Oct. 31, 2024
Leopold. v. Def. Intelligence Agency (D.D.C.) — in a case involving the redaction of two email messages responsive to a request concerning Michael’s Flynn’s tenure at DIA and as a subject to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, denying each party’s motion for summary judgment; holding that the technical requirements for use of Exemption 5 and the deliberative-process privilege were satisfied; yet concluding the DIA’s foreseeable harm analysis was inadequate because the agency did not adequately explain how disclosure would interrupt or chill internal deliberations over official travel decisions; noting how the Court “is hesitant” to order the documents produced, given the potential “impact [on] foreign relations with one this country’s closest allies,” and thus providing DIA with the opportunity to file a supplemental declaration concurrent with in camera review of the email records at issue.
Oct. 29, 2024
Am. First Legal Found. v. FBI (D.D.C.) — granting the government’s motion for summary judgment in a case concerning records of the FBI’s background investigations into DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas; holding, firstly, that the agency’s search was adequate given the detailed nature of the FBI’s “61-page affidavit” and, in so doing, rejecting the requester’s contention that the FBI was required to search email accounts when email correspondence was not specified in the request; relatedly concluding that the agency had not improperly narrowed the timeframe of its search; holding, further, that the FBI properly withheld records on a categorical basis under Exemptions 6 and 7(C), and that the requester offered only “bare suspicion” of why disclosure would serve the public interest by, among other things, demonstrating legal or ethical violations on the part of Secretary Mayorkas or other government officials; finally, holding that the FBI demonstrated compliance with the FOIA’s segregability requirement.
Heritage Found. v. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) — denying the requesters’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring expedited processing and completed disclosure of non-exempt records “by October 25, 2024” in a case involving records related to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to an American munitions plant; holding that the requesters “have not established that the records they seek are so central or highly relevant to the electoral choice voters will make . . . or essential to the integrity of the election, that a preliminary injunction is needed to avoid irreparable harm”; holding further that the requesters otherwise “cannot rely only on a statutory entitlement to expedited processing to show [the] irreparable harm” required for preliminary injunctive relief.
Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2024 are available here. Earlier opinions are available here.