Skip to content

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

by Harry Hammitt on March 23rd, 2018

We have added 189 documents from 19 FOIA cases filed between March 11, 2018 and March 17, 2018. 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. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (filed Mar 15, 2018)
    Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for statistical data on a national and state-by-state level pertaining to guns used in suicides or attempted suicides that were recovered by law enforcement and traced by ATF. ATF denied the request on the basis of 2012 Appropriations Act prohibiting the agency from spending funds to process FOIA requests pertaining to gun traces. Everytown filed an administrative appeal and the agency’s decision was upheld by the Office of Information Policy. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund then filed suit.
    Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  2. American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (filed Mar 12, 2018)
    The ACLU of Northern California submitted a FOIA request to the Transportation Security Administration’s headquarters in Arlington VA for records concerning the agency’s searches of electronic devices. The agency did not acknowledge receipt of the request. The ACLU of Northern California also sent a FOIA request to the San Francisco Office of TSA for records concerning the agency’s searches of electronic devices. The agency acknowledged receipt of that request. But after hearing nothing further from the agency concerning either request, the ACLU of Northern California filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  3. KRUSHELNYCKY v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (filed Mar 12, 2018)
    Askold Krushelnycky submitted two FOIA requests to the Federal Communications Commission. The first FOIA request asked for records concerning a consent order and decree between the agency and Sinclair Broadcasting. The agency provided an initial response of 54 records and told Krushelnycky that is was reviewing an additional 70 responsive records, but the agency only disclosed 10 more records with redactions. The second FOIA request was for copies of FOIA requests since January 2016 for records concerning Tribune Media Company and/or Sinclair. The agency acknowledged receipt of that request and told Krushelnycky that it would need more time to process the request because of the volume of records involved. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Krushelnycky filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  4. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Mar 13, 2018)
    The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning the agency’s failure to submit the Climate Action Report by the mandated January 1, 2018 deadline. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  5. MAJUC et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Mar 13, 2018)
    Johnmark Majuc, Joseph Jok, Turjuman Ramadam Adam, and Shafika Hassan submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice for records concerning the investigation of BNP Paribus, a global bank. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but denied them under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). The requesters filed administrative appeals, which were denied. Majuc and the other requesters then filed suit.
    Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  6. Lincoln Square Legal Services, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (filed Mar 13, 2018)
    Lincoln Square Legal Services submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for records concerning 2016 version of the Revenue Procedures. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. More than a year after the request was filed, the IRS located 90 pages. It disclosed 15 pages and withheld 75 pages under Exemption 5 (privileges). The agency located an additional 1,325 pages, disclosing 409 pages, but withholding nearly 1,000 pages under Exemption 5. Lincoln Square Legal Services filed an administrative appeal, which was denied by the agency. Lincoln Square Legal Services then filed suit.
    Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  7. Reproductive Rights and Justice Project v. HHS (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    The Reproductive Rights & Justice Project at Yale Law School submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services for records concerning emails from a list of domain names and from a list of conservative organizations, and any emails from outside organizations mentioning Planned Parenthood. The RRJP also requested inclusion in the educational fee category. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told RRJP that it was being referred to the HHS Program Support Center for response. After hearing nothing further from the agency. RRJP filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
  8. BORN FREE USA v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    Born Free USA submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for records concerning the agency’s establishment of the International Wildlife Conservation Council. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after receiving nothing more substantive from the agency, Born Free USA filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  9. AMERICAN OVERSIGHT v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    American Oversight submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Agriculture and 15 other agencies for records concerning anticipated expenditures for renovations. The agencies acknowledged the requests, but after hearing nothing further from any of the agencies, American Oversight filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
