July 8, 2025
Whitlock v. Dep’t of Def. (D.D.C.) — granting in part the government’s motion for reconsideration and allowing the to reprocess records previously withheld on a categorical basis and ordered to be disclosed, but limiting reprocessing to the applicability of Exemptions 1, 3, 6, 7(C), and 7(E); concluding that one of the D.C. Circuit’s “narrow exceptions” to the general rule requiring assertion of “all FOIA exemptions at the same time” applied here because “the government failed to press additional exemptions in their summary judgment papers due to attorney error; explaining the agency would not, however, be allowed to make new Exemption 5 or Exemption 7(D) arguments (except with respect to the identity of a confidential source) because it has “not sufficiently explained how releas[e] . . . would compromise national security, infringe on third parties’ privacy or safety, or otherwise be harmful or unfair.”
July 9, 2025
Jackson v. HHS (D. Nev.) -- setting aside its dismissal of plaintiff claim and reopening case for good cause, because plaintiff had filed an opposition to government’s motion to dismiss prior to court’s ruling and only one day after the filing deadline—which plaintiff reportedly misread.
July 10, 2025
Becker v. Department of the Navy (D.D.C.) — granting in part and denying in part the agency’s motion for summary judgment; concluding the Navy properly withheld material under Exemption 3, which was concurrently withheld under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), whose use was not challenged by the requester; deferring judgment on the propriety of the agency’s use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) pending its reprocessing of certain records and, if needed, renewed summary judgment cross-motions.
Pearce v. Department of the Army (D.D.C.) — granting the Army’s motion for summary judgment in a joint-FOIA/Privacy Act case concerning records of EEOC administrative proceedings; concluding, in relevant part, that the agency properly applied Exemption 5, in conjunction with the attorney-client, attorney work-product, and deliberative-process privileges, as well as Exemptions 7(C) and 7(D); holding the Army’s disclosure of certain privileged records during discovery in EEOC proceedings did not waive privilege for purposes of the FOIA; further holding the Army properly treated the requester’s own “summary judgment motion and certain deposition exhibits . . . [containing] information about a settlement proposal and draft settlement agreement” as protected by the deliberative-process privilege; recognizing the Exemption 7 threshold is met and that documents from EEOC administrative proceedings qualify as records compiled for “law enforcement” purposes; interestingly failing to offer any analysis on the Army’s satisfaction of the foreseeable-harm standard for all of the asserted statutory exemptions.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.