Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (9th Cir.) (unpublished)-- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that Exemption 4 did not protect intervenor’s information regarding importation and exportation of wildlife, because U.S. Supreme Court decided Food Market Institute v. Argus Leader Media while case was pending on appeal.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
FFRF, CREW settle lawsuit over HUD open records denial
Press Release, Freedom From Religion Found., Apr. 23, 2020
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is pleased to announce that it has successfully settled a federal lawsuit today over the denial of its Freedom of Information Act request by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
FFRF, a national state/church watchdog, teamed up with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a governmental watchdog, after HUD Secretary Ben Carson dodged records requests related to the White House bible study.
Read more here.
Rocky Mountain Wild. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt. (D. Colo.) -- concluding that: (1) agency performed reasonable search for records concerning specific lease sale, except with respect to its use of search cut-off date; (2) agency’s Vaughn index did not permit court to determine whether agency properly withheld records pursuant to attorney-client privilege or released all non-exempt segregable material.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Hall & Assoc. v. EPA (D.C. Cir.) -- reversing and remanding district court’s decision that EPA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold records concerning a “nonacquiescence decision,” because the court erroneously resolved inferences about the predecisional nature of records against plaintiff instead of requiring EPA to conclusively demonstrate that the threshold was met.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Judge Won't 'Destroy' King & Spalding Billing Records the Firm Wants to Pull Back
King & Spalding "asks the court to turn back the clock and treat the sealed material as if plaintiff had never intentionally placed it on the court’s docket. That the court cannot do," U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta said in a new order.
By Mike Scarcella, Nat’l Law Journal, Apr. 21, 2020
A Washington federal judge on Tuesday turned down a request from King & Spalding to destroy billing records the law firm submitted under seal as part of a petition seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney fees in a public records lawsuit.
King & Spalding withdrew its request for $665,000 in fees in the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit after the federal trial judge, Amit Mehta, said the firm would be required to reveal billing rates and other information submitted under seal in support of the petition for compensation.
Read more here.
Small Business Administration Declines Loan Disclosure for Now
Federal agency says loan-level data for the Paycheck Protection Program will come later
By Rolfe Winkler & Cezary Podkul, Wall St. J., Apr. 21, 2020
The Small Business Administration rejected multiple requests on Monday for detailed information about borrowers in the new Paycheck Protection Program, saying it needed to prioritize its effort to assist businesses.
That decision means that for now the public won’t get a comprehensive look at the $350 billion rescue package intended for Main Street, amid debate over which companies should be getting the money.
Read more here.
Am. Oversight v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that General Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Office of Information Policy failed to conduct reasonable searches for records concerning White House meetings relating to consolidation of FBI Headquarters
Reyes v. Dep’t of the Interior (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily finding that agency performed adequate search for records, but ordering in camera review of records withheld by agency pursuant to Exemption 6.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center announced today that it had entered a settlement agreement with the National Archives and Records Administration stemming from its request for for records pertaining to Justice Kavanaugh's work in the Bush White House. As part of the agreement, EPIC will receive $20,001 for attorney’s fees and costs.
A battered FOIA collides with the $2 trillion bailout
By Mya Frazier, Columbia Journalism Review, Apr. 20, 2020
There is, of course, never a good time for a pandemic. But the Freedom of Information Act is weaker than it has ever been. A Supreme Court decision in 2019, described by some media law scholars as a “downward spiral toward secrecy,” will make it difficult for the media to fully investigate conflicts of interest and corruption within the stimulus aid package.
FOIA lawsuits, which according to media lawyers can range in cost from $10,000 to $80,000, were already financially untenable, especially for local media outlets. In a 2016 Knight Foundation survey of news leaders, 53 percent said their news organizations weren’t prepared to go to court to fight First Amendment violations, with nine out of ten blaming their reluctance on a lack of money. Such hesitation has consequences: research shows the mere threat of litigation increases agency compliance with foia requests. “There was a time when local media companies owned the atmosphere and carried the ball on foia,” says David Cuillier, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Arizona, who has published widely on the history of foia case law and is president of the board of directors at the National Freedom of Information Coalition. “They’ve just all kind of stopped filing lawsuits.”
Read more here.