Adams v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning himself and the agency; (2) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3; and (3) agency properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3, but it failed to demonstrate that all of its Glomar responses were appropriate.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here
Behar v. DHS (2d Cir.) -- reversing district court’s decision and holding that: (1) records obtained by the Secret Service from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and transition were not “agency records” because agency did not control them; and (2) even if disputed records qualified as agency records, they were protected from disclosure under Exemption 7(C).
O'Brien v. DOJ (E.D. Pa.) -- determining that FBI properly withheld records concerning plaintiff’s co-defendant pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(A), 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hall v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- in case litigated for 18 years, deciding “final issue” that agency performed adequate search of its operational files for records concerning Vietnam War prisoners of war.
Hughes v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, (2) EOUSA improperly treated records related to two defendants in plaintiff’s criminal case as non-responsive, and agency needed to clarify whether it possessed a sealed court filing that it treated as non-responsive; (3) EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege; (4) EOUSA and FBI properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold records concerning various third parties, but ordering each agency to release records concerning plaintiff’s codefendants; and (5) plaintiff was eligible and entitled to recover his litigation costs of $350.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
July 1, 2022
Conn. Fair Housing. Ctr. v. HUD (D. Conn.) -- ruling that plaintiff was ineligible for costs and attorney’s fees because court played no role in settlement reached between the parties.
June 30, 2022
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Me. Found. v. ICE (D. Me.) (magistrate’s recommendation) -- following in camera review of records concerning asylum applications, finding that ICE properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Rutila v. DOT (N.D. Tex.) -- on remand from Fifth Circuit, finding that: (1) FAA properly tolled its response to one of plaintiff’s requests concerning air traffic controller training and therefore plaintiff’s failure to pay estimated fees precluded his claim; (2) FAA performed reasonable search for certain emails; (3) five of plaintiff’s requests concerning agency employee were either not reasonably described or improperly required creation of new records; and (4) agency conducted adequate search for air traffic training manual.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
N.Y. Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y) -- following in camera review of a report concerning Volkswagen AG’s compliance with plea agreement, ordering limited disclosure of information that DOJ had withheld under Exemption 4 and Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.
Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case involving illegal alien data in the department’s Enforcement Integrated Database, ordering CBP to address whether database contains unique identifiers other than A-numbers and concluding that CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold some, but not all, disputed database information.
Pfeiffer v. Dep’t of Energy (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff, a PhD anthropology candidate, had sufficiently demonstrated that his request fell within fee category of an educational institution, rejecting agency’s argument that plaintiff’s potential profit transformed request to commercial use.
Kowall v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion to amend two aspects of court’s summary judgment ruling, namely that ATF performed adequate search for records concerning client’s post-conviction proceedings and that FBI properly withheld plea agreement of client’s co-defendant.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Selgjekaj v. EOUSA (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that EOUSA reasonably described its search for grand jury records associated with plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Smith v. EOUSA (S.D.N.Y.) -- denying plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of summary motion in government’s favor, but agreeing that pro se plaintiff was eligible and entitled to award of filing and mailing costs due, in part, to agency’s dilatory search for records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
BuzzFeed Inc. v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that DOJ properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold identity of former DOJ employee who had sexually harassed a subordinate, according to public OIG report.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
June 16, 2022
Vidal-Martinez v. ICE (N.D. Ill.) -- concluding after in camera review that agency properly invoked Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C) to withhold records concerning plaintiff’s detention and rejecting plaintiff’s contention that alleged government impropriety undermined its withholding claims.
June 15, 2022
Ecological Rights Found. v. EPA (N.D. Cal.) -- finding that EPA properly relied on deliberative process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges to withhold eight categories of disputed records concerning a 2019 Department of Justice memo concerning EPA’s use of “Supplemental Environmental Projects” in settlement agreements.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Avila v. U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency’s use of plaintiff’s full name as sole search term was too narrow to uncover all records responsive to plaintiff’s request for records concerning a February 2011 attack involving plaintiff; (2) agency adequately justified withholding some but not all documents pursuant to Exemption 1, and it provided inadequate description for one document withheld under Exemption 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act; (3) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold draft documents, all but one document constituting outward-facing deliberations, and all but two miscellaneous records; and (4) agency properly withheld emails reflecting policy and legal advice pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.