138 new FOIA court documents, plus case descriptions

We have added 117 documents from 14 FOIA cases filed between February 8, 2015 and February 14, 2015. 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. PARRETT v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (filed Feb 9, 2015)
   Stephanie Parrett, a civilian employee at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant, filed a sexual assault complaint against the deputy site manager. The Army conducted a “Commander’s Inquiry” into her complaint, which was completed in September 2013. Parrett requested a copy of the report. The Army disclosed the report, but redacted large portions of it under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Parrett appealed the decision to the Office of the Judge Advocate General, but after the Judge Advocate General failed to respond to the appeal, Parrett filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. Southeastern Legal Foundation, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (filed Feb 9, 2015)
   The Southeastern Legal Foundation submitted FOIA requests to EPA for records concerning various policies and practices. The EPA ultimately responded to the requests, but withheld a number of records and refused SLF a fee waiver in several cases. SLF eventually filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
3. American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties v. United States Department of Homeland Security (filed Feb 10, 2015)
   The ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, the ACLU of Southern California, and University of California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic professors Anne Lai and Sameer Ashar submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning U.S. Customs and Border Patrol’s “roving patrol” operations in the San Diego and El Centro Sectors. The requesters asked for expedited processing and a fee waiver. After hearing nothing from the agency, the plaintiffs filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Feb 10, 2015)
   EFF submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning “dirtboxes” and other international mobile subscriber identity catcher devices operated from planes. EFF also requested expedited processing. DOJ referred the request to the U.S. Marshals Service, which acknowledged receipt of the request. The FBI also acknowledged receipt of the request. After hearing nothing further from the agency, EFF filed suit.
   Issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
5. American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties et al (filed Feb 11, 2015)
   The ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning allegations of abuse and mistreatment of children while in the custody of Customs and Border Patrol. The ACLU requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. Homeland Security referred the request to CBP, ICE, OIG, and the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. CRCL acknowledged receipt of the request, denied the ACLU’s request for expedited processing and a fee waiver, and invoked a 10-day extension for responding. OIG also acknowledged receipt of the request and denied the ACLU’s request for expedited processing and invoked a 10-day extension for responding. CRCL contacted the ACLU again to request a modification, but the ACLU declined to modify its request. After hearing nothing further from the agency, the ACLU filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. BRITTIN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (filed Feb 11, 2015)
   Alexander Brittin submitted a FOIA request in 2011 to the Transportation Security Administration for records concerning any contracts with MCA Innovations Joint Venture related to the provision of workers compensation medical case management services or similar services. In 2013, the agency contacted Brittin and asked if he was still interested in the request. Brittin responded that he was still interested, but after being told the request was still under review, Brittin filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
7. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Feb 11, 2015)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for all communications to or from the Office of the Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff related to the release of a report prepared by Army Brig. Gen. Kenneth Dahl into the actions of Bowe Bergdahl that led to his capture by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and asked Judicial Watch to narrow its scope. Judicial Watch narrowed the scope of the request, but after hearing nothing from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
8. COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (filed Feb 11, 2015)
   The Competitive Enterprise Institute submitted a FOIA request to EPA for copies of emails or text messages to or from anyone in the Office of General Counsel that mention EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and texting. The agency disclosed some emails, but denied access to hundreds of emails primarily under Exemption 5 (privileges) as well as Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). CEI appealed the EPA’s decision, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, CEI filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 5 – Privileges, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Segregability
9. Stephen Yagman v. John Owen Brennan (filed Feb 12, 2015)
   Stephen Yagman submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning James Mitchell, John Jessen, or their company, Mitchell Jessen & Associates. The CIA failed to respond within the statutory time limit and Yagman filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
10. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE et al v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (filed Feb 12, 2015)
    The Energy and Environmental Law Institute submitted a FOIA request to the SEC for email and text messages among named parties and correspondence either sent to or from certain SEC employees that contained six keywords. After reminding the agency of its statutory deadline and receiving no indication that its response was forthcoming, the Institute filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
11. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (filed Feb 12, 2015)
    Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for records concerning the selection of individuals for audits based on their organizations’ application for 501(c)((4) status. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, invoked a 10-day extension, and told Judicial Watch that it would not be able to respond within the statutory time limit. Judicial Watch sent another request to the agency for much the same records but expanded to the selection of organizations for audits. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, invoked a 10-day extension, and told Judicial Watch it would not be able to respond within the statutory deadline. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
12. WRIGHT v. ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (filed Feb 12, 2015)
    Chris Wright submitted a FOIA request to the Administration for Children and Families for records concerning an Office of Refugee Resettlement grant to BCFS HHS as well as records concerning BCFS’ lobbying expenditures. Wright had several exchanges with the agency pertaining to his request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, he filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs
13. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (filed Feb 13, 2015)
    Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning an Inspector General’s report of a “hands off list,” that purportedly contained names of individuals who were allowed to enter the U.S. although they had been denied entry previously. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
14. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Feb 13, 2015)
    Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services for records concerning any consulting contracts between the agency and Jonathan Gruber. A month later, Judicial Watch submitted a second FOIA request to the agency for records concerning any communications between the agency and Gruber concerning the Affordable Healthcare Act. The agency acknowledged receipt of both requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index

In addition, we have added 21 documents from 6 cases, with earlier filing dates, that have recently appeared on PACER.

1. CAVEZZA v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al (filed Feb 5, 2015)
   Jason Cavezza, a federal prisoner, submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State for records related to his conviction in Oregon. After EOUSA initially failed to respond in time, Cavezza appealed to OIP, which prompted EOUSA to release some records. Cavezza’s requests to DEA, U.S. Marshals Services, Homeland Security, and Interpol, were still unresolved when he filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit
2. Peeler v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed Feb 4, 2015)
   Russell Peeler, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning the wiretapping of his pager. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after it failed to respond within the statutory time limit, Peeler filed an administrative appeal with OIP. Having heard nothing further concerning a response, Peeler filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit
3. Service Women's Action Network et al v. Defense (filed Feb 3, 2015)
   The Service Women’s Action Network, the ACLU , and the ACLU of Connecticut submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Defense for records concerning gender disparity at military service academies. Requests were sent to the U.S. Military Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, and the U.S. Air Force Academy. While the parties exchanged a series of emails, only the Naval Academy had disclosed any records by the time the plaintiffs filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. Lee v. Federal Bureau of Prisons (filed Feb 3, 2015)
   Sean Lee, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Prisons for his central file. The agency responded with a cost estimate of $44 and told Lee he would have to commit to paying the fees before the agency would process his request. Lee agreed to pay the fees, but after further communication with the agency revealed that his request was still being processed, Lee filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit
5. BENJAMIN v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Feb 2, 2015)
   Richard Benjamin, a scholar researching the U.S. government’s role in the ouster of Haitian president Daniel Fignole in 1957, submitted a FOIA request to the National Archives for records contained in a specific document set that originated with the Department of State. NARA responded by telling Benjamin that the State Department had redacted portions of 12 pages under Exemption 1 (national security). Benjamin appealed the decision to the State Department, which upheld its decision. Benjamin then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 1 – Properly classified, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. Kaye v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (filed Jan 6, 2015)
   Allen Kaye, an attorney representing Santhosh Kumar, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for records from three specific files pertaining to petitions for alien relatives. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Kaye filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit