Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- deciding that Commerce and U.S. Office of Government Ethics submitted deficient Vaughn indices and failed to demonstrate that they released all segregable, non-exempt information -- in particular the authors, recipients, dates, and subject fields of emails, letters, and memoranda, which government claimed had no informational value.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
BuzzFeed v. U.S. Dep't of Educ. (D.D.C.) -- ordering agency to reprocess records pertaining to sexual harassment investigations after finding that agency applied Exemptions 6 and 7(C) too broadly.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DEA properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold two categories of records concerning the Hemisphere Project, a program that collects daily data on telephone calls.
Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- determining that: (1) DOJ failed to perform adequate search for records pertaining to government’s investigation into its prosecution of arson case; (2) DOJ failed to submit adequate Vaughn Index; and (3) privacy waivers of third parties submitted by plaintiff would override DOJ’s assertions of Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Open Soc'y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying government’s motion to reconsider court’s order that Department of State and Department of Defense each process 5000 pages per month in case concerning death of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Bartko v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on remand from D.C. Circuit, determining that: (1) FBI needed to provide more detailed showing in order to rely solely upon Exemption 7(C) to withhold material sought by grand jury; (2) Office of Professional Responsibility properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6; and (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), as court had ruled in earlier opinion.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Flores v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to speeches given by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and that disputed withholdings pursuant to Exemption 6 were proper.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Gatson v. FBI (3rd Cir.) (not precedential) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBO properly withhold records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case pursuant to Exemption (7)(A) or, in the alternative, Exemptions 3, 5. 6, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(F).
Buckovetz v. Dep't of Navy (S.D. Cal.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims that: (1) agency has improper policy and practice of closing duplicative requests from same requester as moot; and (2) agency failed to provide all records in response to a duplicative request.
Inst. for Policy Studies v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency improperly construed definition of a “record” and ordering agency to process entire six-page intelligence report even though the subject of request was mentioned in only one portion of report.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Sauter v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that U.S. Air Force, and CIA performed adequate searches for records concerning Korean War pilot, shot down in 1951, and that Defense Intelligence Agency properly determined that any responsive records would be maintained by Department of Defense’s POW/MIA Accounting Agency.
Am. Oversight v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Office of Information Policy performed adequate search for records concerning U.S. Attorney John Huber’s investigation into claims of FBI misconduct and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery notwithstanding DOJ’s initial mistakes in earlier declaration.
James Madison Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that government had not justified its reliance on Exemptions 1, 3, 7(D), and 7(E) to redact FISA applications concerning Carter page in light of White House press release stating that President had directed government to declassify those records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that GSA failed to perform adequate search for communications between agency and White House concerning renovation of FBI headquarters..
Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights v. DHS (D.D.C. 2019) -- ordering government to: (1) release location-identifying data in all produced records concerning Secure Communities program, (2) re-produce an earlier production in native format, and (3) release two Identifier codes in all produced records, which court found did not fall within Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Mora-Villalpando v. ICE (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) ICE performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, an undocumented immigrant and anti-ICE activist; (2) ICE failed to perform reasonable search for certain records concerning ICE enforcement operations against other immigration activists; and (3) plaintiff’s request for I-213 forms of other immigrations activists was not reasonably described in light of agency’s record system.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that statute’s “foreseeable harm” standard “does impose an independent and meaningful burden on agencies” and rejecting “generic, across-the-board articulations of harm provided by the EPA as to a broad range of document types -- that "[r]elease of the withheld information would discourage open and frank discussion" and "have a chilling effect on the Agency's decision-making processes," -- does not sufficiently "explain how a particular Exemption 5 withholding would harm the agency's deliberative process."
Braun v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI and CIA performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and his father; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny whether plaintiff’s name appeared on any watch lists; and (3) CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of responsive classified records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.