Eddington v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — denying the requester’s motion for attorneys’ fees; holding the requester was not eligible to recover fees because he did not substantially prevail; noting the requester “failed to show that [the] alleged disparity” between the processing time for his request, and the average time for fully processing a request at DOJ’s National Security Division in 2019, “establish[ed] [that] DOJ ‘suddenly accelerated’ processing [on his request] because [he] filed suit.”
Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (D.D.C.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment and denying the requester’s motion to lift a “temporary protective order” as moot; holding the agency properly applied Exemptions 3, 6, 7(C), 7(D), and 7(E), which plaintiff did not contest; after distinguishing the D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in Human Rights Defense Center v. U.S. Park Police, holding further that the court retained inherent equitable authority to prohibit the requester from further dissemination of “inadvertently disclosed” information “‘related to the FBI and ATF’s warrantless NICS Monitoring Program’” and protected by Exemptions 3 and 7(E).
Heritage Found. v. Dep’t of Justice (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment and holding that the agency conducted an adequate search; rejecting the requester’s argument that DOJ’s supporting declaration “lack[ed] sufficient specificity to establish that responsive data does not exist,” when the agency “would have [had] to sift through the available data, analyze it, drawn inferences from it, and create a new record” to fulfill the request; similarly rejecting the requester’s contention that the agency failed to inquire into where responsive data “‘may have already been compiled’ in some other form” because the hypothetical existence of such data was unsupported by any evidence.
Bothwell v. Dep’t of Justice (W.D. Okla.) — granting the agency’s motion for summary judgment; holding that the agency conducted an adequate search because “DOJ has set forth in adequate detail the methods used to search the electronic files, the search terms used, and the specific record systems searched,” and that the requester did “not suggest . . . other search terms, search methods, or alternative records systems”; holding further that the agency properly used Exemption 6 to withhold “personal information, including [a] social security number, date of birth, and addresses in . . . SF-50s”; declining to provide the requester with declaratory relief or to recognize a private right of action for monetary damages; notably, rejecting the government’s attempt to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under FRCP 12(b)(1) on mootness grounds because the agency had provided all responsive records.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.