FOIA Advisor

Court Opinions (2015-2024)

Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Khatchadourian v. DIA (D.D.C.) -- in dispute concerning records of task force that reviewed WikiLeaks disclosure, holding that: (1) DIA’s unprompted second-round review and production of records was not evidence of bad faith, as plaintiff asserted, but indication of agency’s commitment to FOIA compliance; (2) DIA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1. Exemption 3 in conjunction with 10 U.S.C. § 424 and 50 U.S.C. § 3024, and Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege); and (3) agency was not required to unredact names of certain task force members because agency already disclosed that information on the record.

McWatters v. ATF (D.D.C.) - - ruling that ATF properly relied on Exemptions 6 & 7(C) to withhold portions of a recording of a rock concert in which 100 people died by fire, but that it neglected to address whether the last 8 minutes of the recording, when no human voices are audible, was segregable or exempt.

Viola v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to provide sufficient new or relevant evidence to overturn decision that EOUSA performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s mortgage fraud conviction; and (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s sentencing judge and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 and 7(A), among others undisputed by plaintiff; and (3) parties were required to file joint status report or proposed briefing schedule as to FBI’s processing of records concerning former government informant.

SE Legal Found. v. DOJ (N.D. Ga.) -- deciding that DOJ performed reasonable search for records of attorney misconduct in connection with Carter Page’s FISA application, explaining that DOJ’s Mail Referral Unit reasonably forwarded request to the National Security Division and that plaintiff “accepted the inherent risk that the MRU [would] send the request to fewer or none of the components that [plaintiff believed were] relevant.”

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency did not provide sufficient information to justify its reliance on Exemption 4 to withhold agency’s draft report that included information prepared by the State of Mississippi regarding its proposed flood control project; and (2) agency could not use Exemption 5 to withhold draft report because state agency was not a “quasi-federal” agency nor a consultant.

Jackson v. DOJ (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding that FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to redact faces of third parties and license plate numbers from videos pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest and beating by a Joilet police officer in 2012.

Magassa v. TSA. (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies by filing an administrative appeal that challenged the entirety of TSA’s response, noting that he was not required to “challenge each component of TSA’s responses individually”; (2) TSA conducted adequate search for various records pertaining to plaintiff; (3) TSA properly invoked Exemption 3 in conjunction with 49 U.S.C. § 114(r) to withhold records, as well to refuse to confirm or deny existence of records indicating whether plaintiff’s name appears on a watch list; and (4) TSA properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 6.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Trotter v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- holding that plaintiff was not entitled to attorneys’ fees because plaintiff failed to identify a public benefit derived from the litigation and agency acted reasonably even though court ultimately ordered minimal disclosures.

Shapiro v. SSA (D. Vt.) -- reducing requested award of attorney fees by fifty percent because plaintiff failed to submit billing records and achieved only limited success in the litigation.

Free Sacred Trinity Church v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- ruling that IRS was required to perform search for records pertaining to Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration inquiry and denying, for lack of good cause, plaintiff’s bid to expedite proceedings.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 28, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Neese v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Office of Professional Responsibility performed adequate search for records concerning its investigation of plaintiff for professional misconduct, and (2) OPR and/or FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3 (grand jury material), 5 (deliberative process privilege), and 6 & 7(C), but FBI failed to meaningfully explain applicability of Exemption 7(E)

Cabezas v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C) and 7(E).

Informed Consent Action Network v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that plaintiff’s request for certain clinical trial records was not reasonably described because it contained several latent ambiguities, and that FDA’s willingness to process broader set of records satisfied agency’s obligation to assist plaintiff.

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that multiple components of DOJ performed reasonable searches for records concerning a 2018 meeting with Associated Press reporters, but that DOJ failed to ask EOUSA to search email account of one Assistant United States Attorney who had attended meeting at issue.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 25, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Sanders v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning an initiative of the United Kingdom’s National Crime Agency to tackle child sexual exploitation.

Brown v. FBI (D. Or. 2022) -- finding that FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of records concerning witness to 2015 San Bernardino terrorist attack and declining to credit plaintiff’s allegation that shooting was episode of government-sponsored terrorism.

Cayuga Nation v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to perform reasonable search for records concerning agency’s 2020 visit to plaintiff’s reservation; (2) BIA failed to justify withholding certain redacted portions of a “trip report” pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, or attorney-client privileges; and (3) with limited exceptions, BIA properly withheld portions of a “briefing report” pursuant to the attorney-client privilege and Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D), but it failed to justify its deliberative process privilege claims.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Cannady v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly invoked Exemption 7(C) to withhold records concerning plaintiff’s criminal co-defendant, specifically inventories of items seized from co-defendant and notes of interviews between the FBI and co-defendant.

Gun Owners of Am. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) FBI properly denied two requests as unreasonably described because plaintiff’s first request embedded “a fundamental uncertainty about whose communications [were] requested,” and its second request sought “all documents related to a certain question without providing further limitations or providing the FBI with a basis to narrow its search”; and (2) plaintiff’s remaining request was reasonably described “despite using the word ‘involving’ due to its inclusion of a discrete state agency whose communications are requested, specific search terms, explicit temporal parameters, and sufficient basis for the agency to narrow which custodians it must search to find responsive records.”

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

Court opinions issued March 18, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Washington v. GSA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.

Washington v. OMB (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.

Washington v. NARA (W.D. Wash.) -- finding that: (1) plaintiff failed to properly allege a pattern-or-practice claim; (2) agency’s delay in providing a final determination was not “egregious,” but its failure to “promptly” release records warranted an expedited production schedule; (3) plaintiff’s challenges to the agency's exemption claims were premature because agency had not completed its productions; and (4) at agency’s suggestion, ordering agency to provide plaintiff with a Vaughn Index within ten days of the release of all remaining records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 14, 2022

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Sabra v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- deciding that agency did not carry its burden to show that it adequately searched for records concerning plaintiff, because it failed to invoke magic words that all locations likely to contain responsive records were searched.

Pejouhesh v. USPS (D.D.C) -- ruling on renewed summary judgment that: (1) agency failed to justify using Exemption 7(C) to withhold arrest warrant affidavit, because the criminal docket for plaintiff’s prosecution appeared to contain same document in unreacted form; (2) upon ex parte, in camera review, agency properly withheld an operation plan pursuant to Exemption 7(E); and (3) no evidence exists that agency failed to include any documents in its Vaughn Index.

Jackson v. DHS (D. Idaho) -- dismissing pro se prisoner’s complaint in light of the “fanciful nature of the allegations underlying his FOIA requests,” which sought “government records related to transforming inmates into zombie slaves.”

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