Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- rejecting FBI’s claim that two files pertaining to Donald Trump are categorically exempt under Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E) solely because they are within an informant file.
Lopez-Pena v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting government’s summary judgment motion because plaintiff conceded that his lawsuit originated from a FOIA request that he incorrectly mailed to the wrong federal agency.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Advancement Proj. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) with limited exceptions, ICE properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning visa sanctions, including briefing materials and communications about press strategy; and (2) ICE properly withheld two categories of records under Exemption 7(E), but it did not adequately spell out how disclosure of another category of records would reveal a law enforcement technique, procedure, or guideline.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Wash. Post v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) SBA failed to show that interim loan status information was properly withheld under Exemption 4, in no small part because the agency declined to submit declarations from any loan recipients; and (2) SBA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold DUNS numbers associated with individual borrowers.
Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning five pandemic-related topics, but that it did not meet its burden of proof with respect to sixteen other pandemic-related topics.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold various records concerning agency’s practice of impersonating journalists and documentary filmmakers, and noting that the foreseeable harm standard was inapplicable to that exemption; and (2) FBI failed to sufficiently explain how investigatory records concerning Cliven Bundy were protected by Exemption 7(A).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Scott v. IRS (S.D. Fla.) -- concluding that plaintiff was eligible but not entitled to litigation costs because he failed to make a clear showing of substantial public benefit and was motivated by a commercial or financial interest.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Gov’t Accountability Proj. v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning the provision of nuclear technologies to countries in the Middle East, but reserving judgment with respect to unsolicited communications received by the agency.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Platsky v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records indicating whether plaintiff appeared on watch list.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming in part, reversing in part, and dismissing in part district court’s decision concerning records of FBI’s impersonation of the media, and concluding that: (1) the government “properly withheld the emails in which FBI leadership deliberated about appropriate responses to media and legislative pressure to alter the FBI’s undercover tactics, as well as internal conversations about the implications of changing their undercover practices going forward;” and (2) the government “did not satisfy its burden to show either that the other documents at issue in this case were deliberative or that their disclosure would cause foreseeable harm.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Brennan Ctr. for Justice at NYU Sch. of Law v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting part and denying in part DOJ’s motion for reconsideration and holding that Exemption 7(C) protected only the docket numbers of cases that were accidentally designated as terrorism-related, involved terrorism-related investigations but not terrorism-related prosecutions, or were categorized as terrorism-related for agency’s internal purposes with no public connection to terrorism.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Schoenberg v. FBI (9th Cir.) -- in case concerning FBI’s search warrant to recover Hillary Clinton’s emails, affirming district court’s decision that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because FBI’s redactions were legally reasonable and that factor outweighed all other factors.
Murder Accountability Proj. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal FBI’s response to his request for certain unreported crime data; (2) National Park Service performed adequate and reasonable search for unreported crime data; (3) Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to explain why it did not search for records requested prior to 2014; (4) Army, Navy, and Air Force did not demonstrate the adequacy of their search, but they properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact third party names, social security numbers, and alien registration numbers.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Withey v. FBI W.D. Wash.) -- denying attorney’s fees to attorney plaintiff who pursued records in order to further his personal interests and awarding only $21,015 of$69,680 requested for other attorneys’ fees because plaintiff obtained no post-complaint relief.
Ferrera v. DHS (D.N.M.) -- determining that Exemption 6 applied to a letter that plaintiff’s ex-wife sent to USCIS withdrawing her previous immigration petition, but that agency could segregate and release information from the letter that agency had described, i.e., date, author, and withdrawal of petition.
Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that Farm Service Agency improperly relied on Exemptions 3, 4, and 6 to withhold loan recipient names, addresses, and operation types; the intended use of loans; and documents FSA created during its environmental review of loans.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.