Court opinion issued Nov. 27, 2023

Judicial Watch v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that FBI performed an adequate search for records of communications between FBI officials and the New York Times regarding search warrants executed in 2021 against certain Project Veritas employees; rejecting plaintiff’s challenges to the search terms employed and the locations searched, as well as plaintiff’s “pure speculation” that the FBI was the source of the newspaper’s reporting.

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

Court opinion issued Nov. 15, 2023

Kilmer v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment, ruling that: (1) CBP adequately addressed the court’s earlier concerns regarding the agency’s search for certain communications about the ‘Women’s March” in 2017; and (2) CBP properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 5 (deliberative process privilege), 6, 7(C), and 7(E). In reaching its decision, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that because CBP had certain enforcement powers, the agency’s search and withholdings should be reviewed under a “strict scrutiny” standard.

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

Court opinions issued Nov. 6, 2023

Contreras & Metelska v. ICE (D. Minn.) -- ruling that agency properly relied on Exemptions 3, 5, 6, and 7(C) to redact emails of ICE’s local chief counsel regarding his “no contact” policy with plaintiffs; rejecting plaintiff’s claims that agency’s alleged discriminatory conduct or its release of previously withheld records constituted bad faith warranting additional review of disputed documents.

NY Times v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y.) -- granting government’s motion for reconsideration in case involving records of FBI’s “use of spyware and other digital surveillance products from the Israeli technology company”; finding that government’s supplemental declaration regarding Exemptions 1, 3, and 7(E) was sufficient to sustain withholdings. but cautioning that “this ruling should in no way be construed as approving the Government's failure to effectively support its litigation positions in its summary judgment briefing.”

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

Court opinion issued Nov. 1, 2023

Guarascio v. FBI (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning records of plaintiff’s conviction for manufacturing child pornography, concluding that: (1) although FBI processed and released requested records, FBI failed to show that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge his FOIA/Privacy Act waiver; (2) FBI’s search was inadequate “because it did not aver that it searched all files that are likely to contain responsive materials”; (3) plaintiff was not entitled to a waiver due to indigency or any alleged improprieties in his criminal case, and he failed to show that public interest would be served by disclosure; and (4) FBI properly withheld records pursuant to Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(C), but it did not establish that Exemption 7(D) protected all investigatory records received from a state law enforcement agency.

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

FOIA News: Reminder of Chief FOIA Officers Council meeting

The Chief FOIA Officers Council will meet on Thursday, November 9, 2023, from 10:00 AM to 12:30 PM. To present oral comments during the meeting, the public must register by Tuesday at 11:59 PM. The meeting will also be livestreamed. See more details here.

Court opinion issued Oct. 24, 2023

Vidal-Martinez v, DHS (7th Cir.) -- using “clear error” standard, affirming district court’s decision that ICE properly redacted records concerning plaintiff pursuant to Exemptions 5, 6, and 7(C), and that plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees because he did not substantially prevail.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 23, 2023

Energy Policy Advocates v. SEC (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) agency performed an adequate search for various electronic communications, and (2) agency properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold in full five pages discussing the “nuts and bolts of proposed rulemaking”; further noting that the agency met the “deliberative process privilege’s ‘foreseeable harm’ requirement” with a concrete and focused declaration (albeit brief), which was supported by the “context and purpose” of the withheld records.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 17, 2023

BuzzFeed v, DOJ (D.D.C.) -- deciding that: (1) FBI properly relied on Exemption 4 to withhold certain emails discussing DNA forensic assistance for pending FBI investigations, noting that agency demonstrated that disclosure could cause foreseeable financial harm to genetic testing companies; (2) FBI properly invoked Exemption 7(A) to withhold records about reasonably anticipated enforcement proceedings that, if disclosed, would reasonably likely to interfere with future criminal cases; (3) FBI properly relied on Exemption 7(C) to withhold the identities of law enforcement personnel and third parties; and (4) FBI’s properly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold companies’ forensic law enforcement capacities and forensic genealogy testing innovations and advancements, as well as details on evidence collection and evidence gathered for pending investigations.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 13, 2023

Yim v. NIH (3rd Cir.) -- affirming district court’s decision that agency performed a reasonable search for records reflecting any updates to the COVID-19 treatment guidelines endorsed by a vote of a panel of experts; rejecting as speculation plaintiff’s assertion that the expert panel never actually voted on a guideline recommendation about which NIH had produced records.

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

Court opinion issued Oct. 12, 2023

Louise Trauma Ctr. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- on renewed summary judgment and following in camera review, concluding that DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation properly withheld some, but not all, presentation slides pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6. Of note, the court chided DOJ for failing to cite Exemption 6 in its Vaughn Index despite being instructed to do so in its prior opinion.

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