Court opinion issued Apr. 6, 2023

Jordan v. DEA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that pro se prisoner’s request was improper because it essentially asked DEA to provide answers to questions plaintiff had about agency’s investigation, as opposed to asking for certain documents; rejecting plaintiff’s attempt to clarify and expand scope of his request to any records that pertained to his initial inquiries; and stating in dicta that if merits of the withholdings had been reached, agency’s categorical approach to withholding the names of all law enforcement agents under Exemption 7(C) would have been improper, despite the “substantial privacy” interests involved.

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 4, 2023

O'Brien v. DOJ (3rd Cir.) -- summarily affirming district court’s decision concerning FBI’s investigatory records concerning plaintiff (a former physician convicted of multiple drug-related charges), noting that source’s trial testimony did not waive government’s ability to withhold records pursuant to Exemption 7(D).

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

Court opinion issued Apr. 3, 2023

Am. Immigration Council. v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, finding that some (but not all) remaining disputed documents concerning “credible fear interviews” were properly withheld pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 31, 2023

Deep Sea Fishermen's Union of the Pac. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce (W.D. Wash.) -- in most relevant part, finding that agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search for records located on personal devices and agency cell phones by searching agency’s email accounts to which employees were required to send them by existing policy.

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that plaintiff was not required to submit a separate request to the agency’s Office of Inspector General concerning COVID measures in immigration facilities (including complaints and grievances), but rather that agency’s Privacy Office should have forwarded plaintiff’s request to OIG based on nature of the request or, at the very least, after clear leads developed during agency’s search that OIG likely maintained responsive records.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 30, 2023

Gandhi v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) agency improperly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold employer identification numbers (EINs) of health care organization and taxpayer identification numbers (TINs) of their parent organizations, noting that SEC and Department of Labor release EINs to the public and that EINs are available through “pay-for-subscription” services; further noting that CMS failed to offer providers any assurances of confidentiality for their EINs or TINs, and that CMS offered no competent evidence that a foreseeable harm would occur if the requested records were released; and (2) agency’s reliance on Exemption 6 to withhold the same information was likewise improper, because Exemption 6 did not protect privacy interests of business entities.

Del Cid v. EOIR (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff was ineligible for award of attorney’s fees and costs because he did not prove that his lawsuit was the catalyst behind EOIR’s production of his immigration records; pointing out that agency demonstrated that it had started to process plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed his lawsuit and that agency’s FOIA backlog and the COVID-19 pandemic delayed its final response.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 29, 2023

Gannett Satellite Info. Network v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- in case apparently of first impression, holding that DOJ could not rely on Exemption 3, in conjunction with Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to withhold statistics concerning deaths of individuals in custody that were reported by states to DOJ in compliance with the Death in Custody Reporting Act of 2013.

Hand v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) in refusing to confirm or deny existence of communications between a retired FBI Special Agent and DOJ personnel concerning the criminal investigation and prosecution of plaintiff.

Connell v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in issuing Glomar response to request for certain records concerning Guantanamo Bay detention facility, rejecting plaintiff’s argument that declassified records constituted a public acknowledgment of existence of requested records.

Scarlett v. Nat’l Sci. Found. (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Office of Inspector General’s declaration did not adequately explain agency’s search methodology in response to request for complaints concerning plaintiff’s company; and (2) OIG’s declaration did not sufficiently address whether responsive records withheld under Exemptions 7(A) and 7(C) were compiled for law enforcement purposes; and (3) agency properly invoked Exemption 6 to withhold employee names, email addresses, and signatures, but it did not adequately explain what “identifying information” it withheld from the body of a responsive complaint.

Black Hills Clean Water Alliance v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.S.D.) -- finding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records pertaining to exploratory gold mining in Clack Hills National Forest and that agency was not required to extend its initial search cut-off date for supplemental searches; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s attorney-client and deliberative process privileges and Exemption 6; and (3) agency’s transmittal of responsive records via file-sharing website was compliant with plaintiff’s formatting request, which allowed for “‘other electronic media’ in whatever way was ‘most expeditious.’”

