Knight First Amendment Inst. at Columbia Univ. v. DHS (S.D.N.Y. ) — denying government’s request for reconsideration of court’s September 13, 2019 determination that ICE’s search was inadequate, and clarifying that its September 23, 2019 decision required government to disclose certain records to plaintiff promptly.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Campaign for Accountability v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- rejecting plaintiff’s allegation that all legal opinions of Office of Legal Counsel must be affirmatively disclosed under FOIA’s “reading-room” provision, but concluding that OLC opinions “that resolve disputes between agencies” plausibly qualify for disclosure.
Rossmann v. SSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff failed to administratively appeal agency’s response to his FOIA/PA request for records concerning Supplemental Security Income benefits.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Watson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal response of Executive Office of United States Attorneys regarding his request for records about himself; and (2) FBI conducted adequate search for records about plaintiff and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Schoenberg v. FBI (9th Cir.) (unpublished) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold name of Special Agent who signed search warrant pertaining to laptop computer of former Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Perez v. ICE (S.D.N.Y) -- adopting in full magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that: (1) plaintiff was bound by agreement with government that was “so-ordered” by magistrate to narrow scope of litigation; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold in full two witness statements regarding investigation into plaintiff’s allegations of unethical misconduct and mismanagement by agency employee; and (3) agency properly found that eight categories of collected records were not responsive to plaintiff’s request.
Ramcharan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s unopposed summary judgment motion concerning plaintiff’s request for records associated with his criminal trial, noting that plaintiff had conceded sufficiency of DEA’s search and that DEA had sufficiently explained its withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), (7)(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product and presidential communications privileges to withhold interviews reports related to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. presidential election.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Immigration Lawyers Ass'n v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment briefing, finding that, with minor exceptions, U.S. Customs & Border Protection properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold records concerning reference manuals used for inspection and admission process into the United States.
Jurdi v. U.S. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that:DEA properly relied on Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D) to categorically withhold records about third party who testified at plaintiff’s criminal trial, and that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of similar records.
NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- concluding that Office of Community Oriented Policing Service properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft assessment of North Charleston, South Carolina Police Department.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Aug. 31, 2020
In re: Clinton (D.C. Cir.) -- reissuing opinion of August 14, 2020 with nonsubstantive revisions.
Aug. 30, 2020
Stanco v. IRS. (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing suit because plaintiffs failed to administratively appeal from agency’s adverse determination, but granting plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint to include allegations that they timely appealed agency’s response to a subsequent, duplicate request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOD properly withheld communications concerning agency’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative pursuant to Exemptions 3 and 6; and (2) and DOD properly relied on deliberative process, attorney-client, and presidential communications privileges to withhold records, with the exception of certain redactions on five documents.
Nova Oculus Partners. v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- finding that SEC properly relied on Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold records concerning agency’s investigation of plaintiff.
Bryan v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Civil Rights Division performed reasonable search for records pertaining to third-party informant who testified at plaintiff’s trial.
Nat’l Pub. Radio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI performed reasonable search for videos depicting ballistics tests of certain types of ammunition, but that agency failed to justify withholding videos under Exemptions 7(E) and 7(F).
Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that GSA failed to perform reasonable search for agency’s communications with Trump Organization, because agency misconstrued plaintiff’s request and did not justify its decision to limit search to emails.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) performed adequate search for interviews concerning the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York City; (2) NIST properly relied on Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 7306 to withhold interviews of emergency response personnel; and (3) NIST failed to clearly show that it could not segregate non-exempt information from Exemption 6-protected information included in interview of private individual.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.