Withey v. FBI (W.D. Wash.) -- denying plaintiff’s discovery requests after finding that FBI’s declarations were sufficient for court to determine whether agency conducted an adequate search and properly withheld information concerning the murders of labor activists Gene Viernes and Silme Domingo.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Jordan v. DOL (8th Cir.) (per curiam) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision to dismiss some of plaintiff’s claims as duplicative of pending litigation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Aguirre v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n (S.D. Cal.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for one request because he failed to pay advanced fee, inform agency that he believed he was not required to pay that fee, or request a fee waiver; (2) for second request, plaintiff ignored agency’s request for clarification about scope of request and thus failed to “perfect” request before filing suit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Leopold v. Office of Dir. of Nat’l Intelligence (D.D.C.) -- ruling that ODNI, CIA, and State properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, including agency discussions about making public statements on same subject.
Vizcarra Calderon & Castenda Sanchez v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- holding that Department of State properly withheld records concerning plaintiffs’ visa denials pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with section 222(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Aguirre v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n (S.D. Cal.) -- finding that plaintiff filed lawsuit before expiration of agency’s 20-day response deadline and that plaintiff’s arguments as to why court should waive the requirements of exhaustion of administrative remedies were “borderline ridiculous.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Husch Blackwell LLP v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) EPA failed to perform adequate search for communications between agency and two organizations concerning the herbicide gyphosate; (2) EPA properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold talking points prepared for congressional testimony or press inquiries; (3) EPA failed to describe with sufficient particularity how two withheld records qualified for protection under the attorney-client privilege; and (4) EPA properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee’s email of a purely personal nature with an acquaintance of family member , including that individual’s email address.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Almeda v. U.S. Dep’t of Education (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Department of Veterans Affairs properly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold emails (including names of email authors) discussing inter-agency working group focused on Filipino veterans of World War II; and (2) plaintiff failed to support his allegation that Department of Education did not process attachments to responsive emails.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Gunter v. U.S. Secret Serv. (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff, who sought records concerning himself, failed to administratively appeal the agency’s Exemption 7(A) denial before filing his lawsuit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ (D.D.C) — determining that: (1) plaintiff was not required to file administrative appeal before filing lawsuit contesting agency’s denial of plaintiff’s expedition request; and (2) DOJ’s one-sentence assertion that plaintiff expedition request did not meet regulatory standard was entitled to “little deference” and “did not stand up to judicial review.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Allen v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons: (1) properly refused to release plaintiff-inmate’s pre-sentence investigative report, but that she could review it and take notes; (2) properly withheld information from disciplinary reports pertaining to another inmate, Special Investigative Supervisors (SIS) Report, and from SIS Manual under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F); (3) properly withheld Program Statement 1380.09 in full under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F); and (4) properly withheld plaintiff’s Security Threat Group and Security Threat Profile from Counter Terrorism Unit memo under Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shaerr v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) FBI, NSA, CIA , State Department, DOJ, ODNI properly issued Glomar responses pursuant to Exemptions 1 and/or 3 for requests seeking records of “unmasking” and “upstreaming“ of twenty-one named individuals; (2) FBI, NSA, and DOJ failed to perform adequate searches for policies, procedures, and reports concerning unmasking, but State, ODNI, and CIA performed adequate searches.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.