Yim v. NIH (D.N.J.) (unpublished) -- deciding that: (1) agency’s recitation of its “standard review process” for handling FOIA requests was sufficient to establish adequacy of its search for COVID Guideline updates that agency had posted on its website; and (2) plaintiff could not expand scope of his request in litigation.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 28, 2023

Blevins v. ATF (W.D. Wash.) -- ruling that ATF performed adequate search for plaintiff’s initial request for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and use of a firearm, and therefore the agency was justified in declining to perform a duplicative search in response to plaintiff’s subsequent request for narrower set of duplicative records.

Schaefer v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- finding that EPA performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case and that it properly redacted record pursuant to Exemptions 5 (DPP), 6, and 7(C).

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment in case concerning Office of Immigration Litigation training materials for appellate lawyers, concluding that: (1) with minor exceptions, agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s attorney work-product privilege to withold records, the vast majority of which were “training materials discussing arguments or strategies that DOJ attorneys adopt or consider in particular situations”; further concluding that agency met foreseeable harm requirement; (2) agency’s attorney-client privilege claims were deficient because agency failed to explain on how communications rested on “confidential information obtained from the clients”; and (3) agency did not justify its use of the deliberative process privilege, which in any event the agency deemed a “superfluous” claim.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 27, 2023

Vanda Pharm. v. FDA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that even if agency’s clinical review of pending new drug application fell within Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, agency failed to meet statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; reasoning that: (1) disclosure would not likely chill deliberations because underlying reviews are required to be published in NDA is ultimately approved; and (2) FDA’s concern that drug manufacturer might use records to mislead public and medical practitioners was too speculative to meet foreseeable harm requirement.

Carpezzi v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that: (1) FBI performed reasonable search for records concerning plaintiff, who believed his email was hacked by the government (among other things); and (2) FBI properly withheld identities of employees under Exemption 7(C), as well as sensitive investigation number and database identifier under Exemption 7(E).

Anand v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) DEA performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances, and (2) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Annand v. HHS (D.D.C.) determining that HHS OIG performed adequate search for records underlying co-plaintiff’s indictment for health care fraud and distribution of controlled substances; (2) even though portion of co-plaintiff’s request was too vague, HHS failed to follow agency regulation requiring agency to clarify request; and (3) criticizing pro se plaintiffs for repeatedly violating numerous rules and Court orders with respect to their litigation filings.

Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project v. ICE (D. Me.) -- finding that agency performed adequate search for various records concerning agency’s use of a county jail, except for certain policy documents.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 23, 2023

Americans for Fair Treatment v. USPS (D D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff lacked standing to challenge FOIA regulation that did not allow an appeal to the head of the agency himself, because plaintiff did not allege sufficient risk of future harm; (2) USPS did not perform adequate search for records concerning a COVID-related “Privacy Statement” on its website; (3) USPS failed to delineate its Exemption 5 withholdings, failed in part to adequately explain its attorney-client privilege withholdings, and failed to provide specific foreseeable harm justifications.

Pickering v. DOJ (W.D.N.Y.) -- (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) that ATF and FBI performed adequate searches, and that FBI properly withheld disputed records; and (2) rejecting R&R’s conclusion that plaintiff improperly sued DHS rather than its component agencies and remanding for further proceedings.

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

Court opinions issued Mar. 22, 2023

Ghinis v. USCIS (M.D. Fla.) -- determining that agency’s search was deficient because it provided “undetailed and conclusory” explanation for why it believes plaintiff’s Alien file is lost; noting that plaintiff provided documentary evidence that requested records could be in two field offices that agency did not search.

Kurzban v NSA (S.D. Fla.) -- finding that: (1) DIA and FBI performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiffs; (2) NSA and CIA properly refused to confirm or deny the existence of certain records pursuant to Exemption 1 and 3; and (3) FBI properly withheld certain record pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(A), 7(D), and 7(E).

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