Court opinion issued Aug. 12, 2021

Hawkinson v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- finding that: (1) ICE and DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review properly withheld certain training material and related communications pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 7(C); (2) plaintiff had standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to timely provide accurate estimated completion dates, but that plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits; and (3) plaintiff did not have standing to bring pattern-and-practice claim against ICE and DHS for allegedly failing to properly report their FOIA response times; and (4) DHS complied with section 552(j)(1) by publicizing the identity and contact information of its Deputy Chief FOIA Officer, who “could be readily inferred” as serving as Acting Chief FOIA Officer while the Chief FOIA Officer position was vacant.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 10, 2021

Seife v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that with the exception of a few documents, FDA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to news embargoes between 2010 and 2014; stating that statute’s “foreseeable harm” provision did not apply to requests made before 2016, but that in any event FDA “met any applicable burden.”

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 6, 2021

Envtl. Integrity Proj. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- rejecting magistrate’s recommendation that plaintiff was ineligible for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, and ruling that plaintiff was both eligible and entitled to an award in case involving reports of travel by EPA and Department of the Interior officials.

Selgjekaj v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not demonstrate that it performed reasonable search for certain records pertaining to plaintiff’s indictment; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 3 (Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e), Exemption 5 (attorney work-product), and Exemption 7(C), but it did not carry its burden regarding withheld orders reflecting the commencement, termination, and extensions of the grand jury.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 5, 2021

Brown v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, and 7(C).

Zynovieva v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- stating that some or all of requested visa records were likely protected by Exemption 3 in conjunction with 8 U.S.C. § 1202(f), but that agency’s refusal to disclose the number or specific nature of each withheld record precluded summary judgment.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 3, 2021

Kowal v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DEA’s Vaughn indices were adequate and that agency properly withheld records under Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F), except for its Exemption 7(E) withholdings pertaining to a law enforcement manual.

Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency performed reasonable search for Hillary Clinton’s emails and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

King v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that EOUSA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal cases and denying his request to recover litigation costs because records were sought “purely for his own benefit” and litigations delays were primarily his responsibility.

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

Court opinion issued July 30, 2021

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. FDA (N.D. Cal.) -- on remand from the Ninth Circuit following the Supreme Court’s intervening Exemption 4 decision in Argus Leader, concluding that the FDA failed to establish that egg producers customarily and actually kept certain hen housing information private and confidential.

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

Court opinions issued July 28, 2021

Bonner v. CIA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that the CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold two documents related to an al Qaeda training manual, but that Exemption 5 did not protect a draft intelligence report because because “it fails to identify any agency decision-making process in connection with which the document was created.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer v. DOJ (S.D. Ohio) -- ruling that DOJ justified withholding fewer than half of 205 pages concerning third party pursuant to Exemption 7(C), and that it was required to perform an additional search for records concerning “Operation Speakeasy.”

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

Court opinions issued July 23, 2021

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that an agency may satisfy foreseeable harm standard on a category-by-category basis, consistent with D.C. Circuit’s July 2, 2021 decision in Reporters Committee for Freedom of Press v. FBI, and that DOJ met its burden with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings related to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election.

The New York Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- on remand from the Second Circuit, finding that DOJ properly reprocessed memoranda concerning CIA interrogations overseas by releasing additional information previously withheld pursuant to Exemption 5 and continuing to withhold certain names pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.

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

Court opinions issued July 22, 2021

The Wolk Law Firm v. NTSB (E.D. Pa.) -- determining that NTSB properly withheld certain records pertaining to aircraft accidents. including death scene photographs, autopsies, and medical case reviews, pursuant to Exemption 6 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges.

Int’l Refugee Assistance Proj. v. USCIS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking access to refugee resettlement application was not moot, because: (a) disclosure of some records by non-party Department of State in response to plaintiff’s separate request did not settle whether USCIS conducted adequate search; (b) plaintiff adequately pleaded a policy-or-practice claim regarding USCIS’s alleged refusal to search a database for refugee resettlement documents; and (2) granting plaintiff’s partial summary judgment motion and finding that USCIS failed to search the relevant database for responsive agency records.

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

Court opinions issued July 21, 2021

Chelmowski v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA performed adequate search for records pertaining to plaintiff and that it properly withheld certain records pertaining to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and Exemption 6.

Chelmowski v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FCC’s search fees and its demand for advanced payment were reasonable; (2) FCC and NARA performed adequate searches concerning plaintiff; and (3) government’s withholdings under Exemptions 4, 5, 6, and 7(E) were not directly challenged or undermined by plaintiff.

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