Vidal-Martinez v, DHS (7th Cir.) -- using “clear error” standard, affirming district court’s decision that ICE properly redacted records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because he did not substantially prevail.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Energy Policy Advocates v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed an adequate search for various electronic communications, and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold in full five pages discussing the “nuts and bolts of proposed rulemaking”; further noting that the agency met the “deliberative process privilege’s ‘foreseeable harm’ requirement” with a concrete and focused declaration (albeit brief), which was supported by the “context and purpose” of the withheld records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
BuzzFeed v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain emails discussing DNA forensic assistance for pending FBI investigations, noting that agency demonstrated that disclosure could cause foreseeable financial harm to genetic testing companies; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold records about reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings that, if disclosed, would reasonably likely to interfere with future criminal cases; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the identities of law enforcement personnel and third parties; and (4) FBI’s properly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold companies’ forensic law enforcement capacities and forensic genealogy testing innovations and advancements, as well as details on evidence collection and evidence gathered for pending investigations.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Yim v. NIH (3rd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed a reasonable search for records reflecting any updates to the COVID-19 treatment guidelines endorsed by a vote of a panel of experts; rejecting as speculation plaintiff’s assertion that the expert panel never actually voted on a guideline recommendation about which NIH had produced records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, concluding that DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation properly withheld some, but not all, presentation slides pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6. Of note, the court chided DOJ for failing to cite Exemption 6 in its Vaughn Index despite being instructed to do so in its prior opinion.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Stevens v. HHS (N.D. Ill.) -- determining in relevant part that: (1) EOIR could not deny requests seeking all records about certain third parties as unreasonably described, because plaintiff included requests for more specific items and EOIR did not assert that a search would require unreasonable effort; and (2) plaintiff’s request for screenshots of certain information contained in an agency database was readily reproducible and would not constitute the creation of new records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Shtyenshlyuger v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- in a 71-page opinion, concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal agency’s response that was issued after he had filed suit; (2) agency failed to explain how it processed approximately 3200 responsive pages, and its search terms and search locations were incomplete; (3) agency failed to establish that all of its Exemption 4 withholdings met the “commercial or financial threshold,” let alone the “confidential” prong, and it wholly ignored the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; (4) agency properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it failed to carry its burden with respect to its attorney-client privilege withholdings; and (5) agency could not withhold complaint files under Exemption 6 merely because they were located in a Privacy Act system of records, noting that CMS failed to explain whose privacy interest it sought to protect and “how disclosure would ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted’ invasion of that unspecified interest.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Energy Policy Advocates v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met the foreseeable harm test in withholding portions of a presentation used “to brief White House officials about potential strategies the EPA was considering for regulating power-plant pollution.”
Putnam v. U.S. Army Reserve Bd. Agency (W.D. Okla.) -- holding that agency’s belated response to plaintiff’s request warranted no after-the-fact remedy, and that the agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search.
Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) CIA’s discovery of two additional responsive records did not warrant disturbing court’s initial decision that CIA’s search was adequate; (2) CIA was required to provide actual documents to plaintiff, as ordered in previous ruling, as opposed to a list of names that were not protected by Exemption 6; and (3) neither State Department, FBI, nor ODNI adequately addressed court’s prior concerns about certain withholdings, which necessitated further briefing from the latter two agencies and in camera review of State’s disputed record.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Cabezas v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility failed to prove that it had responded to plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed suit, and that OPR improperly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in connection with plaintiff’s request for misconduct records regarding certain law enforcement officers; (2) neither BOP nor plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on question of whether agency received plaintiff’s request; and (3) EOUSA established that it conducted an adequate search for certain forfeiture records pertaining to plaintiff’s property.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Protect the Public’s Trust v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly refused to process plaintiff’s unreasonably described request for “all records and communications” between agency political appointees and “any employee or representative” of 25 separate organizations.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.