Court opinion issued June 29, 2023

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (2nd Cir.) (summary order) -- affirming district court’s decision that DOJ’s Inspector General properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the identity of a former senior employee from a report concerning that employee’s misconduct; noting that the employee’s rank, seriousness of wrongdoing, and absence of alternative access to the information favored disclosure, but agreeing with district court that disclosure would “do little to advance the public interest identified by [plaintiff]” and that disclosure would impact the privacy of victims, witnesses, and other third parties.

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

Court opinions issued June 28, 2023

Hoffman v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (E.D. Pa.) -- in case involving records of communications about asylum seekers at certain ports of entry, finding that: (1) CBP failed to adequately explain how it conducted it searched mobile devices for “WhatsApp” chats, and (2) agency used reasonable key phrases to search Shared Drives, but not its email accounts.

Judicial Watch v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that DHS properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold two photographs showing injuries suffered by a Secret Service Agent from President Biden’s dog.

Judicial Watch v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that DHS properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold six photographs showing injuries suffered by Secret Service Agents from President Biden’s dog.

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

Court opinion issued June 27, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- concluding that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney’ client privileges to withhold records related to the Secretary’s approval to enter the Paris Climate Agreement; noting that foreseeable harm requirement was met for both asserted privileges.

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

Court opinions issued June 26, 2023

The James Madison Project v. NSA (D. Md.) — ruling that NSA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to withhold intelligence records concerning hostile country’s “high-powered microwave system weapon” that was discussed in agency’s 2014 unclassified memo to a former employee.

Elliott v. U.S. Dept. of Agric. (D. Md.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim because he failed to administratively appeal from agency’s “no records” response before filing his lawsuit.

Stonehill v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining, in most relevant part, that plaintiff was a proper party because the FOIA requests at issue—which were submitted by her attorney—all identified plaintiff and referred to an attached power of attorney document that identified plaintiff’s attorney; further noting that agency’s summary judgment motion made clear that agency was aware of attorney’s representation of plaintiff in “this string of related FOIA actions going back decades.”

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

Court opinion issued June 22, 2023

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. DOJ (W.D. Wash.) -- concluding that: (1) DEA conducted an adequate search for records related to claims filed against the agency; (2) DEA properly withheld names of claimants pursuant to Exemption 6,; (3) DEA improperly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of DEA tortfeasors and various other claim-related information; (3) DEA failed to show that requested claim records were compiled for law enforcement purposes under Exemption 7(C); (4) DEA neglected to submit sufficient information to court concerning withheld court-sealed records; (5) DEA neglected to produce all meaningful, reasonably segregable, non-exempt portions of certain responsive records; and (6) DEA’s untimely, 18-month response was not “egregious.”

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

Court opinions issued June 20-21, 2023

June 21, 2021

Friends of the River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (D.D.C.) -- finding that agency did not justify (and therefore must disclose) most of its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege because agency failed to articulate foreseeable harm, but that agency properly withheld records pursuant to attorney work-product and attorney-client privileges.

June 20, 2023

Cameron v. BOP (S.D. Ind.) -- dismissing prisoner-plaintiff’s claim as moot because agency released requested documents with some redactions after plaintiff filed suit and plaintiff failed to opposed agency’s motion to dismiss.

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

Court opinion issued June 14, 2023

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C.) -- ruling that communications between South Dakota state officials and the National Guard (a hybrid state-federal entity) did not fall within Exemption 5’s consultant corollary exception because they were not made for purpose of aiding the National Guard’s deliberations; noting that its ruling “produced an odd outcome considering that these discussions would be protected either under Exemption 5 (if wholly federal) and under South Dakota law (if wholly state) . . . and yet the very structure of the National Guard necessitates crossing federal-state lines.”

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

Court opinions issued June 13, 2023

Bloomberg L.P. v. USPS (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that USPS properly withheld certain anonymized change-of-address data pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with 39 U.S.C. § 410(c)(2), because the requested data relates to a commercial product licensed by the agency.

Bothwell v. DOJ (W.D. Okla.) -- deciding that: (1) DOJ was a proper defendant, but not two DOJ components, and (2) plaintiff exhausted his administrative remedies and properly stated a claim under FOIA.

Rhoades v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (E.D. Va.) -- concluding that agency performed reasonable search for permitting records and related correspondence from 1983, and that it was not required to ask private land owners if they maintained requested records.

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

Court opinion issued June 9, 2023

Schaerr v. Dep’t of Justice (D.C. Cir.) — affirming district court; concluding, based on circuit precedent, that an agency need not search for responsive records before invoking Glomar and refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records, as such information would itself be exempt under the FOIA; further holding that the defendant agencies had properly invoked Glomar in conjunction with Exemptions One and Three; rejecting requester’s claims of “bad faith” in rebutting agency affidavits because those “allegations [are] either too generalized or too attenuated from the specific classification decisions at issue[.]”

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

Court opinions issued June 1-2, 2023

June 2, 2023

Smolen v. FAA (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) FAA properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold draft agreement between the agency and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, and that it demonstrated reasonable foreseeable harm from disclosure; and (2) plaintiff failed to administratively appeal the adequacy of the agency’s search, but even if he had, agency’s search was adequate.

June 1, 2023

Sarama v. DEA (M.D. Fla.) -- concluding that: (1) plaintiff was eligible for attorney’s fees and costs because although DEA commenced search for certain records prior to lawsuit, it failed to process and disclose a mere 5 pages for a significant amount of time; (2) plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs despite lack of public benefit on disclosure, because DEA’s response was unreasonable and plaintiff’s interest in disclosure was not commercial.

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