District Court Decisions
Lombard v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 11-2755, 2012 WL 3780455 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2012) (Feldman, J.). Holding: Denying defendant's motion for summary judgment. The court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the defendant failed to submit "affidavits or other evidence to demonstrate that it …conducted a reasonable search." The court notes that "conclusory allegations that [the defendant] made an appropriate response are insufficient to merit summary relief." Pointing to plaintiff's "identification of documents and notes that appear to be rationally related to particular events," the court finds that "material fact issues remain in dispute."
Banks v. DOJ, No. 06-1950, 2012 WL 3061167 (D.D.C. July 26, 2012) (Sullivan, J.). Holding: Granting United States Postal Inspection Services (USPIS's) renewed motion for summary judgment where it released unredacted versions of the documents remaining in dispute, and disclosed all reasonably segregable information. The court grants USPIS's renewed motion for summary judgment where it released unredacted versions of the only documents remaining in dispute for which it previously asserted Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E). Furthermore, the court finds that "USPIS is not obligated to explain why it did not release unredacted versions of the documents previously." The court concludes that summary judgment is appropriate because "USPIS no longer relies on Exemptions 7(D) and 7(E), and defendants have established that all records responsive to all of plaintiff's FOIA requests either have been produced or have been withheld properly under the claimed exemptions."
Brown v. FBI, No. 10-1292, 2012 WL 2786292 (D.D.C. July 10, 2012) (Lamberth, J.). Holding: Denying defendant's motion to dismiss; but granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on the basis that it conducted an adequate search, and properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions 3, 7(C), 7(D) and 7(E); and denying plaintiff's motion for sanctions as well as his motion to supplement his motion for sanctions. The court denies defendant's motion to dismiss the action and instead considers its motion for summary judgment. The court observes that "plaintiff has not supported his contention [that the FBI improperly withheld the requested records] with even a scintilla of factual evidence," but finds that he "could amend his Complaint with the required factual material, including affidavits and the communication between himself and the FBI." The court concludes that "[b]ecause these documents are already in the Court's possession, there is no reason to wait for plaintiff to file yet another amended Complaint."
Augustus v. McHugh, No. 02-2545, 2012 WL 2512930 (D.D.C. July 2, 2012) (Roberts,J.). Holding: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as conceded where plaintiff failed to contest the agency's justifications for withholding certain information; and rejecting plaintiff's challenge to the admissibility of defendant's submissions where she offers no factual basis to establish that the documents are inauthentic.
Serv. Women's Action Network v. DOD, No. 10-1953, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45292 (D.Conn. Mar. 30, 2012) (Kravitz,J.). Holding: Granting, in part and denying in part, defendants' motion for summary judgment and concluding that defendants appropriately did not respond to two requests that were questions regarding government policies, and finding that there is a question of fact as to whether plaintiff's request for "all records related to non-judicial or administrative resolution of sexual-related complaints that did not result in court martial" is unduly burdensome; and determining that five of defendants' declarations indicate that a reasonable search was conducted, but finding that nine of defendants' declarations are not sufficient, and ordering defendants to submit additional affidavits to demonstrate that adequate searches were conducted.
Gatson v. FBI, No. 08-6348, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41636 (D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2012) (Sheridan,J.). Holding: Granting the FBI's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment on the basis that it conducted an adequate search and that it properly withheld certain information pursuant to Exemptions2, 7(E), 6, and 7(C) as well as the identifying information of individuals on a grand jury under Exemption 3 in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e); and denying plaintiff's claim regarding expedited processing of his request as moot.
Carlson v. DOJ, No. 10-5149, 2012 WL 928124 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012) (Engelmayer,J.). Holding: Adopting magistrate's report and recommendation to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismiss plaintiff's FOIA case where plaintiff failed to object in a timely manner to that report, and where the court finds no facial error in the magistrate's conclusions.
Sussman v. USMS, No. 03-610, 2011 WL 3891820 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2011) (Kennedy,J.). Holding: Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff's FOIA claims, noting that he has conceded that the these claims are no longer at issue following the defendants' release of additional segregable information in compliance with the court's earlier Order.