Court opinion issued Oct. 2, 2023

Stevens v. HHS (N.D. Ill.) -- determining in relevant part that: (1) EOIR could not deny requests seeking all records about certain third parties as unreasonably described, because plaintiff included requests for more specific items and EOIR did not assert that a search would require unreasonable effort; and (2) plaintiff’s request for screenshots of certain information contained in an agency database was readily reproducible and would not constitute the creation of new records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 30, 2023

Shtyenshlyuger v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- in a 71-page opinion, concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal agency’s response that was issued after he had filed suit; (2) agency failed to explain how it processed approximately 3200 responsive pages, and its search terms and search locations were incomplete; (3) agency failed to establish that all of its Exemption 4 withholdings met the “commercial or financial threshold,” let alone the “confidential” prong, and it wholly ignored the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; (4) agency properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it failed to carry its burden with respect to its attorney-client privilege withholdings; and (5) agency could not withhold complaint files under Exemption 6 merely because they were located in a Privacy Act system of records, noting that CMS failed to explain whose privacy interest it sought to protect and “how disclosure would ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted’ invasion of that unspecified interest.”

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Sept. 29, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. EPA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege and met the foreseeable harm test in withholding portions of a presentation used “to brief White House officials about potential strategies the EPA was considering for regulating power-plant pollution.”

Putnam v. U.S. Army Reserve Bd. Agency (W.D. Okla.) -- holding that agency’s belated response to plaintiff’s request warranted no after-the-fact remedy, and that the agency demonstrated the adequacy of its search.

Stein v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- concluding that: (1) CIA’s discovery of two additional responsive records did not warrant disturbing court’s initial decision that CIA’s search was adequate; (2) CIA was required to provide actual documents to plaintiff, as ordered in previous ruling, as opposed to a list of names that were not protected by Exemption 6; and (3) neither State Department, FBI, nor ODNI adequately addressed court’s prior concerns about certain withholdings, which necessitated further briefing from the latter two agencies and in camera review of State’s disputed record.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 28, 2023

Cabezas v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) DOJ’s Office of Professional Responsibility failed to prove that it had responded to plaintiff’s request before plaintiff filed suit, and that OPR improperly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 6 and 7(C) in connection with plaintiff’s request for misconduct records regarding certain law enforcement officers; (2) neither BOP nor plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on question of whether agency received plaintiff’s request; and (3) EOUSA established that it conducted an adequate search for certain forfeiture records pertaining to plaintiff’s property.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 21, 2023

Protect the Public’s Trust v. DOL (D.D.C.) -- ruling that agency properly refused to process plaintiff’s unreasonably described request for “all records and communications” between agency political appointees and “any employee or representative” of 25 separate organizations.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Sept. 19, 2023

Radar Online v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI was entitled to raise Exemption 7(A) as grounds for withholding Jeffrey Epstein-related records due to changed circumstances, but agency failed to show how disclosure of particular investigatory records would interfere with a retrial of Ghislaine Maxwell if she prevailed on appeal; (2) FBI properly relied on Exemption 3 to withhold identifying information concerning minor children, but it failed to meet its burden regarding grand jury materials and juvenile arrest and criminal history information; (3) FBI properly withheld various records pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and 7(E); and (4) FBI established that Exemption 7(D) protected information provided by local law enforcement information, but it did not meet its burden with respect to information provided by other sources.

Cable News Network v. CIA (D.D.C.) -- holding that CIA properly relied on Exemptions 1 and 3 in refusing to confirm or deny the existence of records pertaining to deceased musician James Brown.

Inst. for Energy Research v. FERC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed adequate search for two Commissioners’ calendars; (2) agency’s explanations for its withholdings under Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege were “insufficiently detailed”; and (3) agency properly withheld certain records pursuant to Exemption 6, but failed to justify its categorical withholding of the names of all “lower-level staff.”

Bakaj v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- ruling that DHS properly redacted the names of four CIA officials pursuant to Exemption 3 in conjunction with the Inspector General Act, National Security Act, and the CIA Act.

Wright v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- concluding that one of plaintiff’s requests was unreasonably described, the FBI conducted adequate searches with respect to four of five disputed items, and the FBI properly issued a Glomar response under Exemptions 1 and 3.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 16, 2023

Lawyers for Civil Rights v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs. (D. Mass) -- summarily adopting Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that USCIS properly witheld some, but not all, records pursuant to the deliberative process privilege, and that all of agency’s attorney-client privilege withholdings were proper; also remarking without context that “a generalized intention to shield government employees from unwanted attention is insufficient to support a wholesale exemption from the Freedom of Information Act's (FOIA) disclosure requirements.” 

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinions issued Sept. 13, 2023

NY Times v. FBI (S.D.N.Y.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to redact limited information from two documents pertaining to FBI shooting incidents, because such information would—in combination with publicly available information—risk revealing the identities of FBI agents and third parties with no overriding public interest.

Stalcup v. FBI (M.D. Fla.) -- dismissing case after determining that plaintiff neglected to properly file administrative appeals with the U.S. Navy and FBI following their pre-litigation responses to his requests for TW Flight 800 records.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 12, 2023

Osen LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury (S.D.N.Y.) -- find that the Office of Foreign Assets Control properly withheld “designation packages” pertaining to three sanctioned, Hamas-related organizations pursuant to Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 in conjunction with 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1).

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.

Court opinion issued Sept. 11, 2023

Colo. Wild Pub. Lands v. U.S. Forest Service (D.D.C.) -- in case involving records of agency’s evaluation of a proposed land exchange, ruling that: (1) agency improperly withheld disputed records pursuant to Exemption 5, because they were either not deliberative or did not meet the foreseeable harm test; (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 6 to withhold employee’s work cell phone number and contact information of third parties, except for business contact information of real estate agents; and (3)(a) plaintiff adequately alleged that agency had policy and practice of unlawfully withholding land exchange records, (b) its claim was not moot, and (c) declaratory relief was appropriate but that a referral to a Special Counsel was not.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.