N.Y Times v. HHS (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that: (1) Indian Health Service improperly relied on Exemption 3, in conjunction with 25 U.S.C. § 1675, to withhold consultant’s report about sexual abuse of agency patients, because agency failed to show that the report constituted a medical quality assurance record; and (2) agency demonstrated that the report fell within the deliberative process privilege, but if failed to comply with the foreseeable harm requirement; and (3) agency could redact information protected by Exemption 6 before producing report to plaintiffs, who reserved the right to challenge redactions.

Leopold v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- determining that DOJ properly invoked Exemption 4 and 8 to withhold an independent monitor’s report concerning a bank’s anti-money laundering policies, but that DOJ’s segregability analysis was too brief to warrant summary judgment. Notably, in its discussion of Exemption 4, the court considered the alleged harms from disclosure identified by the government and found that they satisfied the foreseeable harm provision.

Summaries of all published opinions issued since April 2015 are available here.