; (3) CIA failed to show how release of information withheld under Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act could harm national security; (4) CIA properly withheld information pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the CIA Act, as well as identifying information of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.

Mar. 6, 2024

United for FBI Integrity v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) DOJ improperly issued Exemption 6 and 7(C) Glomar responses as to the existence of records that concern former FBI employee’s role in the loss of plaintiff’s security clearance and any records about allegations that the SAC violated plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (2) DOJ properly issued Exemption 6 and 7(C) Glomar responses as to the existence of various records concerning sexual misconduct allegedly committed by the same former FBI employee.

Scarlett v. OIG (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, deciding that National Science Foundation’s Office of Inspector General reasonably described its search for records pertaining to plaintiff or her company.

Mar, 1, 2024

Leopold v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision because neither the agency nor the lower court fully addressed whether the disclosure of information withheld from an independent monitor’s report under Exemption 8 met the statute’s foreseeable harm test.

Tobias v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold internal agency communications concerning how to respond to arguments in a permit applicant’s white paper, and that the agency adequately demonstrated foreseeable harm.

Feb. 29, 2024

US Right to Know v. Nat'l Nuclear Sec. Admin. (D.N.M.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to the origin of COVID-19 and/or SARS-CoV-2.

Feb. 27, 2024

Nat’l Assoc. of Minority Veterans v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review, ruling that: (1) agency did not forfeit right to invoke exemptions on renewed summary judgment, because the only issue argued on initial briefing was adequacy of the agency’s search (which located no records); (2) “most—but not all—of the information redacted by the VA could create “a reasonably expected risk” of circumvention of the law if released,” thus warranting agency’s Exemption 7(E) claims; (3) agency’s survey questions and responses fell within the deliberative process privilege, but agency’s general contentions that disclosure would ”stifle” communications and cause “public confusion” failed to meet the foreseeable harm test.

Feb. 21, 2024

AMA Sys. v. FDA (D. Md.) -- concluding that: (1) with exception of one email authored by FDA, agency properly invoked Exemption 4 to withhold its file concerning company’s unsuccessful application to produce single-use surgical masks as personal protective equipment during COVID pandemic; (2) agency was not required to meet foreseeable harm test because all information protected under Exemption 4 was barred from disclosure under the Trade Secrets Act.

Feb. 20, 2024

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing remaining portion of plaintiff’s case after holding that plaintiff’s request for “all records concerning” a DHS research unit was “too amorphous to constitute a valid FOIA request.”

McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that ATF properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold portion of a tape recording made by one of the 100 victims of a Rhode Island nightclub fire in 2003; crediting ATF declaration that faint human voices could be heard on the recording and that surviving family of the deceased had privacy interests even if voices could not be attributed to specific victims; further, rejecting plaintiff’s asserted public interest as nothing more “than having the information for its own sake,” similar to case involving the recording of the last minutes of NASA’s Challenger shuttle.

Feb. 16, 2024

Insider, Inc. v.. GSA (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that GSA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold the names of several low-level members of President Trump’s and Vice President Pence’s outgoing transition teams; reasoning that such individuals were not government employees, disclosure would not shed light on GSA activities, and the mere possibility that such individuals might be aware of government conduct was too speculative to qualify as a public interest.

US Inventor, Inc. v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Patent & Trade office performed reasonable searches for various records concerning a vacant Director’s position.

Geddis v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff failed to rebut evidence that agency never received his request, which was indisputably sent but misaddressed.

Protect the Public’s Trust v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees because IRS thrice refused to search for requested records and it changed its position only after plaintiff filed suit and the court ordered the filing of a dispositive motion; rejecting agency’s argument that a plaintiff cannot substantially prevail without obtaining responsive records, and (2) plaintiff was entitled to fees and its requested fee amount was reasonable, especially given the “interesting legal questions” raised by the request for fees.

Feb. 14, 2024

Sherven v. Nat’l Reconnaissance Office (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s summary judgment motion after finding that NRO performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff, including records of any use of spy satellites against him.

Feb. 13, 2024

Am. for Prosperity Found. v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) all of D.C. Circuit’s requirements for relying on an ex parte declaration had been met; and (2) agency sufficiently demonstrated that three-decades old information protected by the attorney-client privileged met the foreseeable harm test.

Anthony v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) BOP properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning correctional officer’s misconduct; and (2) BOP properly redacted the names of employees from plaintiff’s administrative complaints pursuant to Exemption 6.

Black Hills Clean Water All. v. United States Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- in consolidated cases involving motions for attorney’s fees, ruling that: (1) plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees in first case, which the agency did not contest; and (2) plaintiff’s lawsuit was unnecessary to obtain requested records in second case, and thus plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees.

Feb. 12, 2024

Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) FERC conducted an adequate search for calendars of two Commissioners; (2) with respect to FERC’s deliberative process privilege claims, the agency “failed to provide any details or explanation as to why each (or any) of the policy proposals, internal meetings, and external meetings redacted from the calendar concern predecisional material or what sort of “definable decision-making process” the agency aims to protect”; and (3) FERC properly withheld some records pursuant to Exemption 6, but it did not justify withholding the names of “lower-level staff” on a categorical basis.

Feb. 7, 2024

Bahrampour v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (D. Md.) -- ruling that: (1) NSA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny whether it maintained intelligence records about plaintiff; and (2) plaintiff failed to reasonably describe his request for 50 year’s worth of five categories of records unrelated to agency’s work, such as electromagnetic radiation and microwave pulses.

