Knight First Amendment Inst. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the the Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of certain records concerning the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, notwithstanding State Department’s public statement about the matter.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Bell v. ATF (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to four murder victims and that it properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withheld certain information pertaining to living third parties.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Flippin v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- dismissing action against U.S. Capitol Police because it is not an agency subject to FOIA, and dismissing action against DOI because plaintiff filed his suit on the same day he submitted his request, thus failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly withheld certain records concerning related to border fence/border wall contract proposals pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not contest; (2) agency failed to establish that Exemption 5 applied to withheld records or that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was met; and (3) agency failed to demonstrate that information withheld under Exemption 4 was customarily treated as confidential by particular submitters, provided under assurance of confidentiality, or met statute’s foreseeable harm standard.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shapiro v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision after finding that FBI failed to satisfactorily explain: (a) why files listed on search slip were not responsive to plaintiff’s request, or (b) how it confirmed that listed files had been destroyed.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Freeman v. Exec. Office of US Attorneys (D. Colo.) -- concluding that EOUSA properly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Rule 6(e) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to withhold transcript of plaintiff’s cross examination before grand jury; noting that federal rule permitting witnesses the right to “review” their grand jury testimony is inapplicable to FOIA claims.
Pavement Coatings Tech. Council v. U.S. Geological Survey (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold various scientific research pertaining to coal tar sealants, and that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identifying information about volunteers participating in agency’s study.
Tokar v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- (1) declining to order briefing on plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs following DOJ’s mid-litigation decision to release emails previously withheld as “non-responsive”; (2) ruling that DOJ failed to establish that it properly invoked Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold names of individual clients of corporate compliance monitors.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Eakin v. DOD (W.D. Tex.) -- finding that: (1) Department of Defense properly declined to produce as “non-responsive” copies of FOIA requests embedded within thousands of Individual Deceased Personnel files of World War II soldiers; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold information about individuals who are alive; (3) court lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure of digital records that did not exist at time plaintiff submitted his request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pendell v. U.S. Secret Serv. (N.D.N.Y.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal conviction and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Inter-Coop. Exch. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (D. Alaska) -- ruling that: (1) government performed reasonable search for records concerning proposed crab price arbitration system standards, which included search of official’s social media and personal cell phone for texts and voicemail; (2) government properly redacted information from emails pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.
Smith v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't. (D. Colo.) -- permanently enjoining ICE from applying its standard operating procedure for denying FOIA requests of fugitive aliens, rejecting agency’s argument that such withholdings are justified by Exemption 7(A).
Blixseth v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Coast Guard’s search for records concerning the interception of his yacht in 2010 was “impressive in its comprehensiveness” and that the agency “should be commended for . . . diligent efforts.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Investigating Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that Department of Labor improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold federal contractors' employment diversity reports (known as EEO-1 reports) because: (1) records did not meet threshold of “commercial or financial” information; (2) agency did not carry burden to show that all withheld records were confidential, as certain information was in public domain; and (3) agency did not demonstrate that statute’s foreseeable harm standard was satisfied.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Williams v. DOJ (D. Utah) -- concluding that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility properly withheld in full certain documents concerning plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim pursuant to deliberative process privilege, but other documents included segregable non-exempt information; (2) OPR properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of “unnoteworthy individual witnesses, low-level governmental employees, and other obscure individuals,” but improperly withheld in full all “outlines, notes, and transcripts related to those individuals”; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records about third parties who were subjects of criminal investigation and ultimately not prosecuted; (4) dismissing as moot plaintiff’s request for Criminal Division’s records about Thomas Pickard because plaintiff did not dispute adequacy of agency’s search, which yielded no records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Khine v, DHS (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision to dismiss suit because plaintiff failed to file an administrative appeal with DHS before filing its lawsuit.
Climate Investigation Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency’s search for records concerning a clean-coal technology power plant should have included the Office of the Secretary; and (2) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold seven documents, but it neglected to perform segregability review.
DocuFreedom Inc. v. DOJ (D. Kan.) -- determining after in camera review that: (1) DOJ properly relied on attorney work-product privilege to withhold agency briefing papers, practice guides, training manuals, and commentaries on a variety of litigation issues'; and (2) DOJ properly withheld names and telephone numbers of Civil Division employees pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.