Judicial Watch v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that government properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning 2015 proposal to integrate women in all Marine Corps occupational specialties, and that agency met the foreseeable harm requirement.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service, Treasury, and DHS performed adequate searches for records pertaining to plaintiff; and (2) USMS and DHS properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (Federal Victim and Witness Protection Act), 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- deciding that: (1) IRS performed reasonable search for records pertaining to a private letter ruling; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, except for a few redactions, and it met the foreseeable harm requirement.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Mertes v. IRS (E.D. Cal.) -- ruling that agency’s full disclosure of Form 709 that plaintiff requested did not moot case because agency failed to process a related document (Form 706) and both forms constituted a single “record” under DOJ’s guidance.
Eddington v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff failed to rebut agency’s sworn declaration that it had not received any of fourteen requests reportedly sent by plaintiff via email.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
WP Co. v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- awarding litigations costs and all but around twenty percent of attorney fees in case involving loans approved pursuant to COVID-19 relief programs. In reaching its decision, the court found that plaintiffs were entitled to fees even though government had a reasonable basis for initially withholding requested data.
White v. DOJ (S.D. Ill.) -- declining to hold U.S. Marshals Service in contempt or to award plaintiff litigation costs, but stating that: (1) agency’s delay in responding to plaintiff’s 2013 request was “appalling”; (2) it was “inexcusable” that agency was unprepared for “foreseeable and regular complications”; and (3) USMS “must upgrade its FOIA processing protocols to avoid such delinquencies in the future.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cause of Action Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s presidential communications privilege to withhold a report prepared for the President, except for portions of the report directly quoted in a presidential proclamation.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
N.Y Times v. HHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) Indian Health Service improperly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 25 U.S.C. § 1675, to withhold consultant’s report about sexual abuse of agency patients, because agency failed to show that the report constituted a medical quality assurance record; and (2) agency demonstrated that the report fell within the deliberative process privilege, but if failed to comply with the foreseeable harm requirement; and (3) agency could redact information protected by Exemption 6 before producing report to plaintiffs, who reserved the right to challenge redactions.
Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 4 and 8 to withhold an independent monitor’s report concerning a bank’s anti-money laundering policies, but that DOJ’s segregability analysis was too brief to warrant summary judgment. Notably, in its discussion of Exemption 4, the court considered the alleged harms from disclosure identified by the government and found that they satisfied the foreseeable harm provision.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rich v. EOIR (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that: (1) pro se attorney-plaintiff was not eligible for attorney’s fees , consistent with Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit case law; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to litigation costs because production delays were caused by COVID-19 and plaintiff’s lawsuit was not necessary to trigger agency’s response.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Montgomery v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency’s searches for records pertaining plaintiffs’ multi-billion-dollar tax-shelter scheme were adequate with “relatively minor exception” of its failure to search certain employee emails.
Ballow v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that pro se prisoner-plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies after agency demonstrated that it had not received plaintiff’s request.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Rocky Mountain Wild v. BLM (D. Colo.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to certain property that it had considered for oil and gas leasing in 2018.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. ATF (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and holding that data requested from agency’s Firearms Trace System was protected from disclosure pursuant to a congressional rider even though that rider did not specifically cite Exemption 3 per the OPEN FOIA Act.
Berryhill v. Bonneville Power Admin. (D. Or.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s property and that it properly redacted records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.