Court opinion issued Apr. 16, 2020

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide v. USPTO (N.D. Cal.) -- following in camera review, ruling that U.S. Patent & Trade Office performed adequate search for records concerning agency’s misconduct investigation against one of plaintiff’s attorney, and that agency properly withheld all disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege or Exemptions 6 and 7(C); in dicta, cautioning USPTO to prepare complete and accurate Vaughn indices because even inadvertent errors can seriously prejudice FOIA plaintiffs.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 14, 2020

Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) CIA conducted adequate search for background investigation records concerning various Trump administration candidates, but improperly redacted their names pursuant to Exemption 6; (2) FBI properly interpreted plaintiff’s request for agency’s security clearance procedures, but nonetheless failed to perform adequate search; (3) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from DOD HQ’s “no records” response; DOD’s Defense Manpower Data Center properly interpreted plaintiff’s request and demonstrated that performing search would be futile; (4) DOJ failed to show that its Mail Referral Unit properly referred request; (5) plaintiff was not required to appeal from of Office of Personnel Management’s “interim” responses; OPM properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold personally identifying information, but court lacked information to evaluate other contested records; (6) ODNI performed adequate search and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6, but its segregability analysis was insufficient; (7) Department of Education failed to show that it would be futile to search for security clearance records concerning Betsy Devos; (8) Department of State did not provide court sufficient information to determine whether it properly withheld records concerning Rex Tillerson pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 10, 2020

Smith v. DOT (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search that plaintiff was not entitled to discovery or costs.

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

Court opinions issued April 8, 2020

Stevens v. DHS (S.D. Ill.) -- determining that: (1) Immigration, Customs, and Enforcement (ICE) performed adequate search for records concerning its detainee volunteer work program; (2) ICE properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client privilege, but improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold “messaging communications”; and (3) Exemptions 6 and 7(C) did not protect names of federal employees mentioned in emails.

Vietnam Veterans of America v. DOD (D. Conn.) -- ruling that DOD properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of service members who were tested for plutonium contamination related to 1966 Palomares nuclear accident, including names of deceased veterans.

Canning v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- on third round of briefing, finding that State Department properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1 and properly withheld draft letters from President Obama to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia pursuant to Exemption 5.

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

Court opinions issued April 7, 2020

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Dep’t of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Office of Solicitor and National Park Service properly invoked the deliberative process privilege in withholding records, but failed to demonstrate that statute’s foreseeable harm standard had been met.

Flete-Garcia v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that : (1) agency’s “barbones declaration” failed to demonstrate that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s prison transportation; and (2) agency properly withheld records concerning third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).

King & Spalding v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- after evaluating six factors, declining to seal law firm’s billing records filed in connection with its motion for attorney’s fees in FOIA case.

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

Court opinions issued Apr. 6, 2020

Cause of Action Inst. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) DOJ properly withheld certain questions to and responses of congressional witnesses as “non-responsive” even though all material appeared in a single document, but that agency could not treat sub-questions and responses thereto as distinct records; (2) plaintiff did not have standing to challenge legality of Office of Information Policy’s guidance on definition of a “record.”

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold background papers associated with “Nuclear Posture Review;” (2) agency properly withheld names of contractors pursuant to Exemption 6, but domain email addresses were not similarly protected; (3) agency properly withheld information relating to security at nuclear facilities pursuant to Exemption 7(F); and (4) based on court’s in camera review, government did not previously disclose any information requested by plaintiff.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 3, 2020

Lewis v. Dep’t of the Treasury (D.D.C.) -- finding that government properly withheld records concerning an Andorran bank pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 7(A), and 7(D).

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

Court opinions issued April 1, 2020

Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and ordering release of one component of EPA computer program after finding that it did not fall within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

Argus Leader v. USDA (D.S.D.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial and ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees following U.S. Supreme Court’s Exemption 4 decision involving same parties and same records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2020

Am. Oversight v. OMB (D.D.C.) -- concluding that OMB failed to perform adequate searches for agency’s communications with the White House concerning the FBI headquarters building and the Old Postal Office Pavilion, and that OMB properly withheld some, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege.

Webster v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff Carl Oglesby, and the government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

Mabie v. EOUSA (S.D. Ill.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s FOIA claims as sanction for using profane, belligerent, and abusive language when speaking to opposing counsel, leveling unfounded accusations and threatening opposing counsel, insulting the judge and Court employees, and impugning the integrity of judicial proceedings.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2020

Williams v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiff conceded agency’s supplemental motion for summary judgment.

Pinson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting summary judgment for government as to plaintiff’s claims relating to three of his FBI requests; twenty-one of his BOP requests; all six of his EOUSA requests; both of his OIP requests, and his single USMS request; denying summary judgment for plaintiff’s claims relating to twelve of his FBI requests; twenty-seven of his BOP requests; and all four of his OIG requests; and dismissing claims relating to plaintiff’s CIA requests.

Democracy Forward Foun. v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that agency demonstrated that consultant corollary applied to emails of third-party consultant and that it met its burden to segregate and release all non-exempt records.

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