Cullen v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- determining that: (1) pro se prisoner waived his right to dispute adequacy of agency’s search for records pertaining to its investigation of plaintiff because he failed to mention the issue in his briefing; (2) agency properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 7(C), including images of adult pornography that plaintiff failed to establish were commercially produced.

Mountgordon v. U.S. Coast Guard (D.D.C.) -- in case concerning investigatory records generated from plaintiff’s complaint, finding that: (1) agency failed to expressly address the foreseeable harm requirement with respect to the withholding in full of its investigative report under the deliberative process privilege, nor did the agency sufficiently support its segregability analysis; and (2) regarding requested witness statements, the agency properly excluded “UCMJ rights forms” as non-responsive, but that agency’s declaration “conflates Exemptions 5 and 6 and offers too little detail to sustain the withholdings on the present record.” Of note was the court’s criticism of the agency in the opinion’s introduction: “Here, the Coast Guard’s motion for summary judgment is poorly supported and lacking essential detail. Many of its withholdings are likely proper, but the Coast Guard has not taken the time to support its position. That means more work for the Coast Guard, Plaintiff’s counsel, and the Court. And, more importantly, it also means unnecessary delay, which is antithetical to FOIA.”

Buzzfeed, Inc. v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- ruling that: (1) Federal Bureau of Prisons improperly used Exemption 7(E) to withhold records describing guidelines, techniques and procedures used to obtain lethal injection substance, because those records did not involve agency “investigations” or “prosecutions”; (2) in accordance with recent D.C. Circuit decision, BOP did not sufficiently explain how information that could lead to identify the suppliers of lethal injection substances to the federal government was commercial information for Exemption 4 purposes'; and (3) BOP’s foreseeable harm argument “failed to connect any particular document to the stated harm” or to explain how deliberations would be harmed by disclosure.

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