Rich v. USCIS (W.D. Wash.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for award of attorney fees because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her lawsuit caused agency to release requested documents.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Nightingale. v. USCIS (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that USCIS, ICE, and DHS “have a pattern of unreasonable delay in responses to A-FIle FOIA requests,” and permanently enjoining defendants from failing to adhere to statutory deadlines for adjudicating A-File FOIA requests; further ordering defendants to make determinations on all A-File FOIA requests in backlog within 60 days.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. CEQ (W.D. Va.) -- following in camera review, ruling that agency failed to meet statute’s “foreseeable harm” requirement, which agency asserted was a "foreseeable harm of chilling speech and stifling frank and open discussions" and a general "risk of public confusion."
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
WP Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees because: (1) legal relationship between the parties was not changed by court’s issuance of “a routine scheduling order” imposing deadline on agency to make a final determination on plaintiff’s request; and (2) plaintiff failed to show that its lawsuit was “necessary” to or “caused” production of documents.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Sierra Club v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- declining to order plaintiff to destroy records that EPA alleged were protected by Exemption 6 and erroneously released in response to plaintiff’s FOIA request
[See related article here]
Open Soc'y Justice Initiative v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that Office of the Director of National Intelligence was required to produce a Vaughn Index concerning a tape of the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, and that the CIA was required to produce a Vaughn Index for the agency’s report on the killing, because the government officially acknowledged existence of both records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- in a 2-1 decision, reversing and remanding district court’s decision and holding that a rider to Consolidated Appropriations Acts did not qualify as an Exemption 3 statute; further ruling that ATF had not demonstrated that requested weapons information was incapable of being extracted from its Firearms Tracing System database.
Samuel v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.S.C.) -- summarily adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that agency properly refused to confirm or deny existence of “Cuba Condition” records.
Werth v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, which plaintiff did not oppose, concluding that U.S. Marshals Service performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s property and properly redacted names of law enforcement officials pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Humane Soc’y of the United States v. U.S Fish & Wildlife Serv. (4th Cir.) (unpublished) -- affirming district court’s decision that: (1) plaintiff’s “reading room” claim was moot because agency posted all requested records online; (2) agency was not obligated to post future-generated records on rolling basis; and (3) agency properly indexed its posted records, but even if it hadn’t, plaintiff was not entitled to prospective relief.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Powell v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of interlocutory order in government’s favor regarding plaintiff’s request for his and his family’s tax records, noting that plaintiff failed to meet Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)’s “as justice requires” standard. In a separate ruling, the court denied plaintiff’s request to supplement plaintiff’s “already-supplemented, thrice-amended Complaint.”
Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- determining that Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology: properly interpreted scope of plaintiff’s request concerning 7 World Trade Center, performed a reasonable search, and properly withheld records pursuang to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 15 U.S.C. § 7301.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Telematch, Inc. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency properly withheld farm numbers and tract numbers pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 7 U.S.C. § 8791(b)(2), as well as customer numbers pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Commerce properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications during the Obama Administration.between a NOAA scientist and the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly redacted FBI interviews of Bruce Ohr pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(D), and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.