Sept. 28, 2018
Kwoka v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- holding that IRS could not rely on Exemption 3 and 6 to categorically withhold names of requesters and their organizational affiliations from agency FOIA log.
Hyatt v. USPTO (D.D.C.) -- finding after in camera review that employee’s email commenting about character of plaintiff (a frequent patent applicant) constituted “agency record” for FOIA purposes, and that agency’s reliance on Exemption 6 to withhold email failed “miserably.”
Inst. for Justice v. IRS (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) IRS performed reasonable search for records from its “Asset Forfeiture Tracking and Retrieval System,” (2) agency’s production of records in Adobe format was “the only technologically-feasible route available; (3) agency properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold information related to assets seized in open investigations; (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold information pertaining to individuals from whom assets were seized.
Garza v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that USMS, FBI, and DEA performed reasonable searches for records concerning plaintiff’s fugitive arrest and criminal case, and that government properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(D), 7(E), and 7(F).
Long v. ICE (D.D.C.) -- denying government’s summary judgment motion (without prejudice) in case that raises question whether plaintiff’s request requires agency to extract and compile existing data from database or, on the other hand, requires agency to create record or conduct research to answer questions.
Hodes v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to redact commission percentages paid by IRS to debt collection contractors.
Sept. 27, 2018
Story of Stuff Project v. U.S. Forest Serv. (D.D.C.) -- finding that: (1) agency properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold non-public records concerning Nestle Waters North America’s operations in San Bernardino National Forest, but that agency needed to clarify whether certain information was in public domain; (2) ruling on applicability of Exemption 9 to “bore holes” would be deferred until agency clarified whether information was in public domain; (3) agency properly withheld records concerning permitting and litigation pursuant to deliberative process and attorney-client privileges; and (4) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold names of individuals who authored scientific studies or worked on biological surveys.
Micolo v. DOJ (E.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that FBI performed reasonable searches for investigatory records pertaining to bank robbery for which plaintiff was convicted in 2003.
Rosenberg v. DOD (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for communications sent by former U.S. Southern Command commander John Kelly concerning Joint Task Force Guantanamo; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 1, section 1.4(g) of Executive Order 13,526, but certain withheld information had been officially acknowledged and other withholdings required supplemental declarations; (3) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(E), but fell short with respect to its Exemption 5 withholdings because “foreseeable harm standard” required government to “do more than perfunctorily state that disclosure of all the withheld information—regardless of category or substance—’would jeopardize the free exchange of information between senior leaders within and outside of the [DOD]’.
Michael v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’s criminal case; (2) ATF, to which EOUSA had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(F), and it also properly withheld records that had been sealed by federal court in North Carolina; and (3) FBI, to which ATF had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 6 and 7(C).
Richardson v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case; (2) ATF, to which EOUSA had referred records, properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 6 and 7(C); and (3) plaintiff, who contested veracity of documents only, was not entitled to in camera review or discovery.
Cornucopia Inst. v. USDA (D.D.C.) -- holding that: (1) agency properly relied on deliberative process privilege to withhold records pertaining to visits to organic dairies in Texas and New Mexico in 2012, but that it improperly withheld photographs; and (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to the trade secrets and competitive harm prongs of Exemption 4.
Wellman v. DOJ (D. Nev.) -- agreeing with D.C. Circuit that government cannot withhold portions of documents as non-responsive, but otherwise determining that government properly withheld records pertaining to internal investigation of plaintiff by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Long v. ICE (N.D.N.Y.) -- denying government’s motion for summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s request for immigration enforcement data would require agency to create new records, conduct research or answer questions.
Mathis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) federal court in Georgia and American Red Cross were not subject to plaintiff’s FOIA requests; (2) plaintiff failed to submit proper FOIA request to IRS; (3) plaintiff failed to prove that he submitted request to Department of Defense, which was unable to locate one; (4) Securities and Exchange Commission, Social Security Commission, and FBO performed adequate searches for records concerning plaintiff and found none.
Trucept, Inc. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- granting government’s renewed summary judgment motion after finding that agency performed reasonable search for plaintiff’s administrative files and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E).
Thompson v. Sessions (D.D.C.) -- concluding that plaintiff did not have standing to pursue “policy or practice” claim against DOJ for delaying responses to his requests about his employment, and that plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
