Smith v. EOUSA (S.D.N.Y.) -- determining that agency performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s transfer between state and federal custody in 2011 and that it properly withheld grand jury records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Junk v. Bd. of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed adequate search for “‘records from Maiden Lane LLC and Maiden Lane II LLC and Maiden Lane III LLC containing’ a specific nine-digit alphanumeric Committee on Uniform Security Identification Procedures ("CUSIP") number.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (2nd Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision requiring disclosure of certain information contained in a draft summary of CIA’s former detention and interrogation program and holding that such information was protected under Exemption 1.
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. CIA (D.D.C) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemptions 1, 3, 5, and 6 to withhold records concerning nomination of Gina Haspel to serve as CIA’s Director.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Woodard v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- following in camera review of records concerning agency’s use of cell phone technology in apprehending plaintiff for capital murder, finding that agency properly redacted names of law enforcement officers under Exemption 7(C) and that its use of Exemption 7(C), 7(E), 7(D), and 7(F) to redact or fully withhold other records was justified in some instances and not others.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) DOJ failed to provide sufficient information to permit court to determine propriety of agency’s reliance on Exemption 5’s attorney-client, attorney work-product, and deliberative process privileges to withhold certain appellate training material; and (2) Civil Division performed adequate search for studies and analyses of the “foreseeable harm” standard of the 2016 FOIA Improvement Act.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Jan. 28, 2022
Majuc v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that with one minor exception, DOJ properly used Exemptions 4, 6, 7(A), and 7(C) to withhold records concerning criminal investigation of BNP Paribas, S.A. and its affiliates for evading economic sanctions against various countries.
Callimachi v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning certain Romanian politicians; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemptions 1 & 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning Romania’s intelligence service; and (3) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning death of former Romanian ambassador and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 7(D), and 7(E).
Jan. 27, 2022
Cause of Action Inst. v. Export-Import Bank (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, determining that: (1) agency improperly withheld email received from Vice President’s staff as non-agency records; (2) agency failed to show that certain information contained in weekly reports was “obtained from a person,” but agency’s remaining Exemption 4 withholdings were proper; (3) agency properly withheld some, but not all, disputed records under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; of note, ordering release of one of three documents sent to GAO because it was created to assist GAO and ultimately Congress and thus not an inter-agency or intra-agency record.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Eddington v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that DOJ’s National Security Division properly invoked Exemptions 1, 6, 7(A), and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of intelligence and investigative records related to Amir Mohamed Meshal, a U.S. citizen who was detained by both Kenyan and Ethiopian government entities between 2006 and 2007.
Sheppard v. DOJ (W.D. Mo.) -- finding that plaintiff was entitled to $344,122.30 in attorney’s fees out of $444,314 requested and reducing award primarily due to excessive time spent on complaint and duplicative staffing; declining to discount fees merely because plaintiff did not obtain all disputed records.
Yassein v. El Paso Intelligence Ctr. (S.D. Cal.) -- dismissing case because plaintiff did not reasonably describe records sought from Drug Enforcement Administration and agency made good faith attempt to seek clarification, which plaintiff ignored.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Harrington v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion seeking “immediate” production of agency’s pet-food-related records and finding that FDA’s proposed production schedule was reasonable; noting that agency’s relevant FOIA office had backlog of 336 requests, due “in no small part” to plaintiff’s “staggering 2220+ requests to FDA since 2018.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Jan. 14, 2022
Rivera-Rodriguez v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) Executive Office of United States Attorneys properly used Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) to withhold grand jury minutes, voting records, and charging instructions, and (2) agency’s undisputed withholding of grand jury forepersons also were properly withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Jan. 13, 2022
Envtl. Def. Fund v. United States v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff was eligible and entitled to attorney’s fees and costs, but reducing requested attorney’s fee award from $151, 322 to 109,413 because of unreasonably high hourly rates and excessive charges.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Jabar v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation that agency properly segregated and released non-exempt material from plaintiff’s criminal case file and that FOIA was not proper vehicle to remedy alleged Brady violations.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.