Smith v. U.S. Marshals Serv. (S.D.N.Y.) -- finding that USMS conducted adequate search for records concerning plaintiff, but that EOUSA’s search was inadequate because it failed to explain its use of inconsistent search terms across multiple electronic searches.

N.Y. Times Co. v. FDA (S.D.N.Y.) -- concluding that agency had failed to justify its invocation of Exemption 4 to withhold a variety of records pertaining to electronic cigarette manufacturer. Of note, the court sidestepped the application of the “foreseeable harm” requirement and rejected plaintiff’s suggestion to adopt a public interest exception or balancing test.

Humane Soc'y Int'l v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. (D.D.C.) -- on renewed briefing following the Supreme Court’s intervening Exemption 4 decision in Food Marketing Institute, holding that agency improperly withheld disputed records concerning wildlife import and export. In reaching its decision, the court found that many third-party declarations objecting to disclosure constituted inadmissible hearsay and that the remaining declarations failed to show that disputed records were customarily and actually treated as private. The court also considered that the government had a history of releasing the disputed records.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. GSA (D.D.C.) -- ruling that GSA properly relied on Exemption 5’s deliberative process privilege to withhold three categories of records concerning renovation of FBI headquarters, but that agency failed to justify use of same privilege to withhold two other categories of records.

Barry v. Haaland (D.D.C.) -- dismissing FOIA claim because plaintiff failed to administratively appeal from agency’s denial of access to any Inspector General records concerning plaintiff’s former supervisor.

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