Elgabrowny v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- dismissing claims against the State Department and CIA because pro se plaintiff failed to prosecute case after he was released from federal prison.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
High Court FOIA Bout Could Expose IRS Contractor Work
By Amy Lee Rosen, Law360, Oct. 27, 2021
The IRS' ability to shield work by outside contractors from disclosure could be undermined if the U.S. Supreme Court reviews a would-be air traffic controller's Freedom of Information Act case against the Federal Aviation Administration and rules against the government.
In a divided en banc decision in March, the Ninth Circuit said documents requested under FOIA by rejected air traffic control candidate Jorge Alejandro Rojas were exempt from release even though they were generated by a third-party consultant. The court reasoned that the "consultant corollary doctrine," a theory adopted by seven circuit courts so far that prevents items from being shared under FOIA, extends to privileged documents prepared by private, outside consultants.
In 2009, he filed a freedom of information request. Twelve years later he got answers
By Asma Khalid, NPR, Oct. 24, 2021
The media's primary role in a functioning democracy is to hold the government accountable and keep citizens informed. And in order to do that, a free press needs access to certain documents, from FBI investigations to court filings, which brings us to the reporter's best friend or biggest headache. Those are the requests they file under the Freedom Of Information Act, or FOIA. That's where reporters hoping to dig into a story ask a government agency for information that they want. And then they wait and wait and wait and wait for weeks, for months and, in the case of Bruce Alpert, 12 years.
Read more here.
White v. DOJ (7th Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that FBI’s 500-page-per-month production rate was proper; FBI and U.S. Marshals Service performed reasonable searches concerning plaintiff and white-supremacist groups; FBI properly issued Glomar responses regarding third-party record requests; and plaintiff was not entitled to litigation costs.
Open Soc’y Justice Initiative v. DOD (S.D.N.Y.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that CIA properly relied on Exemption 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny existence of certain records pertaining to COVID-19.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ramaci v. FBI (S.D.N.Y) -- rejecting plaintiff’s argument that FBI improperly relied on Exemption 7(D) to withhold records concerning death of plaintiff’s husband, Steven Vincent, in Iraq, and further finding that FBI’s undisputed withholdings under Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E) were appropriate.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
Ball v. USMS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) U.S. Marshals Service performed adequate search for records concerning prisoner-plaintiff; (2) USMS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement properly withheld records (collectively or individually ) pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6. 7(C), 7(E), and 7(F) and met statute’s foreseeable harm requirement, which it noted did not apply to Exemption 3.
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
9th Circ. Mulls VW Intervening In Fight For Jones Day Report
By Lauren Berg, Law360, Oct. 21, 2021
A Ninth Circuit judge questioned when a third party must intervene in a suit involving its interests, indicating during oral arguments Thursday that Volkswagen was timely in its bid for a say on whether the government should release an internal VW investigation conducted by Jones Day. During remote arguments for Volkswagen's appeal, U. S. Circuit Judge John B. Owens said Ninth Circuit precedent states that a third party doesn't have to intervene as soon as it becomes aware of a lawsuit involving its interests but can timely jump in when it knows its interests won't be adequately represented.
Read more here (accessible with free 7-day trial).
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit resumes in-person hearings on December 1, 2021, one of its first three cases will be a FOIA case: Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DOJ, No. 21-5113, which concerns the use of the deliberative process privilege to withhold portions of a legal memorandum concerning Special Counsel Mueller’s report.
Cole v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- dismissing plaintiff’s claim concerning his request for FBI records about the Junior Black Mafia because he failed to file an administrative appeal with DOJ’s Office of Information Policy.
Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of agency’s interaction with Twitter, finding that: (1) CBP properly withheld certain, but not all, records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process, attorney work-product, and attorney-client privileges, citing in some instances the lack of foreseeable harm; (2) CBP properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold names of “non-public-facing” employees, except for two Special Agents whose names were in public domain; and (3) CBP properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.
University of Maryland professor and former NARA litigator Jason Baron will lead a FOIA discussion on November 17, 2021, entitled “Secrets of the Freedom of the Information Act: Everything you need to know about the FOIA process (including finding out where the Roswell documents are).”
See here for more details about the event.