Shtyenshlyuger v. CMS (D.D.C.) -- in a 71-page opinion, concluding that: (1) plaintiff was not required to administratively appeal agency’s response that was issued after he had filed suit; (2) agency failed to explain how it processed approximately 3200 responsive pages, and its search terms and search locations were incomplete; (3) agency failed to establish that all of its Exemption 4 withholdings met the “commercial or financial threshold,” let alone the “confidential” prong, and it wholly ignored the statute’s foreseeable harm requirement; (4) agency properly withheld some but not all records pursuant to Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege, and it failed to carry its burden with respect to its attorney-client privilege withholdings; and (5) agency could not withhold complaint files under Exemption 6 merely because they were located in a Privacy Act system of records, noting that CMS failed to explain whose privacy interest it sought to protect and “how disclosure would ‘constitute a clearly unwarranted’ invasion of that unspecified interest.”
Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.