  10. CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted FOIA requests to the National Security Agency and the CIA. CREW’s request to the NSA asked for records concerning communications between homeland security advisor Thomas Bossert and NSA Director Mike Rogers concerning President Trump’s May 10, 2017 meeting with the Russian foreign minister and the Russian ambassador. CREW also requested expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and issued a Glomar response, citing Exemption 1 (national security). CREW filed an administrative appeal, arguing that a Glomar response was not appropriate because the White House had already publicly acknowledged that responsive records existed. NSA denied CREW’s appeal, citing both Exemption 1 and Exemption 3 (other statutes). CREW submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning the meeting between Trump and the Russians. CREW also requested expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and granted CREW’s request for expedited processing. However, after hearing nothing further from the CIA, CREW filed suit against both agencies.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  11. SCHAERR v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    Gene Schaerr, an attorney representing an anonymous client involved in the Trump campaign and transition, submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice and other agencies who were part of the intelligence community for records concerning unmasking and upstreaming. The requests also asked for records concerning a number of individuals with the Trump campaign or subsequent administration. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after hearing nothing further any of the agencies, Schaerr filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
  12. Los Alamos Study Group v. National Nuclear Security Administration (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    The Los Alamos Study Group submitted a FOIA request to the National Nuclear Security Administration for records about the agency’s analysis of alternatives for plutonium pit production. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told the Los Alamos Study Group that its request was being processed. However, after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Los Alamos Study Group filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  13. Clevenger v. U.S. Department Of Justice et al (filed Mar 14, 2018)
    Ty Clevenger, an attorney, submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice and the FBI for records concerning Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington DC in July 2016. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys told Clevenger it would not search for records without proof of Rich’s death. Clevenger filed an administrative appeal with the Office of Information Policy, which reversed EOUSA’s original denial. The FBI told Clevenger that it could find no records pertaining to Rich. Clevenger submitted a FOIA request to the National Security Agency for records concerning correspondence sent by the agency to Congress pertaining to Rich and others. The agency indicated it was processing Clevenger’s request, but after hearing nothing further for the NSA, Clevenger filed suit against all the agencies.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs, Litigation – Vaughn index
  14. LOS PADRES FORESTWATCH v. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (filed Mar 15, 2018)
    Los Padres Forestwatch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Interior for records concerning the Secretary’s recommendations regarding changes to national monuments, including the Carrizo Plain National Monument. Los Padres Forestwatch also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and took a 10-day extension. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Los Padres Forestwatch filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
  15. CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (filed Mar 15, 2018)
    Cause of Action Institute submitted two FOIA requests to the Federal Trade Commission for records concerning FTC Attorney Robin Rock, including records that contained terms referring to Cause of Action Institute. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests and told Cause of Action Institute it was taking a 10-day extension to process its first FOIA request. The second FOIA request asked for records with references pertaining to Cause of Action Institute. COA agreed to pay up to $2,500 for the costs of processing that request. The agency told COA that it was taking a 10-day extension to respond to its second FOIA request as well. After hearing nothing further from the agency pertaining to either request, Cause of Action Institute filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  16. Southern Environmental Law Center et al v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (filed Mar 15, 2018)
    The Southern Environmental Law Center and the Environmental Defense Fund submitted FOIA requests to the EPA for records concerning communications between named EPA employees and the Heartland Institute. Both requests asked for a fee waiver and expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, granted SELC’s fee waiver request, but denied EDF’s fee waiver request. The agency indicated that processing the requests could take more than a year. SELC and EDF then filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
  17. LYNN v. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORD ADMINISTRATION (filed Mar 16, 2018)
    Katalin Lynn submitted a FOIA request to the National Archives and Records Administration for archived CIA records listed as records about the Grombach Organization. The agency told Lynn that all 733 pages of documents were being withheld under Exemption 1 (national security) and Exemption 3 (other statutes). Lynn filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Lynn filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
  18. PROTECT DEMOCRACY PROJECT, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Mar 16, 2018)
    Protect Democracy Project submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning communications from the White House that reference Sahar Nowrouzzadeh and other State Department employees subject to reassignment or termination. Protect Democracy Project also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Protect Democracy Project filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
  19. SHAW v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Mar 16, 2018)
    Summer Shaw submitted two FOIA requests to the Department of Justice for records concerning emails sent to or from Lanny Breuer’s email account pertaining to certain topics. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests. The agency told Shaw that the requests had been placed on its complex track for processing. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Shaw filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees

In addition, we have added 2 documents from 2 cases, with earlier filing dates, that have recently appeared on PACER.

From → FOIA, PACER

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Note: XHTML is allowed. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS