Due to the lapse in appropriations, Department of Justice websites will not be regularly updated. The Department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions will continue. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

FOIA Post (2009): Summaries of New Decisions -- December 2008

March 12, 2009

Summaries of New Decisions -- December 2008

As announced previously by OIP, we are now posting up-to-date summaries of new court decisions. To facilitate their review, the cases are broken down by FOIA Exemption or procedural element and internal citations and quotations have been omitted. OIP provides these case summaries as a public service; due to their nature as summaries, they are not intended to be authoritative or complete statements of the facts or holdings of any of the cases summarized, and they should not be relied upon as such.

Set out below are summaries of the court decisions that were received by OIP during the month of December 2008.


Courts of Appeal

1. Associated Press v. DOJ, 549 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)

Re: Request for commutation petition filed by John Walker Lindh

•   In camera review: The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct in camera review of the responsive documents. “Only if the government’s affidavits make it effectively impossible for the court to conduct de novo review of the applicability of FOIA exemptions is in camera review necessary.” In this case, the district court found the declarations “sufficiently informative to make a determination as to the applicability of the exemptions.”

•   Exemptions 6 & 7(C): “The privacy interests protected by the exemptions to FOIA . . . embody the right of individuals ‘to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.’ . . . This protection extends even to information previously made public.” In the case at hand, the court found that “[Plaintiff] has failed to demonstrate that disclosure of Lindh’s petition would serve a cognizable public purpose such that it may not be withheld under the privacy exemptions.” While defendant has shown that significant privacy interests would be invaded by release of the petition, “[Plaintiff] has failed to show that release of the information would shed light on the workings of government. . . .”

1. Asian Law Caucus v. DHS, No. 08-00842, 2008 WL 5047839 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2008) (Wilken, J.)

Re: Request for records concerning Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) policies on questioning, search, and inspection of travelers entering or returning to the United States

•   Exemptions 2 (high) & 7(E): Plaintiff’s argument that CBP should release “more detailed information about these watchlists and the databases that relate to the watchlists” because their existence is “‘routine and generally known’” is “unpersuasive.” The court finds that “[t]he public does not already have routine and general knowledge about any investigative techniques relating to watchlists. The public merely knows about the existence of watchlists. Knowing about the general existence of government watchlists does not make further detailed information about the watchlists routine and generally known.” Additionally, CBP’s decision to withhold the names of databases and database reports and modules was proper. “Although in some circumstances, simply withholding the names of databases would be improper, in this case, the names of the databases, reports, modules and information about the operation of watchlists appear within a context in the withheld documents, such that disclosure ‘could lead to circumvention of CBP law enforcement efforts or facilitate improper access to the database for the purpose of frustrating CBP law enforcement functions.’” Similarly, CBP properly withheld information concerning the “specific topics for questioning that CBP uses regarding political views, religious practices, and other activities. . . . Releasing the subset of topics for questioning would not permit persons to devise strategies to circumvent the law in the same way that releasing the questions themselves would. However, after in camera review of the documents, the Court concludes that, in this instance, releasing the specific topics for questioning could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.” CBP also properly withheld information pertaining to procedures for coordination with other law enforcement agencies. Release of this information “would permit persons to know what or who triggers an alert to another specific law enforcement agency. Knowing this information would allow individuals to devise strategies to avoid these triggers.” Finally, defendant also properly withheld a copy of an interim policy statement. Even though the interim policy has been superceded by a publicly released policy, “[t]he information in the interim policy documents reveals the scope and focus of certain law enforcement techniques, disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”

•   Exemption 2 (low): CBP properly utilized “low” 2 to withhold “information about the electronic storage location on Defendant’s computer network of interviewing procedures and data from interviews” as well as the name of a database formerly used by CBP’s Tucson Field Office. In both cases, there is no legitimate public interest in the withheld information.

•   Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege): CBP properly withheld handwritten notes written on a document where “[the notes] were made while reviewing the document and recorded what the author thought ‘was significant in order to assist in later deliberations.’” Similarly, defendant appropriately withheld portions of an e-mail “concerning ‘internal agency deliberations about the possibility of drafting a standard operating procedure.’”


1. Rodriguez v. McLeod, No. 08-0184, 2008 WL 5156653 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2008) (O’Neill, J.)

Re: Records pertaining to search of plaintiff’s jail cell

•   Adequacy of search: The court finds that defendants’ declaration is insufficient because it “does not state what files or records w[ere] searched.” Moreover, the “declaration is conclusory as to the general search procedures employed and the actual search that was performed.” Defendants are ordered to file a supplemental declaration.

2. Customs & Int’l Trade Newsletter v. U.S. Customs and Border Prot., 588 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2008) (Collyer, J.)

Re: Names and addresses of certain beef importers

•   Exhaustion: The court finds that defendant’s exhaustion claim is moot. Although defendant claimed that plaintiff filed suit less than twenty business days after plaintiff’s request was actually received, any claim that plaintiff’s filing was premature was mooted when defendant subsequently denied plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff was not required to file an administrative appeal because it had already filed suit by this time.

•   Exemption 4: Release of the names of the importers paired with their tariff classification number “would reveal that a particular importer brought one of the 27 specific goods covered by the subheading into the United States.” Disclosure also could enable a competitor of the submitter to “glean the source of the imported merchandise . . ., the supply chain, and the quantity,” and a competitor “could identify with great specificity the exact product imported by a particular importer.” The requested information, “when combined with publicly available vessel manifest information, would provide companies with valuable knowledge regarding competitors’ business operations.” As a result, “the Court is satisfied that the specific information at issue . . . could be used to gain a significant competitive edge over the [submitters].” It is irrelevant that requester itself is not a competitor. Moreover, plaintiff has not met its burden of showing that the requested information is already in the public domain. Defendant was not required to notify the submitters of plaintiff’s request because it determined on its own that the information would be withheld.

3. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. OMB, No. 07-4997, 2008 WL 5129417 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2008) (Patel, J.)

Re: Documents related to promulgation of rule setting average fuel economy standards for light trucks in model years 2008-2011

•   In camera review: Plaintiff’s request for in camera review is denied. Such review should not be used as a substitute for adequate Vaughn indices and declarations by an agency defendant.

Exemption 5 (deliberative process and presidential communications privileges): The court finds that defendant’s Vaughn index “relies upon boilerplate explanations to claim exemption and does not provide a single particularized claim of exemption to any document.” Additionally, OMB did not provide sufficient distinction between the documents withheld and similar ones which were released, nor did it sufficiently address segregation. Furthermore, “the declarations fail to supplement the Vaughn index in a manner that would rectify the index’s deficiencies in establishing the deliberative process privilege.” The court also finds that OMB has failed to meet its burden for its use of the presidential communications privilege. “Neither the Vaughn index nor the [OMB] declaration makes clear whether the relevant communications were ‘authored or solicited and received’ by the President’s immediate advisers or their staff members.” Similarly, the Vaughn index does not “provide the individuals’ specific capacities or other indicators of proximity to the President or his key advisers.” OMB is ordered to prepare a new Vaughn index and declaration.

4. Huff v. Dodge County Detention Facility, No. 08-426, 2008 WL 5114241 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2008) (Randa, C.J.)

Re: Correspondence pertaining to plaintiff

•   Proper party defendant: The federal FOIA does not apply to the actions of agencies of the State of Wisconsin. The fact that defendants house federal inmates pursuant to contracts with the federal government “does not bring [defendants] or their records pertaining to [plaintiff] under the purview of the FOIA.”


1. Yonemoto v. VA, No. 07-16366, 2008 WL 5135646 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) (Schroeder, J., Paez, J., and Smith, J.) (unpublished disposition)

Re: First-party request

•   Mootness: On interlocutory appeal regarding a portion of responsive records (four pages of redacted emails), for which the district court had granted partial summary judgment to defendant, the Court dismisses the appeal as moot because defendant produced the redacted records during discovery in plaintiff’s EEOC action. The Court instructs the district court to determine whether plaintiff’s entire claim is moot.

1. Welch v. Mukasey, 589 F. Supp. 2d 178 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (Hurd, J.)

Re: Pro Se amended petition for writ of habeas corpus

•   Litigation considerations: The court rejects plaintiff’s argument that it has habeas jurisdiction to review the FOIA administrative proceedings in which the FBI denied him access to copies of FBI documents.

2. Bush v. DOJ, No. 08-3842, 2008 WL 5245046 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2008) (Fogel, J.) (unpublished disposition)

Re: Attempted request for records

•   Litigation considerations: The court dismisses plaintiff’s action because he failed to establish that the requests at issue were properly submitted to the FBI. “The record contains no evidence tending to show that Plaintiff’s initial requests were sufficient to obligate the FBI to respond, and accordingly the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint.”

•   Exhaustion: Subsequent to filing suit, plaintiff submitted a formal written FOIA request to the FBI. The court finds that, “[e]ven assuming that Plaintiff’s recent written request constitutes a proper FOIA request, the deadline for the FBI to respond to such a request has not yet expired.” Thus, “the Court may not consider any issues related to Plaintiff’s formal written request . . . until sufficient time has elapsed and/or the FBI notifies Plaintiff that it will not honor his formal FOIA request.”

3. Montgomery v. Sanders, No. 07-470, 2008 WL 5244758 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 15, 2008)(Rose, J.)

Re: First-party request

•   Procedural matters: The court dismisses relevant counts against General Dynamics Advanced Information System, Inc. (GDAIS) “because GDAIS is not an ‘agency’ under FOIA.” After analyzing the factors to be considered in determining whether an entity is government-controlled corporation under the FOIA, the court concludes that “GDAIS lacks the attributes considered significant in determining whether an entity is a government-controlled corporation under the . . . FOIA.”

4. In’t Veld v. DHS, 589 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (Collyer, J.)

Re: First-party request

•   Adequacy of search: After analyzing the declarations submitted by defendant regarding its database searches and its specific search terms, the court rules that defendant conducted “a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.” The court further concludes that “[plaintiff’s] travel expert does not purport to be an expert” in any of the “data systems searched pursuant to the FOIA request in this case.”

5. Donham v. U.S. Forest Serv., No. 07-111, 2008 WL 5221102 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2008) (Reagan, J.)

Re: A copy of “ISO 14001” which is a copyrighted document obtained by the Forest Service pursuant to a licensing agreement with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

•   Mootness: Prior to its ruling, the court directed plaintiffs to join ANSI to the action as a required party because the Forest Service obtained ISO 14001 pursuant to a licensing agreement with ANSI. After appearing in the action, ANSI voluntarily provided a copy of ISO 14001 to plaintiffs. Due to ANSI’s voluntary release, the court concludes that plaintiffs’ FOIA claim regarding production of ISO 14001 is moot. Plaintiffs asserted that their claim is not moot because a government agency, not a third-party copyright owner, should provide them with a copy of ISO 14001. In response, the court reasons that “[n]ow that they possess the document they sought in the first instance, there is no further relief that this Court can possibly grant.”

6. Research Air, Inc. v. Kempthorne, 589 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) (Collyer, J.)

Re: First-party request

•   Litigation considerations: The court dismisses Research Air, Inc. from the action because it was no longer represented by counsel. Relying upon 28 U.S.C. § 1654, the court concludes “that corporations must be represented by licensed counsel in federal court.”

•   Fee waiver: Pointing out that “[t]he burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the requirements for a fee waiver are satisfied,” the court concludes that the requester did not meet his burden because he failed to satisfy the criteria for a fee waiver under the FOIA and DOI regulations. “The record is devoid of any explanation by [the requester] as to how the requested records pertaining to [himself] and Research Air would contribute to the public understanding of government operations or how the requests were not primarily in [the requester’s] commercial interest.” The court notes that the request for records was primarily to benefit the requester’s commercial interests because “[he] sought records relating to incidents involving him and Research Air for the apparent purpose of expunging reported flight violations from their records in order to restore [the requester’s] good standing in the commercial aviation community and allow him to resume his low-level commercial flight tracking business.”

7. Imamoto v. SSA, No. 08-00137, 2008 WL 5179104 (D. Hawaii Dec. 9, 2008) (Seabright, J.)

Re: First-party request regarding termination of Social Security benefits

•   Exhaustion: “Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Complaint” to include a FOIA claim, the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction “[b]ecause Plaintiff does not allege that he made any attempt to appeal the denial of his FOIA request to the Commissioner.” The court rejects plaintiff’s argument that he exhausted his administrative remedies “because the Commissioner received his request for information via the Civil Rights Division.” The court finds that “[a] third party forwarding Plaintiff’s letter requesting information . . . does not constitute a valid appeal of his FOIA request to the Commissioner.” The court further points out that “the record indicates that Plaintiff did not follow up with a proper appeal to the Commissioner and may have affirmatively indicated to the Commissioner that he did not file an appeal.”

8. Unidad Latina En Accion v. DHS, No. 07-1224, 2008 WL 5157849 (D. Conn. Dec. 9, 2008) (Kravitz, J.)

Re: Request for records on agency operation

•   Adequacy of search: With one exception, the court concludes that defendant “demonstrated that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods that are reasonably calculated to produce all relevant documents.” Additionally, “[the declarant] supervised the relevant searches, and there is no need for individuals from the various offices to submit their own declarations.” A supplemental declaration is ordered to address the fact that no documents were located pertaining to an Operational Order even though “the agency planned to create a fair number of specific records to document the operation.” The court rules that defendant must file a supplemental declaration stating in reasonable detail: (1) all of the locations where the records would be maintained, had they been created; (2) DHS’s search of those locations; and (3) the results of those searches. Lastly, the court denies plaintiffs’ request for a deposition regarding “the so-called missing documents.” Affording a presumption of good faith to the representations by defendant’s declarant that operational plan records were not created, the court concludes that “[plaintiffs] have not shown any bad faith on DHS’s part; nor do Plaintiffs have any firm information that the so-called missing documents were ever created.”

9. Lasko v. DOJ, No. 08-1850, 2008 WL 5188839 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 2008) (Roberts, J.)

Re: FOIA suit brought by pro se inmate against several individuals, the New York State Police, DOJ, and DEA.

Proper party defendants: The court dismisses the individuals named in plaintiff’s complaint and the New York State Police because “[t]he FOIA does not provide a private cause of action against individuals or state entities.” The court permits the case to proceed against DOJ and DEA.


1. Loving v. DOD, 550 F.3d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Tatel, J.)

Re: Memoranda prepared for the President concerning plaintiff’s death sentence

•   Exemption 5 (presidential communications and deliberative process privileges): Though a claim of privilege may be ineffective if the requester is the person protected by the privilege asserted by an agency, in this case, the individual protected by the presidential communications privilege is the President, not the requester. DOD correctly applied that privilege to two memoranda from the Army and Defense secretaries to the President. “Such memoranda fall squarely within the presidential communications privilege because they ‘directly involve’ the President, . . . and their confidentiality ‘ensure[s] that presidential decisionmaking is of the highest caliber, informed by honest advice and full knowledge.’” Plaintiff’s claim that the privilege does not apply because there is no evidence that the documents were “solicited and received” by the President fails; “this requirement applies only to ‘internal agency documents’” that are not actually submitted to the President. Plaintiff also incorrectly asserts that the privilege does not apply to a document not addressed to the President; plaintiff’s argument fails because though the document was not addressed to the President, “that document . . . was forwarded . . . to the President.” Finally, in the FOIA context, the presidential communications privilege, like the deliberative process privilege, cannot be overcome by a showing of need. DOD also properly applied the deliberative process privilege to one document. Plaintiff’s argument that the public interest in the document is sufficient to warrant disclosure fails. Furthermore, plaintiff’s argument that the district court should have inspected this document in camera to determine whether there were segregable, releaseable portions also fails. The district court properly relied on DOD’s Vaughn index and declaration in determining that the document contained no segregable material.

2. Bestor v. FBI, No. 08-5076, 2008 WL 5640702 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 2008) (per curiam) (unpublished disposition)

Re: First-party request

•   Adequacy of search: The district court correctly held that the FBI demonstrated that its search for responsive documents was adequate and that plaintiff’s arguments about the possible existence of additional responsive records were “merely ‘speculative claims about the existence of other documents.’”

3. Davy v. CIA, 550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 19, 2008) (Rogers, J.) (concurring opinion by Tatel, J.) (dissenting opinion by Randolph, J.)

Re: Request for CIA records allegedly related to JFK assassination

•   Attorney fees: Having previously found plaintiff eligible for an award of attorney fees, the court applies a four-factor test in making a determination on entitlement to such fees. The first factor weighs in plaintiff’s favor, because “‘[his] request and subsequent litigation were intended to compel disclosure of information relating to the activities of a government agency (the CIA) in relation to a significant historical event.’” Furthermore, “[a]t least one of the requested documents was not previously available to the public. . . .” The court finds that the district court made “erroneous findings of fact” as to the question of plaintiff’s commercial interest in the information. Plaintiff’s book, the publication of which was the reason the district court ruled that plaintiff had a commercial interest in release of the records, was published prior to the CIA’s release of documents. Finally, as to the fourth factor, the CIA failed to provide a legal basis for its failure to respond to plaintiff’s second FOIA request prior to the filing of litigation.

1. People of California v. EPA, No. 07-2055, 2008 WL 5384623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2008) (Larson, Mag. J.) (magistrate’s report and recommendation)

Re: Records relating to discussion of state regulations of motor vehicle carbon dioxide emissions

•   Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege): The court reviewed a large number of disputed documents in camera. As to the majority of these, the court finds that defendants’ actions were appropriate, and in particular that there was no segregable factual material that could be released (or in some instances, that the documents contained personal information, such as cell phone numbers, that did not need to be released). As to a number of the disputed documents, the court finds that defendants did not meet their burden, either because the documents contained segregable factual material, or because the documents were not deliberative.

2. Antonelli v. BOP, 591 F. Supp. 2d 15 (D.D.C. 2008) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re: First and third-party requests

•   Procedural requirements: Defendant FBI correctly informed plaintiff that it is not required to provide plaintiff with the addresses of its field offices because this information is publicly available, both through the Federal Register and through the FBI’s website.

•   Exhaustion: As to part of plaintiff’s request to the FBI, his failure to describe the requested records in a manner sufficient to allow the FBI to conduct a search constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff also failed to exhaust his remedies as to defendant BOP, inasmuch as that agency has no record of receiving plaintiff’s requests, and the Office of Information and Privacy (OIP) has no record of plaintiff having filed appeals on these alleged requests. Moreover, the court held that “plaintiff has provided no evidence of his payment of outstanding fees prior to the filing of this action. . . .” Additionally, “‘plaintiff's alleged payments tendered during the course of this litigation . . . are immaterial.’”

•   Adequacy of search: “[Plaintiff] has not . . . stated any facts to create a genuine issue with regard to the adequacy of BOP’s searches conducted before and during this litigation. Moreover, plaintiff’s bald assertions do not provide a basis for questioning the agency’s declarations. . . .”

•   Exemptions 2, 5, 7(C), & 7(F): As to certain of the records withheld by defendant BOP, “BOP's declarant does not identify any specific record that was withheld and link it with a specific exemption.” Thus, the court cannot determine if the claimed exemptions were used appropriately. Summary judgment is denied without prejudice as to these withholdings; BOP may supplement the record to correct this deficiency.

•   Exemption 7(C): Defendant BOP properly invoked this exemption to withhold from plaintiff a transcript of a phone conversation between plaintiff and his son. Plaintiff did not provide a waiver from his son, and the court has previously affirmed BOP’s explanation that it lacks the technical capacity to segregate out and release plaintiff’s portion of the conversation. BOP also properly withheld the names of third party individuals and information provided by them. Plaintiff has not shown a public interest in the release of this information that would overcome the substantial privacy interests at stake.

3. Clifton v. U.S. Postal Inspection Serv., 591 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2008) (Bates, J.)

Re: Latent fingerprints used as evidence from requester’s criminal trial

•   Exemption 7(C): Defendant appropriately applied this exemption to withhold fingerprints of third parties from evidence used in plaintiff’s criminal trial. Plaintiff’s claim that a Brady violation was made in his case “is both misplaced and ineffective.” The court explained that “a Brady violation is a matter appropriately addressed to the court that sentenced the prisoner, not through a FOIA action.” Furthermore, plaintiff’s “conclusory assertion [of a Brady violation] does not give this Court any factual basis upon which to conclude that the plaintiff’s interest in the information outweighs the third parties’ legitimate interest in keeping the images of their fingerprints private.”

4. Stockton E. Water Dist. v. United States, No. 08-0563, 2008 WL 5397499 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008) (Burrell, J.)

Re: Records concerning water allocations made by Bureau of Reclamation to plaintiff

•   Adequacy of search: The Bureau of Reclamation’s declarations demonstrated that the “Defendants conducted an adequate search in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests and provided Plaintiff the records found.”

•   Procedural/Mootness: Defendants’ decision to view a March 7, 2007 letter from plaintiff as not constituting a FOIA request was proper. As to an April 11, 2007 request from plaintiff, defendants assert that the request did not adequately describe the requested records. If this is true, however, defendants were required under their regulations to contact plaintiff in an attempt to clarify the request. An October 1, 2007 letter from plaintiff that contained questions to defendants and otherwise failed to meet defendants’ requirements for making a request was properly not considered a FOIA request to which defendants were required to respond. Plaintiff has not supported its claim that a partially late response to its June 28, 2007 request is evidence of bad faith on defendants’ part, nor does the record indicate that defendants failed to timely produce certain responsive “‘historical records.’” Finally, because defendants’ response to plaintiff “did not contain any adverse decisions on Plaintiff’s FOIA request, Plaintiff has not shown Defendants were required to notify Plaintiff of a right to appeal.”

5. Sierra Club v. USDA, No. 08-4248, 2008 WL 5273726 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2008) (Conti, J.)

Re: Records relating to loans, loan guarantees, and grants provided by the Rural Utilities Service

•   Litigation considerations: The unopposed motion to intervene in the instant case filed by one of the loan recipients is granted. The intervenor’s motion to transfer venue, however, is denied. Although the chapter of the Sierra Club that filed the FOIA request that is the subject of this suit is located in the Western District of Texas, the state in which the Sierra Club headquarters is located and the state in which the Sierra Club is incorporated is California. Its principal place of business is San Francisco, in the Northern District of California. Thus, venue would not be proper in the Western District of Texas. Venue would be proper in the District of Columbia, but transfer there would not be in the interests of justice. “In general, a plaintiff’s choice of forum carries substantial weight. . . .” Furthermore, the intervenor has not supported its allegation that transfer to the District of Columbia “‘would serve the convenience of the witnesses.’” Additionally, even if documents need to be transferred to the Northern District of California from the District of Columbia, this is generally not considered to be burdensome, given available techniques for doing this.

6. Rodriguez v. McLeod, No. 08-0184, 2008 WL 5330802 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008) (O’Neill, J.)

Re: Records pertaining to search of plaintiff’s jail cell

•   Adequacy of search: Defendant’s newly submitted declaration “provides detail as to the actual search-filed [sic] reviewed, locations searched, and manner and procedure for selecting and searching files.” The court determined that “[t]his declaration is sufficient because it states the description of the files searched and the search procedure. . . .” Having now cured the deficiency in its prior filing, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

7. Brehm v. DOJ OIP, 591 F. Supp. 2d 772 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (Brody, J.)

Re: Records pertaining to criminal prosecution of plaintiff

•   Litigation considerations/Jurisdiction: The court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff neither resides in nor has a principal place of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, the records he seeks are not located in this district.

8. LeRoy v. United States, No. 08-1123, 2008 WL 5264031 (E.D. La. Dec. 16, 2008) (Beer, J.) (adoption of magistrate’s recommendation)

Re: Records concerning funding provided by HUD to public interest organization in New Orleans

•   Litigation considerations: Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff, who “has had extensive experience as a pro se litigant,” neither served defendants nor provided the court with a current address, leaving “a clear record of contumacious conduct.” (posted 03/12/2009)

Go to: Main FOIA Post Page


Related blog posts

Updated August 6, 2014