Roberson v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit after finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s final determinations on his three requests.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kanam v. Office of Benton Peterson (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit because he sent FOIA request to an Assistant United States Attorney instead of to the FOIA office that maintains the records or to DOJ’s mail referral unit, as required by DOJ regulations.
Leopold v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA improperly refused to confirm or deny—pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3—the existence of records referring to payments (in general, not by CIA specifically) to Syrian rebels fighting Assad, because tweet from President Trump officially acknowledged that “U.S. government had some knowledge of some payments to Syrian rebels.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hardimon v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (E.D. Mo.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for plea agreements associated with multiple criminal cases.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Singh v. FAA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- affirming district’s court decision that FAA properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for flight records over specified street address and surrounding neighborhoods and that agency performed reasonable search.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Inst. for Justice v. IRS (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency performed reasonable search or properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records contained in “Asset ForfeitureTracking and Retrieval System”; (2) reversing district court’s decision that agency properly redacted information pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and that plaintiff failed to challenge any of agency’s Exemption 7(F) withholdings; and (3) affirming district court’s decision that agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Bloche v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- in dispute over records concerning involvement of medical professionals in interrogation programs, finding that: (1) Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense properly withheld four documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, but failed to show that privilege applied to fifth document generated in part by non-government entity; (2) U.S. Navy properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E); (3) U.S. Army properly withheld all but six documents pursuant to deliberative process privilege and properly relied on attorney-client privilege to withhold two documents, but it failed to justify most withholdings that were based on various combinations of Exemption 5 privileges and failed to establish that it released all segregable, non-exempt records; (4) U.S. Special Operation Command failed to show that comments by former prisoner of war on were protected by deliberative process privilege; (5) Defense Intelligence Agency failed to explain how Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 justified withholding document in full; (6) U.S. Central Command properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 1; and (7) Joint Task Force Guantanamo failed to justify its withholdings under Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
DBW Partners v.. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) USPS improperly issued Exemption 6 Glomar response to request for ethics investigatory records of agency’s Chief Customer and Marketing Officer; and (2) Office of Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Postal Reorganization Act to redact report concerning agency’s partnership programs, but if failed to demonstrate that it released all segregable non-exempt information.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here
Rojas v. FAA (9th Cir.) -- (1) affirming district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 2 to withhold minimum passing score for assessment test used to hire air traffic controllers; plaintiff’s assessment score; and applicant information for a particular air traffic controller opening; (2) affirming in part and reversing in part district court’s decision that FAA properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact personal email addresses of FAA employees from emails sent or received by FAA employee suspected of misconduct; (3) vacating and remanding district court’s ruling that certain emails sent or received by FAA employee were not agency records; declining to fully embrace D.C. Circuit’s four-factor test to determine whether agency “controls” records and holding that a court may consider “a range of evidence.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here
Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s motion to transfer case challenging EPA’s FOIA regulations to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here
Heffernan v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) HHS performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to 2007 review of agency’s Department of Spiritual Ministry, and (2) HHS properly withheld draft press release exchanged with third party pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, in conjunction with the consultant corollary doctrine. The court’s initial opinion is here.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.