Am. Oversight v. DOT (D.D.C.) -- holding that DOT properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications between Congressional staff and agency staff on proposed and draft legislation, because “the staffers shared a common legislative purpose” and “the communications furthered the agency’s consideration of the particulars of that common legislative purpose.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Akel v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s prosecution, except for its failure to try to recover and search emails of one former prosecutor who worked on plaintiff’s case.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Kalbers v. DOJ (9th Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that Volkswagen AG could not intervene as of right in FOIA lawsuit involving the company’s records and holding, in most relevant part, that the factor of delay “is measured from the date the proposed intervenor knew or should have known the parties would no longer adequately protect its interests” as opposed to the date when proposed intervenor learned of the FOIA lawsuit.
Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- deciding that: (1) House Appropriations Committee report concerning 1967 attack on U.S. naval intelligence ship was not an “agency record” subject to FOIA, because “the Committee clearly indicated its intent to control the report by marking it ’Not for release unless and until authorized by the Committee’”; (2) CIA failed to carry its burden with respect to its withholdings under Exemptions 1 and 3, necessitating in camera review; and (3) despite age of records, CIA could retain its Exemption 6 withholdings because plaintiff failed to articulate any public interest in disclosure.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Property of the People v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, concluding that the FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of investigatory records pertaining to former congressperson, Dana Rohrabacher of California.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hammond v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) Walter Reed National Military Medical Center performed “reasonable and adequate” searches in response to plaintiff’s multiple requests, noting that plaintiff was not “entitled to a search of his own choosing”; (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold names of individuals who requested their own medical records; (3) plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief based on agency’s use of batched FOIA tracking numbers.
Cole v. Copan (D.D.C.) -- adopting in part and denying in part magistrate’s recommendations and holding that: (1) FEMA and NIST did not adequately explain how it searched for requested records concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001; (2) plaintiff was entitled to limited discovery from FEMA concerning 490,000 pages of WTC-related records stored at NARA, but that FEMA sufficiently explained discrepancy as to whether certain missing records might be in its regional office’s local archives.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Niskanen Ctr. v. FERC (D.C. Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold the full names and addresses of property owners along the route of a proposed pipeline and that only the property owners’ initials and street names could be released.
Pub. Emps. for Envtl. Responsibility v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that DHS properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 2015 Strategic National Risk Assessment and that the agency met its statutory burden to show foreseeable harm.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Picardi v. U.S. Attorney's Offices (D.S.D.) -- determining that Executive Office for U.S. Attorney’s Office performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal and civil tax trials in South Dakota, and that it properly withheld grand jury material pursuant to Exemption 3 and third party information pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
WP Co, v. SBA (D.D.C.) -- following multiple rounds of summary judgment motions, ruling that: (1) SBA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold loan status information of Paycheck Protection Program recipients, noting that SBA had asked loan recipients about their customary treatment of such information and established that disclosure would meet foreseeable harm standard; and (2) SBA properly withheld employer identification numbers of businesses under Exemption 6, because agency could not reasonably segregate them from social security numbers of individual borrowers.
Villanueva v. DOJ (S.D. Fla.) -- ordering FBI to process 20,500 pages of withheld documents responsive to plaintiff’s June 2018 FOIA request at a rate of 5,125 pages per month, rejecting government’s proposed rate of 500 pages per month.
Keeping Gov't Beholden. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) two of plaintiff’s requests to FBI did not reasonably describe the records sought because those records could not be located with a reasonable amount of effort; and (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold certain emails of former FBI Director and met statute’s foreseeable harm provision under standards set forth by D.C. Circuit.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision that DOJ properly withheld working draft statements of then-Attorney General Sally Yates under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and holding that agency’s declaration neglected to address “the ‘who,’ i.e., the roles of the document drafters and recipients and their places in the chain of command; the ‘what,’ i.e., the nature of the withheld content; the ‘where,’ i.e., the stage within the broader deliberative process in which the withheld material operates; and the ‘how,’ i.e., the way in which the withheld material facilitated agency deliberation.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Stevens v. U.S. Dep’t of State (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that the agency performed adequate search for records concerning foreign campuses of American universities and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, and 5 (deliberative process privilege).
Matthews v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- following government’s multiple motions for summary judgment concerning plaintiff’s request for records about himself, deciding that: (1) FBI properly redacted identities of agency support personnel pursuant to Exemption 6; (2) agency did not provide sufficient information for court to determine that Exemptions 6 and 7(C) supported withholding of names and phone numbers of certain employees, as well as victim impact statements associated with plaintiff’s criminal prosecution; and (3) FBI justified its withholding of information about an informant under Exemption 7(D).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.