FOIA News: Congressmen want Veterans Affairs to reduce request backlog

Lawmakers want VA to address backlog of FOIA requests from vets, advocates

By Nikki Wentling, Stars & Stripes, June 15, 2020

Two veterans in Congress introduced legislation Monday that would force the Department of Veterans Affairs to respond to a backlog of requests made through the Freedom of Information Act, many from veterans themselves and advocacy groups.

Reps. Gil Cisneros, D-Calif., and Max Rose, D-N.Y., accused the department of lacking transparency. They said technology issues at the VA have prevented the agency from responding to hundreds of FOIA requests for information. The bill would require the VA to fix the IT issues and reduce its backlog of FOIA requests by 75% within three years.

Read more here.

Court opinions issued June 12, 2020

Risenhoover v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- ruling that State Department performed adequate search for a directive issued to de facto Embassy of the United States in Taiwan and properly withheld cables pursuant to Exemption 1.

Sai v. TSA (D.D.C.) -- issuing technical amendments to its May 29, 2020 memorandum opinion and order

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

Court opinion issued June 5, 2020

Am. Small Business League v. DOD (N.D. Cal) -- following in camera review, concluding that: (1) agency’s Exemption 4 redactions from government’s compliance reports remained overbroad, specifically “most of the government’s analysis”; and (2) agency was improperly relying on Exemption 5’s common-interest doctrine to withhold communications predating its joint-defense agreement with Sikorsky Aircraft.

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

Court opinions issued June 11, 2020

Shapiro v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s motion for summary judgment because affidavits failed to: (1) identify information withheld from each document with reasonable specificity; (2) provide reasonably detailed justification for exemptions invoked; (3) connect claimed justification with specific information withheld; and (4) discuss consequences of disclosing requested information for each withholding.

Grey v. Cuccinelli (D.S.C.) -- finding that DHS failed to show that it performed adequate search for emails pertaining to plaintiff’s immigration matter and failed to explain why redacted information fell within ambit of Exemption 7(E).

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

FOIA News: Identities of PPP borrowers are confidential, says Treasury Secretary

Mnuchin Says Names of Small-Business Borrowers Won’t Be Released

By Mark Niquette & Zachary R. Middler, Bloomberg, June 11, 2020

The Trump administration doesn’t plan to release details about companies that received billions of dollars through a high-profile federal coronavirus-relief initiative, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said this week -- reversing earlier guidance.

The Trump administration believes names of borrowers from the Paycheck Protection Program and the amounts they receive are “proprietary,” and “confidential” in many cases, Mnuchin said Wednesday during a Senate committee hearing.

Read more here.

Court opinion issued June 10, 2020

Samuel v. FBI (D.S.C.) -- adopting magistrate’s recommendation to dismiss plaintiff’s case as moot because FBI released all records in response to one request and plaintiff did not appeal response in which certain information was redacted pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

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

Court opinion issued June 4, 2020

Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOL (N.D. Cal.) — ruling that: (1) Department of Labor improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain work-related injury form received by OSHA from employers, because agency failed to show that records were both customarily and actually treated as private by owners and provide to the government under an assurance of privacy; (2) OSHA performed adequate search for other work-related injury and illness records, which agency did not start collecting during requested time period.

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

Court opinion issued June 3, 2020

Cal. Air Res. Bd. v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration performed adequate search for records pertaining to fuel-efficient vehicle rulemaking and properly withheld two documents pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and (2) EPA properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold two email threads and two draft reports.

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

Court opinion issued June 2, 2020

Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- following evidentiary hearing, ruling that: (1) ICE properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in denying full disclosure of databases pertaining to undocumented immigrants, but that ICE may have neglected to disclose reasonable segregable, non-exempt materials; and (2) ICE made no effort to show that a 9-page document met the law enforcement threshold of Exemption 7 and therefore must be disclosed subject to previously-approved Exemption 6 redactions.

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

Court opinions issued June 1, 2020

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) National Institutes for Health performed reasonable search for emails concerning certain animal experiments even though additional search terms were used for one custodian; (2) NIH adequately explained why it excluded as “non-responsive” 119 pages that it initially processed; (3) NIH properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold private email account, personal travel plans, and identifying information of unpaid outside consultants; and (4) NIH failed to show that deliberative process privilege applied to agency communications about how to respond to plaintiff’s request for a meeting.

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Justice Management Division (JMD) performed adequate search for records mentioning two Bureau of the Census employees or eight census-related terms, but Civil Rights Division (CRT) did not; (2) CRT and Office of Information Policy (OIP) failed to show that records were properly withheld pursuant to presidential communications privilege; (3) CRT and OIP properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withheld only a few contested categories of records, and JMD failed to provide sufficient information to justify its deliberative process claims; and (4) OIP improperly relied on attorney work-product privilege to withhold draft responses to interrogatories from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights..

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Drug Enforcement Administration conducted reasonable search pertaining to third party’s prosecution, but that deficiencies in DEA’s Vaughn Index did not enable court to assess validity of agency’s withholdings under Exemptions 6, 7(C) 7(D),7(E), and 7(F).

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