AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and 5 other new FOIA lawsuits

We have added 25 documents from 6 FOIA cases filed between June 26, 2016 and July 2, 2016. Note that there can be delays between the date a case is filed and when it shows up on PACER. If there are filings from this period that have yet to be posted on PACER, this FOIA Project list may not be complete.

Click on a case title below to view details for that case, including links to the associated docket and complaint documents.

1. AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Jun 28, 2016)
   The American Center for Law and Justice submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State concerning a report on Fox News that the video recording of a December 2, 2013 Daily Press Briefing was altered and/or deleted. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the American Center for Law and Justice filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
2. Phillips v. Dallas City Attorney's Office et al (filed Jun 28, 2016)
   Deloris Phillips alleged that she was being conspired against by the Dallas City government. She filed suit against the Dallas City Attorney for records submitted to its open records division during 2013. While she cites the federal FOIA as the basis for her suit, this is a not legitimate FOIA action because the federal FOIA does not apply to state agencies.
   Issues: FOIA mentioned only tangentially
3. IBRAHIM v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Jun 27, 2016)
   Zead Khalef Ibrahim, an Iraqi citizen who fled to Jordan to avoid political persecution, submitted several FOIA requests to the Department of State for his file pertaining to the denial of his application for refugee status. Ibrahim submitted requests to both the State Department and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Both agencies responded that they could find no records. In a subsequent request for the same file, USCIS located four pages. Believing that there must be more than four pages, Ibrahim decided to appeal, but was told by the State Department that because the agency had missed the statutory time limit he could go directly to court. Ibrahim then filed suit against the State Department.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. MORALES, et al. v. SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al. (filed Jun 27, 2016)
   Rene Morales, a U.S. citizen, and his wife, Estela Villa Linares, a Mexican citizen, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for records concerning Estela Morales. The agency told Morales that it did not have any records and referred them to the State Department. Morales then submitted the request to the State Department. The State Department acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Morales filed suit against both agencies.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
5. Cohens v. United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed Jun 29, 2016)
   Edwin Cohens submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records about himself. He also asked a number of questions about the involvement of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department in his alleged torture. According to Cohens, the FBI denied his request, but he does not indicate that he appealed the agency’s denial. Nevertheless, he filed suit against the agency.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search
6. BALDWIN v. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (filed Jun 29, 2016)
   Clarence Baldwin, a former federal employee, submitted a FOIA request to the Small Business Administration for information relevant to his complaints before the Merit Systems Protection Board and the EEOC. The agency acknowledged receipt of his request and apologized for the delay. But after hearing nothing further from the agency, Baldwin filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit