Court opinions issued Mar. 12, 2020

Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Exemption 7(C) protected docket numbers of terrorism cases that resulted in acquittals or dismissals, but not cases that resulted in convictions.

Pronin v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- determining that BOP performed adequate search for staff lists at three facilities where plaintiff was incarcerated and that agency’s withholdings were justified pursuant to Exemption 6.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 10, 2020

Evans v. BOP (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff did not reasonably describe his request for records pertaining to a screwdriver used in a prison attack against him, and reversing and remanding district court’s decision that agency properly withheld security camera footage in full pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

White Coat Waste Proj. v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemptions 5 and 6 to withhold names of principal investigators who conducted animal research at agency facilities; and (2) agency properly withheld the title of a research protocol pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 3710a, which protects confidential information within cooperative research and development agreements.

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

Court opinion issued Mar. 9, 2020

James v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold the handwritten signatures and initials of an Assistant United States Attorney and other third parties.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 6, 2020

Eddington v. USPS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies because his request seeking government plans to detain individuals in event of war or national emergency was not reasonably clear.

Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- dismissing prisoner-plaintiff’s FOIA claim against FBI because agency averred that it never received the request and plaintiff offered “no evidence beyond his own say-so.”

KXTV v. USCIS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that government properly withheld records concerning extradition of Omar Abdulsattar Ameen pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and (7(E), but not 7(A).

Protect Democracy Pro. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera inspection of memorandum memorializing telephone conversation between President Trump and former NSA Director Admiral Michael Rogers, which NSA asserts is protected in full under the presidential communications privilege.

Bales v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records relating to visas requested by or issued to seven Afghan witnesses who testified at plaintiff’s court martial.

Day v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s imprisonment in Mexico and that it properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C).

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 5, 2020

Okeayainneh v. DOJ (N.D. Tex.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys and the National Personnel Records Center conducted reasonable searches for records about government lawyers associated with plaintiff’s criminal case, and sanctioning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, for filing frivolous complaint.

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ordering in camera review of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report because, in court’s view, Attorney General Barr——and by extension DOJ—lacked credibility about this matter.

Lukas v. FCC (D.D.C.) -- in most relevant part, determining that FCC properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact company’s pricing strategy, negotiating positions, and sales history.

Rosenberg v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- on second renewed summary judgment, finding that: (1) DOD properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold certain emails sent by Marine General John Kelly, except for information DOD publicly acknowledged; and (2) DOD’s justified its use of the deliberative process privilege and met the reasonable foreseeable harm requirement for most, but not all, disputed records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 3, 2020

James Madison Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 1 to withhold records concerning an application made to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding Carter Page, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that a White House press release constituted a declassification order from President Trump.

Wattleton v. Berryhill (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff failed to rebut Social Security Administration’s claim that it never received his undated and unsigned request for records concerning himself, and that his subsequent Privacy Act claim for the same records failed to provide information about himself required by agency policies.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 2, 2020

Immerso v. DOL (E.D.N.Y.) (Mag. J.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion to compel disclosure of email withheld by agency under Exemption 4 because disputed document was pending in camera review by the district court judge.

Karam v. HHS (D. Ariz.) -- adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation to grant government’s summary judgment motion after finding that agency performed reasonable search and justified its use of exemptions, and that plaintiff primarily disputed only the agency’s delay in responding to her request.

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

Court opinion issued Feb. 28, 2020

Protect Our Defs. v. DOD (D.Conn.) -- denying government’s motion for reconsideration of court’s July 12, 2019 decision because supplemental declaration and case law cited by government would not have altered court’s conclusion that government failed to meet its burden with respect to Exemptions 5 & 6.

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

Court opinion issued Feb. 27, 2020

Urban Air Initiative v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiffs were eligible and entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs notwithstanding having some commercial interest in making their request, but reducing award from the $189,288.40 plaintiffs requested to $75,400 because of excessive hourly rates and excessive hours spent on certain aspects of the litigation.

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

Court opinions issued Feb. 25, 2020

Schoeffler v. USDA (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search and that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery.

O'Neill v. DOJ (W.D. Wis.) -- concluding that Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco, and Explosives conducted adequate searches for certain records pertaining to the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, and that plaintiff failed to show that he was entitled to injunctive relief for future FOIA requests based on defendants’ alleged history of FOIA violations.

Ojeda v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D. W.Va.) -- dismissing claim because plaintiff conceded that he failed to administrative appeal agency’s decision before filing lawsuit.

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