FOIA Advisor

Court Opinions (2015-16)

Court opinions issued Nov. 22, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Friends of the River v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs (N.D. Cal.) --  transferring case to District of Columbia because plaintiff failed to establish that responsive records were likely located in the Northern District of California.   

Wadhwa v. Sec'y, Dep't of Veterans Affairs (D.N.J.) -- granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery because the agency ignored instructions to submit affidavit explaining its Glomar response or its withholding under Exemptions 5 and 6. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinions issued Nov. 21, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Torres Consulting & Law Grp., LLC v. NASA (9th Cir.) (unpublished opinion) -- reversing and remanding district court's decision that certain payroll information was protected by Exemptions 4 and 6.  

Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DHS (D.D.C.) --  concluding for fee purposes that that plaintiff substantially prevailed because court issued scheduling order and because FOIA litigation substantially caused DHS to produce documents; further finding that plaintiff was entitled to fees because all factors weighed in plaintiff's favor.

Vakili v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- dismissing plaintiff's possible FOIA claims for failing to prosecute and for failing to exhaust his administrative remedies.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 8, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Brown v. Perez (10th Cir.) -- on petition for panel rehearing, reversing district court's decision that the names and business addresses of workers compensation physicians were properly withheld under Exemptions 4 or 6; affirming district court's decision that agency was not required to input information into computer program in order to recreate requested screen images.

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 3, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Schotz v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (D.D.C.) -- (1) denying pro se plaintiff's motion to reconsider decision in the Federal Bureau of Prison's favor, because records released by BOP in response to a different request did not qualify as "new evidence" nor did it undermine the reasonableness of the agency's search; (2) denying plaintiff's motion for costs because plaintiff did not prevail by judicial order, the lawsuit was not the proximate cause of agency's release of records, plaintiff sought records for purely personal reasons, and the agency's uncontested withholdings were reasonable.  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinion issued Nov. 2, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Muchnick v. DHS (N.D. Cal.) -- issuing a tentative order, pending resolution between the parties, that: (1) DHS must release information about the alleged crimes of George Gibney, decisions about immigration benefits he sought, and the dates any documents containing such information were created; (2) DHS may withhold, pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C), all identifying information about third parties other than Gibney, as well as Gibney's past addresses, salary history, Alien number, and the like; and (3) DHS may redact records revealing the investigative procedures it used to obtain information about Gibney, but not the information itself, pursuant to Exemption 7(E).  

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.

Court opinions issued Oct. 27, 2016

Court Opinions (2015-16)Allan BlutsteinComment

Freedom Watch v. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D.D.C.) -- denying plaintiff's so-called discovery request seeking "full production" of requested records in case in which agencies averred they had never received plaintiff's requests.  

Morales v. Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of State (D.D.C) -- denying plaintiffs' emergency motion seeking immediate processing of their FOIA request, because: (1) plaintiffs failed to ask the agency for expedited processing in his FOIA request; and (2) plaintiffs did not establish that they met any of the factors warranting preliminary injunctive relief. 

Summaries of all opinions issued since April 2015 available here.