Feb. 5, 2024

Frost Brown Todd LLC v. Ctr. for Medicare & Medicaid Serv. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) of six requests, only the portion of one request reasonably described the records sought, resulting in dismissal of all claims based on the deficient requests; rejecting plaintiff’s arguments that two agency regulations precluded dismissal; and (2) plaintiff’s allegation that CMS had a pattern or practice of unreasonably delaying the release of non-exempt documents was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Jan. 29, 2024

Wilson v. FBI (2nd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision denying plaintiff attorney’s fees after finding no “abuse of discretion” in lower court’s analysis of relevant “entitlement” factors; noting that although plaintiff was “eligible” for fees because district court had ordered FBI to conduct an additional search for records concerning plaintiff, FBI’s original decision not to search a particular database was reasonable given that no responsive records were located.

Schubert v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- (1) denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint, because plaintiff impermissibly sought to expand the time scope of his request from nine months to 10 years; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny records showing who accessed plaintiff’s criminal history; (3) FBI’s search for first-party records was not required by the request, but nevertheless finding that FBI’s voluntary search was adequate; and (4) Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search despite also finding no records.

N.Y. Times v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- following in camera review of report about “Havana Syndrome,” deciding that: (1) FBI properly redacted information concerning third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C); and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to redact certain portions of report, but it could not withhold the report in full using that exemption because one law enforcement technique was known to the public and the report’s introduction and conclusion did not reveal any techniques, procedures, or guidelines at all.

Jan. 25, 2024

Hensley v. DOJ (E.D. Ark.) -- concluding that FBI performed reasonable search for an alleged recording or transcript of agency’s interview of plaintiff prior to his indictment.

Jan. 22, 2024

Phillips v. U.S. Bureau of the Census (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs after finding that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for fees and costs because he obtained partial relief from a judicial order, specifically an agency file comparable to the file he requested by a date certain; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to fees and costs because the agency was preparing to release records well in advance of plaintiff’s request and lawsuit, and because it reasonably denied plaintiff’s request.

Jan. 19, 2024

Bonner v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- (1) denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of court’s decision upholding FBI’s Exemption 3 claims regarding records related to Abu Zubaydah’s detention; (2) CIA properly invoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act to protect information, in whole or in part, within 711 redactions made by the FBI pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (3) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6, 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold certain information not claimed by the CIA to fall under Exemption 3.

Hernandez, Jr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment to government after finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed adequate search, plaintiff received all materials responsive to his request (notwithstanding initial miscounting of pages), and plaintiff did not challenge EOUSA’s redactions.

Jan. 18, 2024

Buzzfeed v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s partial motion for reconsideration after concluding that plaintiff had failed to brief—and thus waived its right to dispute—the issue of whether Exemption 4 protects the identities of contractors that supply lethal injection drugs to the government; noting that plaintiff’s reply brief expressly stated that the only Exemption 4 issue concerned the withholding of other information; further rejecting plaintiff’s argument that a change in controlling law allowed plaintiff to revive the issue.

Gun Owners of America v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold aerial-surveillance video of civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin in August 2020, and that no foreseeable harm analysis was necessary because agency had met Exemption 7(E)’s circumvention of law requirement.

Jan. 16, 2024

Bloomberg v. FTC (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FTC properly withheld all but three portions of its preconsummation warning letters pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 18a(h), specifically the identities of business filers that were already in the public domain, the dates of the warning letter; and boilerplate language; and (2) agency failed to show that Exemption 7(A) protected any of the three portions of the letters set forth above.

Jan. 12, 2024

Children’s Health Def. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- granting six-month Open America stay (with possibility of extension ) in case concerning records of safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines, because agency faced “exceptional circumstances” from an “extraordinary production obligation” imposed by a Texas federal court—specifically 75,000 pages per month in January 2024 and 180,000 pages per month thereafter in response to a FOIA request related to Moderna’s adult COVID-19 vaccine.

Jan. 9, 2024

Cato v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff was entitiled to relief from court’s judgment because of “newly discovered evidence” concerning the adequacy of FBI’s search, namely an FBI declaration filed in a 2018 case that contradicted the FBI’s position in the instant case regarding the agency’s Central Records System; reasoning, in part, that the public availability of FBI’s 2018 declaration on PACER was not fatal to plaintiff’s motion, because the declaration was not discoverable by a reasonably diligent search.

Jan. 8, 2024

Kayll v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that U.S. Customs & Border Protection did not possess or control records in a State Department database relating to visa applications, even though CBP inputted information into that database about plaintiff; in reaching its decision, the court noted its concern that a contrary ruling would allow requester to circumvent the confidentiality provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f).

Jan. 5, 2024

Freedom Coal. of Doctors for Choice v. CDC (N.D. Tex.) -- determining that plaintiff’s request for 7.8 million free-text responses to agency’s COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring system would not be unreasonably burdensome for agency to process, because: (1) the volume of the responsive texts would yield between as little as 83 thousand pages and at most 650 thousand pages; (2) CDC conceded that 93 percent of the responses would require no redaction at all; and (3) any necessary redactions of personal identifying information pursuant to Exemption 6 would be “simple” and “capable of automated assistance.”

Project for Privacy & Surveillance Accountability. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) agencies were permitted to issue Glomar responses before conducting searches for requested records of the intelligence community’s acquisition and use of commercially available information pertaining to named Congressmen and former Congressmen; (2) agencies properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of “operational documents,” but were required to conduct a search for “policy documents.”

Jan. 2, 2024

Checksfield v. IRS (N.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that agency properly invoked Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103, in response to plaintiff’s request for personal and business tax returns of third party.

Curry v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI’s supplemental briefing adequately justified the agency’s withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Bank Secrecy Act), 7(A), and 7(E), which pro se plaintiff did not oppose.