Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- in case concerning records of an attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship during the 1967 Six-Day War, ruling that government properly redacted one document pursuant to Exemption 1 but failed to establish the adequacy of its segregability analysis or its remaining withholdings pursuant to Exemptions 1 and 3.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cato Inst. v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) FBI performed adequate search concerning plaintiff notwithstanding agency’s decision not to search database identified by plaintiff; and (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names and identifying information of third parties of investigative interest.
Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility Proj. v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D.N.Y.) -- after reviewing representative sample of disputed records in camera, ruling that agency’s declaration and Vaughn Index failed to adequately describe and justify withheld information concerning “Tactical Terrorism Response Teams,” and that agency failed to provide reasonably specific segregability analysis.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Luedde v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- granting FBI’s uncontested motion for summary judgment regarding its response to plaintiff’s request for records concerning himself, and declining to consider at this stage whether pro se plaintiff would be entitled to litigation costs.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Emery v. DOJ-FBI (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) FBI performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose government’s motion; and (3) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not oppose.
Emery v. DOJ-ATF (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) plaintiff’s failure to appeal ATF’s original decision was moot, because agency issued a new decision after plaintiff filed suit; (2) ATF conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who did not oppose agency’s declarations; (3) ATF properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), as well as Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), none of which plaintiff contested; and (4) plaintiff was ineligible to receive costs of litigation because he did not substantially prevail.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold pseudonyms used by agency in its investigation of Clive Bundy; (2) FBI properly withheld names of four Special Agents pursuant to Exemption 7(C), notwithstanding their trial testimony or news reports associating them with the Bundy investigation, because plaintiff failed to show that those Special Agents were involved in specific aspect of the investigation covered by records at issue; (3) FBI properly withheld four categories of records pursuant to Exemption 7(E), rejecting plaintiff’s argument that foreseeable harm provision applies to Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Satterlee v. IRS (W.D. Mo.) -- granting agency’s supplemental motion for summary judgment after finding that agency released all remaining responsive records, specifically the oath of office of a Revenue Officer and plaintiff’s taxpayer transcripts, which documented all “balance-due notices” that had been sent to plaintiff.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Insider, Inc. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of five members of 2020 presidential transition teams from GSA’s transition expenditure records; agreeing with agency that team members were not public figures and would face threats or harassment, whereas disclosure would shed “almost nothing: about GSA’s operations.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Roberson v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies because his lawsuit was deemed filed on the date he provided it to prison officials for mailing, which preceded the FBI’s untimely response by two days; and (2) doctrine of res judicata did not preclude plaintiff from bringing his FOIA claim.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Barrack v. DOJ (D. Colo.) -- concluding that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the National Security Division’s denial of his attorney’s FOIA request, because the request did not indicate that it was made on behalf of plaintiff; rejecting plaintiff’s argument that NSD was sufficiently aware on whose behalf the request was submitted so as to confer standing, noting that plaintiff was mentioned only once in an email to the Office of Information Policy.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Nat'l Sec. Archive v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- relying on government’s ex parte, in camera declarations, holding that CIA properly invoked on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold in full a memo drafted by the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1989, notwithstanding State Department’s subsequent publication of memo’s transcribed text with minor redactions.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.