Nasuti v. Kerry et al and 11 other new FOIA lawsuits, plus case descriptions

We have added 48 documents from 12 FOIA cases filed between July 5, 2015 and July 11, 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. Nasuti v. Kerry et al (filed Jul 7, 2015)
   Matthew Nasuti, a former management advisor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, was allegedly terminated by the State Department for exposing the use of inferior body armor for Embassy personnel and visiting members of Congress. He filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which was remanded twice by the Federal Circuit. During the course of that litigation, Nasuti discovered references to various documents the State Department had refused to turn over during discovery. As a result, he made four FOIA requests for various documents referenced in the MSPB litigation. All four of the requests were denied. Nasuti then filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search
2. Martin v. Jakubowski (filed Jul 6, 2015)
   Yohania Martin filed suit against Susan Jakubowski, a California state court judge, alleging that Jakubowski had restricted Martin’s ability to obtain documents related to a separate action. This is not a FOIA claim.
   Issues: FOIA not mentioned
3. HALL & ASSOCIATES v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (filed Jul 6, 2015)
   Hall & Associates, an environmental consulting group, submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records concerning the agency’s decision not to apply the Eighth Circuit ruling in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA nationwide. The agency provided some records, many of them heavily redacted, claiming Exemption 5 (privileges) as the basis for withholding the records. Hall & Associates appealed the decision, which was upheld by the agency. Hall & Associates then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 5 – Privileges
4. LANGER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Jul 7, 2015)
   Howard Langer, an attorney in Philadelphia, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for a letter sent from an official at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta to First Delaware, which had been sued by DOJ for mass marketing fraud. The letter was cited in DOJ’s complaint against First Delaware. The agency initially claimed the letter was protected by Exemption 4 (confidential business information), but after Langer appealed that decision, the agency referred Langer to the Federal Reserve, which told him that the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta was not an agency subject to FOIA. Langer then filed suit.
   Issues: Agency
5. PARKER v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (filed Jul 7, 2015)
   Lonnie Parker submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records about himself from 1998-2006 from the FBI Minneapolis field office. Parker sent a second FOIA request for records about himself during the same time period from the FBI Little Rock field office. The FBI responded to both requests, providing 37 pages containing redactions. The agency also withheld three pages entirely. Parker appealed the agency’s decision to the Office of Information Policy, which affirmed the FBI’s decision. Parker then filed suit.
   Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. Isaacs v. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al (filed Jul 7, 2015)
   Elissa Isaacs submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning the murder of her father, Dr. Burton Stuart Isaacs, in 1984. The murder investigation involved several law enforcement agencies, including the FBI. The agency acknowledged receipt of her request and located 19 pages, all of which were withheld pursuant to Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), Exemption 7(D) (confidential sources), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Isaacs appealed the denial to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the FBI’s decision. Isaacs then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 7 – Law enforcement records, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
7. FREE MARKET ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC et al v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (filed Jul 8, 2015)
   The Free Market Environmental Law Clinic and the Energy and Environment Legal Institute submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records for communications between EPA officials and certain Kentucky officials containing specified keywords. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated that no fees would be assessed, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Law Clinic filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
8. PARKER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSABILITY (filed Jul 8, 2015)
   Lonnie Parker submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility for records concerning any investigation or consideration of disciplinary action considered against former U.S. Assistant Attorney Lisa Gail Bridges Jackson for the unauthorized practice of law. OPR acknowledged receipt of the request and refused to confirm or deny the existence of records. Parker appealed the decision to the Office of Information Policy. After hearing nothing further pertaining to his appeal, Parker filed suit.
   Issues: Determination – Glomar response, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
9. McAtee v. United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service (filed Jul 8, 2015)
   Deanna McAtee submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Secret Service for records concerning the agency’s investigation of her for foreclosing on a property for which Whitefish Credit Union had lent money for improvements. The charges against McAtee were dropped after an official at Whitefish testified that McAtee was acting on the credit union’s instructions. The agency made a partial disclosure of some records with redactions. Believing those records represented only a fraction of the responsive records, McAtee filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
10. Torres Consulting and Law Group LLC v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs (filed Jul 9, 2015)
    Torres Consulting and Law Group, a consulting firm that oversees compliance with federal laws on federal construction projects, submitted two requests to the Department of Veterans Affairs for records concerning projects in Las Vegas and Loma Linda. The agency acknowledged receipt of both requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Torres Consulting and Law Group filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
11. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice (filed Jul 9, 2015)
    EFF submitted a FOIA request to the DEA for records about the Hemisphere Program, which places AT&T employees within law enforcement agencies. EFF also requested expedited processing. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and asked EFF to narrow the scope of its request. EFF narrowed the scope of the request. DEA located 308 responsive pages, withholding 132 pages in full and redacting the remaining pages. The agency claimed the redactions were appropriate under Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7 (law enforcement records). EFF appealed the agency’s denial and after hearing nothing further from the agency, EFF filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
12. PARKER v. UNITED STATES EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS (filed Jul 9, 2015)
    Lonnie Parker submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for records concerning himself from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and subsequently told Parker that his request had been closed because he failed to respond to the agency’s letter pertaining to fees. Parker indicated that he had never received the fee letter. EOUSA resent the fee letter and Parker responded. The agency then told Parker it was reopening his request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Parker filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees