Informed Consent Action Network v. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention (D.D.C.) — in a case involving access to records about COVID-19 vaccines, denying the requester’s fee motion on entitlement grounds; noting the parties agree that the requester is “eligible” to receive attorney’s fees; explaining that of the four factors to be considered when determining entitlement to a fee award, “the first three . . . weigh slightly in plaintiff’s factor,” but the fourth—i.e., the “reasonableness of the agency’s withholding”—”weighs heavily against plaintiff”; with respect to the fourth factor, concluding the agency’s application of Exemption 6 to withhold the names of CDC personnel was reasonable in light of a perceived “palpable threat” to employee privacy, and danger of harassment, at the time the request was submitted, and an assessment that the asserted public interest in disclosure was minimal.
Popov. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (9th Cir.) (unpublished) — affirming district court’s decision that DHS properly withheld a third party’s Alien File under Exemption 6, noting that plaintiff-appellant failed to substantiate his allegations that the third party had committed any fraud or crimes or that DHS had acted improperly.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.