Musgrave v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — denying the cross-motions for summary judgment “because they rest on a declaration that addresses the burdens imposed by responding to Parts 4 and 5 of the FOIA request”; noting that, as plaintiff has withdrawn part five of its request, “[t]he court is thus left to speculate about the burdens imposed by Part 4 only”; seemingly granting the agency leave to file ex parte details about “the precise number of employees” at the “Washington and San Francisco field offices,” given plaintiff’s suggestion that “each employee individually . . . conduct email searches.”
Ferrera Parra v. Judicial Conference of the U.S. (D.D.C.) — dismissing without prejudice a pro se plaintiff’s complaint and noting that, inter alia, its FOIA claims remained “underdeveloped”; noting that, while plaintiff “contends . . . ‘[he] submitted multiple lawful FOIA requests’” to the Marshals Service, those requests remain unidentified “in his pleading” and any copies “peppered into his flood of exhibits” are “unmanageable to ascertain”; concluding that “any FOIA claims are deeply conflated with plaintiff’s myriad other grievances.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.