Court opinions issued Jan. 27, 2020

Pichardo-Martinez v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency’s declaration failed to provide sufficient facts to allow court to determine that an adequate search had been conducted.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOD (S.D.N.Y) -- ruling that Defense and/or State Departments properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold five of six categories of records pertaining to U.S. military raid in Yemen, but requiring in camera review of certain military orders to determine whether any information contained therein had already been officially acknowledged by the government.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 24, 2020

McDonald v. Barr (2nd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that the Department of Justice conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s alleged reinstatement to his job with the U.S. Postal Service, whom plaintiff had previously sued for employment discrimination.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 23, 2020

Smith v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Personnel Management failed to perform adequate search for names and titles or occupations of employees of Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, and that OPM raised exhaustion argument too late for court to consider it; (2) Treasury properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the names of non-senior Treasury employees who perform law enforcement functions, as well as the cell phone numbers of all Treasury employees; (3) Treasury improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold office telephone numbers of FinCEN employees, as well as telephone numbers of Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence employees; and (4) Treasury properly invoked exemption 1 to withhold names, titles, and phone numbers of non-leadership Office of Intelligence and Analysis employees.

Baldwin v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff, a former DOE employee; and (2) agency properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemption 5 (deliberative process and attorney-client privileges), as well as cell phone numbers and conference call phone number pursuant to Exemption 6.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 22, 2020

Grey v. Cuccineli (D.S.C.) -- denying without prejudice plaintiff’s motion to compel production of Vaughn Index after concluding that it would be more appropriate to wait until after summary judgment briefing to determine necessity of the index.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued January 17, 2020

Grand Canyon Trust v. Bernhardt (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that requester was ineligible for attorney’s fees because its lawsuit did not cause a voluntary or unilateral change in agency’s position; further ruling that the proper standard of review for causation was “clear error,” not de novo. In a concurring opinion, Judge Randolph stated that FOIA’s 2007 amendment did not restore the “catalyst theory” because the amended provision “requires only correlation not causation.”

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 16, 2020

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. FDA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- in light of U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Food Market Inst. v. Argus Leader, vacating and remanding district court’s decision that FDA improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold four categories of inspection report information concerning egg production facilities.

Ullah v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that CIA properly invoked Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold records about the disposition of detainee’s body after he died in agency’s overseas detention facility.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 15, 2020

Singh v. U.S. Dep’t of State (W.D. Was.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning denial of visa for plaintiff’s wife, and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Immigration and Nationality Act of the United States.

Niskanen Ctr. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n (D.D.C.) -- concluding that names and addresses of private homeowners affected by pipeline were protected from disclosure under Exemption 6, and accepting government’s offer to release the initials of homeowners and the street addresses (but not house numbers).

James Madison Project v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) CIA properly withheld records pertaining to John Kiriakou pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 (attorney-client, attorney work product, and deliberative process); (2) FBI, EOUSA, and Nat’l Sec. Div. properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1; (3) FBI properly withheld its entire investigative file concerning Mr. Kiriakou pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 14, 2020

Bixseth v. U.S. Immigrations & Customs Enf't (D.D.C.) -- concluding that ICE performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 7(C) and 7(E).

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Jan. 9, 2020

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Bernhardt (W.D. Va.) -- determining that plaintiff set forth sufficient allegations to establish standing to pursue claim that Department of the Interior unlawfully delays FOIA responses, in part, by employing polices and practices associated with an "Awareness Process Memorandum" issued by DOI on May 24, 2018, a "Deliberative Process Memorandum" issued to the Fish and Wildlife Service on September 6, 2018, and a "Foreseeable Harm Memorandum" issued by DOI on December 29, 2017.

Stevens v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't. (N.D. Ill.) -- ruling that: (1) ICE failed to perform adequate search for correspondence pertaining to U.S. citizenship claims; (2) ICE failed to show that it properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to redact “statement of the case" and "facts" sections of U.S. citizenship claims memoranda.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Jan. 8, 2020

Mich. Immigrant Rights Ctr. v DHS (E.D. Mich.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for award of interim fees after finding, among other things, that plaintiff would not suffer financial hardship or be unable to continue litigation, which was nearing its conclusion.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.