FOIA Advisor

Court Opinions (2015-2024)

Court opinion issued Aug. 25, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Found. for Gov't Accountability v. DOJ (M.D. Fla.) -- in case concerning DOJ’s strategic plan to promote voter registration and participation in response to Executive Order 14019, determining that: (1) DOJ properly withheld some, but not all, disputed emails pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege; and (2) DOJ improperly relied on the deliberative process privilege to withhold the final version of DOJ’s strategic plan because it was not pre-decisional; and (3) ordering in camera review of DOJ’s strategic plan to evaluate DOJ’s presidential communications claim, noting that DOJ’s sworn statements “lack sufficient detail and are contradicted by the record evidence.”

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 24, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Thompson v. DOJ (W.D.N.C.) -- denying government’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim that the Environmental & Natural Resources Division had adopted a pattern or practice of delaying responses to plaintiff’s FOIA requests; rejecting government’s argument that because all of plaintiff’s requests had received a response, plaintiff’s pattern-or practice claim was moot; noting government’s delays in responding to plaintiff’s requests and to other FOIA requesters, as indicated in DOJ’s annual FOIA reports.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 18, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Watkins Law & Advocacy v. DOJ (D.C. Cir.) -- (1) affirming district’s decision that FBI and DOJ performed adequate searches for records pertaining to veterans prohibited from purchasing firearms due to mental defects, and rejecting appellant’s argument that DOJ should have expanded its search from the Attorney General’s Office to the Office of Legislative Affairs based on results of AG’s searches; and (2) vacating and remanding district court’s decision that Department of Veterans Affairs properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process and attorney-client privileges, because VA’s declaration described the documents at a “very high level of generality” and stated only “in conclusory fashion” that documents documents fell within those privileges.

Brown v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- finding that FBI performed adequate search for witness interviews pertaining to the 2015 San Bernardino attack and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 1, 3, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 17, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Smartflash, LCC v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- dismissing complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because underlying FOIA requests were not submitted by plaintiff, but by its attorney, who failed to clearly indicate that the requests were submitted on behalf of his client; rejecting attorney’s assignment of his FOIA rights to plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes because it occurred eight months after the lawsuit was filed.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 10-11, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Aug. 11, 2023

Magassa v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- determining that agency conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff and that it properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C). 7(E), and 3 in conjunction with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; further determining that FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(E) in refusing to confirm or deny whether plaintiff appeared on any “watch list” records,

Aug. 10, 2023

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case involving detention records from DHS database, ruling that: (1) Customs and Border Protection properly withheld alien registration numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C), likening them to social security numbers; (2) CBP did not sufficiently explain how disclosure of anonymized A-numbers or fingerprint identification numbers would compromise anyone’s privacy; and (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(E) to withhold locations of Border Patrol stations, and both parties failed to explain scope of their Exemption 7(E) dispute concerning database definitions.

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 9, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Bonner v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- holding that government properly relied on Exemption 3 to redact records prepared by former FBI agents concerning the detention of terrorist Abu Zubaydah; stating that government’s classified declarations “reflect an unusual and commendable degree of care in the Government's approach to classification and redactions. They reflect, as well, that the redactions to the materials in this case were made judiciously, not excessively, and based on a sophisticated and informed understanding of the ongoing national security threats posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

N.Y. Times v, FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- in case concerning FBI’s report about “Havana Syndrome,” ruling that: (1) agency failed to sufficiently establish the applicability of Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E), thus warranting in camera review of the report; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to withhold the names and phone numbers of Special Agents, locations of victims and their health information, and identifying information of certain witnesses, none of which plaintiff disputes.

Am. Civil Liberties Union of Mass. v. ICE (D. Mass.) -- determining after in camera review that ICE properly used Exemption 5 or Exemption 7(E) to withhold many, but not all, communications from senior attorneys to trial attorneys counting case descriptions, practice pointers, legal strategies, and other guidance.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 7, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Ctr. for Medical Progress v. HHS (D.D.C.) -- finding that HHS properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold identities of two NIH employees who worked on university grant application pertaining to the collection and distribution of fetal stem cell tissue, noting that the potential for violence and harassment outweighed plaintiff’s asserted public interests.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 2, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Vaskas v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s criminal conviction for possession of child pornography, holding that: (1) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Federal Victims’ Protection & Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509(d); (2) agency properly invoked Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold communications pertaining its investigation, case planning and surveillance of plaintiff; (3) agency properly withheld identifying information of government employees and third parties pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C).

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 1, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

La Union DEL Pueblo Entero v. FEMA (S.D. Tex.) -- in most relevant part, (1) adopting magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R) that FEMA failed to show that it adequately searched for records concerning its “Individuals and Households Program”; and (2) agreeing with R&R that FOIA authorizes prospective injunctive relief as a remedy, but declining to decide whether it can enforce the electronic reading room requirement.

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

Court opinions issued July 31, 2023

Court Opinions (2015-2024)Allan BlutsteinComment

Biear v. DOJ (M.D. Pa) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff pursuant to Exemption 3, 7(D), and 7(E), per magistrate’s report and recommendation (R&R) ; (2) with two exceptions, including the names of deceased individuals, R&R would be granted with respect to FBI’s withholdings pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).

Kinnucan v. Nat'l Sec. Agency (W.D. Wash.) -- holding that NSA and CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 to redact portions of records records relating to a 1967 attack by Israeli forces on a U.S. naval intelligence ship.

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