Court opinions issued Sept. 19, 2023

Radar Online v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI was entitled to raise Exemption 7(A) as grounds for withholding Jeffrey Epstein-related records due to changed circumstances, but agency failed to show how disclosure of particular investigatory records would interfere with a retrial of Ghislaine Maxwell if she prevailed on appeal; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold identifying information concerning minor children, but it failed to meet its burden regarding grand jury materials and juvenile arrest and criminal history information; (3) FBI properly withheld various records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and 7(E); and (4) FBI established that Exemption 7(D) protected information provided by local law enforcement information, but it did not meet its burden with respect to information provided by other sources.

Cable News Network v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- holding that CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to deceased musician James Brown.

Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed adequate search for two Commissioners’ calendars; (2) agency’s explanations for its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege were “insufficiently detailed”; and (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6, but failed to justify its categorical withholding of the names of all “lower-level staff.”

Bakaj v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DHS properly redacted the names of four CIA officials pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Inspector General Act, National Security Act, and the CIA Act.

Wright v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that one of plaintiff’s requests was unreasonably described, the FBI conducted adequate searches with respect to four of five disputed items, and the FBI properly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 1 and 3.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 16, 2023

Lawyers for Civil Rights v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (D. Mass) -- summarily adopting Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that USCIS properly witheld some, but not all, records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege, and that all of agency’s attorney-client privilege withholdings were proper; also remarking without context that “a generalized intention to shield government employees from unwanted attention is insufficient to support a wholesale exemption from the Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) disclosure requirements.” 

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 13, 2023

NY Times v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact limited information from two documents pertaining to FBI shooting incidents, because such information would—in combination with publicly available information—risk revealing the identities of FBI agents and third parties with no overriding public interest.

Stalcup v. FBI (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff neglected to properly file administrative appeals with the U.S. Navy and FBI following their pre-litigation responses to his requests for TW Flight 800 records.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 12, 2023

Osen LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (S.D.N.Y.) -- find that the Office of Foreign Assets Control properly withheld “designation packages” pertaining to three sanctioned, Hamas-related organizations pursuant to Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1).

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 11, 2023

Colo. Wild Pub. Lands v. U.S. Forest Service (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of agency’s evaluation of a proposed land exchange, ruling that: (1) agency improperly withheld disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5, because they were either not deliberative or did not meet the foreseeable harm test; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold employee’s work cell phone number and contact information of third parties, except for business contact information of real estate agents; and (3)(a) plaintiff adequately alleged that agency had policy and practice of unlawfully withholding land exchange records, (b) its claim was not moot, and (c) declaratory relief was appropriate but that a referral to a Special Counsel was not.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 8, 2023

Gun Owners of America v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that FBI reasonably interpreted the scope of plaintiff’s request regarding website visitor information as seeking “preexisting aggregate records, not each underlying document that would allow it to construct the record itself,” and that FBI performed an adequate search (finding no responsive records); rejecting as irrelevant plaintiff’s arguments that other DOJ components produced individualized records and that DOJ’s counsel understood which records plaintiff was interested in, because the plain meaning of the actual request controlled.

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

Court opinion issued Sept. 5, 2023

Am. Oversight v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not adequately search for various documents relating to people who had died in ICE’s custody; (2) because ICE did not even attempt to justify its Exemption 3 withholdings (failing to file a promised ex parte declaration), it must release documents withheld solely under that exemption; and (3) ICE’s generalized assertions about foreseeable harm were inadequate to justify its withholdings under the deliberative process privilege.

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

Court opinions issued Sept. 1, 2023

Wilderness Workshop v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Forest Service performed adequate search for records concerning landowner’s request for access to national forest in Colorado, but USDA’s Office of Information Affairs failed to adequately explain its search methodology; (2) government’s declarations and Vaughn indices did not contain enough information to justify withholdings under the deliberative process privilege; (3) government properly withheld records pursuant to the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges and the foreseeable harm requirement was met; (4) government properly withheld information about federal employees under Exemption 6; and (5) government produced records in the format plaintiff requested (searchable PDF files), and it was not required to transmit those records via the means plaintiff requested (flash or jump drive).

Martin v. Garland (D.D.C.) -- finding that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys conducted a reasonable search for records concerning the medical leave of an Assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted him, and that EOUSA properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6.

Polidi v. Mendel (E.D. Va.) -- deciding that U.S. Patent and Trade Office properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to redact information pertaining to third parties appearing in records concerning plaintiff’s expulsion from the Patent Bar.

Yadav v. USCIS (D. Md.) -- concluding that agency performed adequate search for records pertaining to agency’s denial of plaintiff’s application to adjust his residency status, and that agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E).

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

Court opinions issued Aug. 30, 2023

Cullen v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) pro se prisoner waived his right to dispute adequacy of agency’s search for records pertaining to its investigation of plaintiff because he failed to mention the issue in his briefing; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), including images of adult pornography that plaintiff failed to establish were commercially produced.

Mountgordon v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning investigatory records generated from plaintiff’s complaint, finding that: (1) agency failed to expressly address the foreseeable harm requirement with respect to the withholding in full of its investigative report under the deliberative process privilege, nor did the agency sufficiently support its segregability analysis; and (2) regarding requested witness statements, the agency properly excluded “UCMJ rights forms” as non-responsive, but that agency’s declaration “conflates Exemptions 5 and 6 and offers too little detail to sustain the withholdings on the present record.” Of note was the court’s criticism of the agency in the opinion’s introduction: “Here, the Coast Guard’s motion for summary judgment is poorly supported and lacking essential detail. Many of its withholdings are likely proper, but the Coast Guard has not taken the time to support its position. That means more work for the Coast Guard, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court. And, more importantly, it also means unnecessary delay, which is antithetical to FOIA.”

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons improperly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold records describing guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain lethal injection substance, because those records did not involve agency “investigations” or “prosecutions”; (2) in accordance with recent D.C. Circuit decision, BOP did not sufficiently explain how information that could lead to identify the suppliers of lethal injection substances to the federal government was commercial information for Exemption 4 purposes'; and (3) BOP’s foreseeable harm argument “failed to connect any particular document to the stated harm” or to explain how deliberations would be harmed by disclosure.

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

Court opinion issued Aug. 29, 2023

Human Rights Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Park Police (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of tort claimants, and—invoking the court’s inherent powers—ordering plaintiff not to use or disseminate names of claimants that agency inadvertently disclosed; and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of police officers involved in same tort claims, noting that disclosure would reveal “little more about Park Police’s conduct than what has already been disclosed,” e.g., settlement amounts and officers’ employment status.

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