Following up on our tweet yesterday morning, the Department of State issued final FOIA and Privacy Act regulations on April 6, 2016, after addressing public comments on the Department's notice of proposed rulemaking dated July 28, 2015. The final regulations will become effective on May 6, 2016.
[The author submitted comments to the Department on behalf of America Rising; see "Second Public Comment"]
By Nicholas Iovino, Courthouse News Service, Apr. 7, 2016
Dog owners sued the National Park Service for records on a new rule that will restrict dog walking in the 80,000-acre Golden Gate National Recreation Area in three Bay Area counties.
Save Our Recreation and three dog-owner groups sued the National Park Service and Secretary of Interior Sally Jewell on Wednesday in Federal Court, demanding information and an injunction.
The Park Service's proposed dog management rule restricts on- and off-leash dog walking to 22 sites in the 80,000-acre park that includes areas of San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo counties.
The groups say the Park Service had been "maneuvering to radically reduce" dog walkers' access to the park for more than a decade before it issued its proposed rule on Feb. 24.
After proposing dog restrictions in 2014, the park submitted to a public process engineered to "legitimize" its "pre-determined radical reduction" in access for dog walkers, the plaintiffs say.
The comment period for the new rule ends May 25. The dog walkers say the Park Service has not responded to a Freedom of Information Act request filed last year, in a deliberate attempt to stop them from "meaningfully participating" in the rulemaking process.
Read more here.
Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (E.D.N.Y.) (Magistrate's Order) -- finding that the Federal Bureau of Prisons: conducted an adequate search for records and properly redacted the inmate names and register numbers pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of State (D.D.C.) -- holding that the agency had no duty to respond to plaintiff's request for "records that identify the number and names of all current and former" State Department officials "who used email addresses other than their assigned 'state.gov' email addresses to conduct official State Department business," because the request was really a question and not a request for existing records.
Gatore v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C.) -- agreeing with agency that Exemption 5 applies to assessments of asylum applications, but ordering agency to perform segregability analysis of each document; denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees because plaintiff failed to address whether it was eligible and entitled to such fees.
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
By Julian Hattem, The Hill, April 6, 2016
The State Department on Wednesday scored a victory in one of the multiple, ongoing open records lawsuits related to Hillary Clinton’s personal email server because the request was overly broad.
Last year, the conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch asked the State Department to hand over “the number and names of all current and former officials, officers or employees” who had used any email accounts other than official “state.gov” emails for work purposes. The request appeared designed to determine who, in addition to Clinton, a former secretary of State and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, had used non-governmental email accounts for official business.
But the State Department interpreted the request to be asking for a list of all employees who used alternate email addresses, which it did not have.
On Wednesday, a federal judge agreed, ruling that the poorly worded request pushed it outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Judicial Watch’s request, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote, “is really a question that asks ‘who at the State Department used private email for conducting official business?’”
“A question is not a request for records under FOIA and an agency has no duty to answer a question posed as a FOIA request.”
Read more here.
By Spencer S. Hsu, Wash. Post, Apr. 6, 2016
Seven top State Department officials and aides to Hillary Clinton should not be questioned under oath about their handling of classified information on Clinton’s private email server as secretary of state or about pending FBI or inspector general investigations, the department said in a court filing late Tuesday.
The filing came in response to a plan by a conservative legal watchdog group to question current and former officials — including then-Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl D. Mills — to determine whether Clinton’s email arrangement thwarted federal open-records laws.
On Feb. 23, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered both sides to come up with a “narrowly tailored” plan in the Judicial Watch public records lawsuit. The State Department said Tuesday that it understood the order to mean that questioning be limited to “the reasons for the creation of [the clintonemail.com] system.”
Read more here.
Q. Maryland has its own Public Information Act. Do all states have something similar?
A. Yes. For information about each state's law and how to submit requests, you might wish to consult one of the following resources:
FOIA Machine -- listing all state open records laws, including deadlines for agency responses
National Freedom of Information Coalition -- listing all state open records laws, sample request letters for all states, and freedom of information hotline numbers
Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press – compendium of all state open records and open meetings laws
Society of Professional Journalists -- provides step-by-step guides, letter generators, and state contact information.
The TSA Randomizer iPad App Cost $1.4 Million
By Kevin Burke, Apr. 3, 2016
You may have seen the TSA Randomizer on your last flight. A TSA agent holds an iPad. The agent taps the iPad, a large arrow points right or left, and you follow it into a given lane.
How much does the TSA pay for an app that a beginner could build in a day? It turns out the TSA paid IBM $1.4 million dollars for it.
It's not hard! I searched on Google for "TSA FOIA" and found this page, which describes exactly how to reach the FOIA team at the TSA.
Read more here.
Q. Are condemnation awards for taking of land for U.S. highways subject to FOIA requirements?
A. Most likely yes. To request federal government records, you might want to try the Federal Highway Administration. And here is the contact information for requesting records from the Florida's Department of Transportation.
Mar. 31, 2016
Ryan v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) -- holding that agency conducted an adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, who alleged that he has been under constant FBI surveillance since shortly after September 11, 2001.
Giovanetti v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation (D.D.C.) -- granting government's renewed motion for summary judgment after finding that FBI properly withheld records about plaintiff, a pro se prisoner, pursuant to Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E).
Mar. 30, 2016
Center for Ethics & Responsibility in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- deciding that FBI properly invoked Exemptions 3, 5, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E) to withheld records pertaining to investigation of former congressman Tom Delay. Of note, the court permitted the FBI to assert Exemption 5 even though it had not raised the argument during prior proceedings. The court noted, however, that the agency "prevailed on this issue by the skin of its teeth." The court further stated that it was "particularly displeased by defendant's misrepresentation in its brief in support of its second Motion for Summary Judgment that the FBI had withheld material pursuant to Exemption 5 in the first round of summary judgment . . . and defendant's failure to explain or take responsibility for the mishap here."
Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.
Q. What can I do to expunge a record from the U.S. Customs & Border Patrol if i was fingerprinted but released with no charges against me? What form can I submit to them to expunge that incident?
A. If you wish to amend CBP's records, you might consider filing a Privacy Act amendment request. Here is the appropriate form: http://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/g639_1.pdf.