Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D. Ariz.) -- concluding that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of costs and attorneys’ fees, but reducing fee award from $88,889.93 to $76,928.80 because of insufficiently detailed time entries, excessive time billed on assorted communications, and for time spent on unsuccessful motion.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Pub. Citizen v. U.S Dep’t of Housing & Urban Dev. (D.D.C.) -- deferring decision as to whether HUD properly withheld records as “non-responsive” because agency had not completed its document production; stating, however, that court was “skeptical” that the government could justify treating “a single bullet point from a PowerPoint slide or a single email in a chain (or subdivision thereof)” as a separate record “outside extraordinary circumstances.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ramdeo v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Federal Bureau of Prisons performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s incarceration and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (ACP), 6, 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F).
Brennan Ctr. for Justice v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Civil Rights Division failed to adequately describe its search for requested records concerning State compliance with voter registration list laws; (2) agency properly withheld three categories of emails pursuant to Exemptions 5 or 7(A), but did not provide sufficient information about fourth category of records to permit court to determine whether withholdings under those same exemptions were proper.
Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that IRS did not perform reasonable search for records concerning its correspondence with third parties about plaintiffs’ tax liabilities, but that it properly relied on Exemption 7(D) to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to a confidential informant.
Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for an exhibit originating from plaintiff’s criminal case and for the interview notes of Ramzi Yousef.
Hall v. Stoneman (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of victim from grand jury testimony and that agency’s disclosure of copies of documents instead of originals was “irrelevant.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Goldwater Inst. v. HHS (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- vacating and remanding district court’s opinion and finding that FDA improperly relied on agency regulations to categorically withhold entire contents of Investigational New Drug file instead of evaluating whether specific records in file fell within Exemption 4.
Trent v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- deciding that USPS tracking notice was insufficient to establish that DHS received plaintiff’s administrative appeal letter, which was sent to address listed in DHS’s response letter instead of address listed in DHS regulations.
Reclaim Records v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold two databases concerning deceased beneficiaries, rejecting agency’s argument that categorical withholding was warranted because it would be too burdensome to segregate commingled data of living individuals; further noting that one database had been released nine years earlier and remained in public domain; and (2) additional briefing was required on data field for “cause of death.”
ACLU v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- ruling that: (1) agency performed inadequate search for records concerning its participation in National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) conference in 2019, and granting plaintiff limited discovery concerning search; (2) draft conference agenda created and shared by NSA did not meet threshold requirement of Exemption 5; (3) draft talking points and related emails did not not fall within deliberative process privilege as interpreted by First Circuit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Nat’l Immigrant Justice Ctr. v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications exchanged between the Attorney General and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation or the Solicitor General regarding certain immigration proceedings, rejecting appellant’s argument that such communications were ex parte and outside bounds of Exemption 5.
The Prot. Democracy Proj. v. NSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communication privilege to withhold memorandum that memorialized ”advice solicited by, and provide to, the President that directly related to presidential decision-making with respect to foreign relations and intelligence-gathering activities.”
Muhammad v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EOUSA properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s conviction for transportation of a minor for prostitution under Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney work product privilege).
Freedom Watch v. Robert S. Mueller III (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ performed adequate search for medial-related records concerning Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).
Rocky Mtn. Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- ordering BLM to perform supplemental search for records concerning certain land offered for oil and gas leasing, but denying plaintiff’s request for discovery and agreeing that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney-client, and commercial privileges.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. DOJ (D.D.C) -- holding that: (1) plaintiffs’ claims were not barred by doctrines of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel because exemptions and/or documents at issue were new (2); FBI properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege), 7(C), and 7(E) to withhold records related to FBI’s impersonation of media.
Gellman v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records about plaintiff, concluding that: (1) Office of Information Policy properly withheld records as non-responsive, including portions of email chains; (2) Office of the Director of National Intelligence properly relied on Exemption 1 to withheld all but one category of records; (3) National Security Agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 in conjunction with the National Security Act; (4) ODNI properly withheld the formatting, design, and organization of commercial entity’s new bulletins pursuant to Exemption 4; but that text of individual articles mentioning plaintiff’s name must be released; (5) DOJ properly relied on Exemption 5 (DPP) to withhold discussions about investigative techniques and how to respond to press inquiries, but it did provide adequate information for court to assess withholding of agency reactions to news articles; and (6) FBI properly wiitheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(A) and 7(E).
Petrucelli v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (2) EOUSA did not sufficiently describe how it performed its search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Butt v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff was not entitled to waiver of duplication fees because his request for records from the FBI about his criminal prosecution would not serve public interest.
Katchadourian v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Defense Intelligence Agency properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request for records concerning task force that conducted damage assessment from Wikileaks, and that it also performed adequate search; (2) DIA properly determined that all records withheld pursuant to Exemption 1 were classified, but that it failed to demonstrate that it performed adequate segregability analysis; (3) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024; (4) DIA failed to show that records withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 were predecisional or deliberative; and (5) DIA was entitled to summary judgment regarding its use of Exemption 7(C) because plaintiff did not challenge it.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
White v. Exec. Office of U.S. Attorneys (S.D. Ill. 2020) -- ruling that: (1) FBI’s processing rate of 500 pages per month was reasonable given the “large volume and complexity” of responding to plaintiff’s requests and because plaintiff “failed to articulate any real public interest in the records he seeks”; (2) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of records pertaining to third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); (3) FBI properly refused to confirm or deny existence of alleged informants pursuant to Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E); (4) plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on requests that he either failed to reasonably describe or failed to appeal; (5) FBI did not improperly withhold records that Federal Bureau of Prisons refused to accept delivery of due to security concerns; and (6) plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on request for records withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(A) because FBI agreed to recheck the request when the status of the investigation is likely to have changed to closed; and (7) FBI performed adequate searches on remaining requests.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Dillon v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI conducted adequate search for certain records pertaining to agency’s anthrax investigation of Dr. Bruce Ivins, and that it properly relied on Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) to withhold portions of FBI’s “Interim Major Case Summary.”
Porup v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s “pattern-or-practice” claim was mooted by new agency guidance instructing officials not to decline requests solely because they pertain to matters outside of CIA’s primary mission; (2) CIA performed adequate search for records about its use of poison for covert assassinations, and that it properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Burton v. Wolf (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that DHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold information referencing plaintiff in his estranged wife’s alien file.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.