MANNING v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al and 22 other new FOIA lawsuits, plus case descriptions

We have added 108 documents from 22 FOIA cases filed between October 4, 2015 and October 10, 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. MANNING v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al (filed Oct 8, 2015)
   Chelsea Manning, who was convicted of illegally disclosing classified information to Wikileaks, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning her investigation and conviction. She indicated that she was willing to pay fees and requested expedited processing. The FBI denied Manning’s request for expedited processing. She appealed the denial to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the agency’s decision to deny expedited processing. The FBI subsequently denied Manning’s entire request on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). The agency also issued a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of some records. Manning appealed the decision to OIP, which upheld the agency’s denial. Manning then filed an appeal with the Office of Government Information Services. OGIS told Manning that the agency’s Exemption 7(A) claim prevented any effective mediation on its part. Manning then filed suit.
   Issues: Determination – Glomar response, Exemption 7(A) – Categorical exemption, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. Reddick v. Case (filed Sep 28, 2015)
   Eric Reddick requested copies of marked money taken in as part of a sting operation during his trial. After the government failed to provide the copies, Reddick sued Leah Case, his trial court judge, to force access to copies of the marked money. This is not a FOIA case.
   Issues: FOIA not mentioned
3. Mitchell v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed Sep 28, 2015)
   Donald Mitchell, who was conducting research for a book on the history of Indian gaming casinos, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records about Rocco Passanante, an organized crime figure who controlled American Amusement & Management, a company involved in running Indian casinos in California. Passanante died in 2014. The FBI told Mitchell it had located 1,343 pages and that he would have to commit to paying $35 for the cost of furnishing three CDs. Mitchell indicated he was willing to pay duplication costs. However, the agency eventually informed Mitchell that his request was in the agency’s backlog and had not yet been assigned an analyst for processing. Mitchell then filed suit.
   Issues: Delay, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. California Reinvestment Coalition v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (filed Sep 29, 2015)
   The California Reinvestment Coalition, a non-profit organization advocating for fair and equal access to credit, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for records concerning consumer complaints against OneWest and Financial Freedom since 2009. CRC also requested a fee waiver. The agency denied CRC’s fee waiver request. CRC filed an administrative appeal of the denial of its fee waiver request. The agency upheld its denial of the fee waiver request. CRC then filed suit.
   Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
5. BYERS v. UNITED STATES TAX COURT (filed Sep 29, 2015)
   Ronald Byers submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Tax Court for 24 categories of records. The Tax Court responded that it was not an agency subject to FOIA. Byers filed an appeal of the tax court’s position. The tax court rejected Byers’ appeal on the basis that it was not an agency subject to FOIA. Byers then filed suit.
   Issues: Agency – Federal, Litigation – Recovery of Costs, Litigation – Vaughn index
6. Andrus v. US Department of Energy (filed Sep 29, 2015)
   Cecil Andrus, the former governor of Idaho, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Energy for records concerning the agency’s request to waive the terms of the Batt Agreement, which restricted the amount of new nuclear waste that could be stored at the Idaho National Laboratory. The agency disclosed records, but withheld large portions under Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and smaller portions under Exemption 4 (confidential business information) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Andrus filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. He then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 5 – Privileges – Deliberative process privilege – Deliberative, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
7. Clem v. U.S. Department of Labor et al (filed Sep 30, 2015)
   Kirtley Clem, a former employee of Computer Sciences Corporation working as a contractor at the Hanford Nuclear Site, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Labor for records concerning his whistleblower complaints made to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The agency disclosed records, but withheld some records under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Clem appealed the agency’s decision and after the agency failed to provide a substantive response to his appeal, he filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
8. Wm Bryson v. United States Bureau of Prisons (filed Oct 1, 2015)
   William Bryson, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Prisons for records concerning the agency’s seizure of legal materials from Bryson. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Bryson filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs
9. BARNETT v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al (filed Oct 1, 2015)
   Terenece Bartlett, a federal prisoner, filed suit against the United States, including the District of Columbia Police Department, requesting a new trial after he was convicted of violating a restraining order. While he alleges he was improperly convicted, he does not cite to the FOIA or any cause of action for access to records.
   Issues: FOIA not mentioned
10. VIOLA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION et al (filed Oct 1, 2015)
    Anthony Viola, a federal prisoner, submitted FOIA requests to the FBI and the EOUSA for records concerning his criminal conviction. The FBI asked Viola to narrow the scope of his request so that it could be processed more quickly. EOUSA asked Viola to commit to pay costs and sent a follow-up letter indicating that it closed his request for failure to commit to paying an estimated $504 in fees, an amount that Viola claimed a family member had sent to EOUSA. Viola then filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs
11. University of Washington et al v. Central Intelligence Agency (filed Oct 2, 2015)
    The University of Washington’s Center for Human Rights submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning Col. Sigifredo Ochoa Perez, who had been identified as being involved in several massacres during the civil war in El Salvador. The CIA issued a Glomar response, refusing to either confirm or deny the existence of records on Ochoa Perez. The Center appealed the agency’s Glomar response. The CIA affirmed the use of a Glomar response. The Center then submitted a second FOIA request to the CIA for records on Ochoa Perez’s military service from 1976 to the present. The CIA refused the request on the basis that it was unduly burdensome. The Center then filed suit.
    Issues: Determination – Glomar response, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Request – Specificity
12. Rojas v. Federal Aviation Administration (filed Oct 5, 2015)
    Jorge Alexandro Rojas submitted a FOIA request to the FAA for emails related to an alleged cheating scandal at the agency. After substantial back and forth, the agency still had not processed Rojas’ request. He also filed a FOIA request for a flow analysis concerning job applicants for a certain job. He requested a fee waiver, which the agency denied. Rojas appealed the denial of the fee waiver, but heard nothing further concerning the status of his appeal. He filed a third FOIA request for an applicant information summary screen for applicants for a certain position. He requested a fee waiver for this request as well, which, again, was denied. He filed an appeal of that denial, but heard nothing more from the agency. Rojas finally filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
13. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (filed Oct 5, 2015)
    Murray Energy Corporation submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement for records related to the agency’s proposed Stream Protection Rule published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2015. Murray requested expedited processing because of it needed the information to comment on the proposed rule. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Murray Energy filed suit.
    Issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
14. LEVINTHAL et al v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (filed Oct 5, 2015)
    Dave Levinthal, an investigative reporter for the Center for Public Integrity, submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Election Commission for a copy of a 2015 report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology pertaining to the FEC’s operations. Levinthal also requested any records related to the NIST report. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but did not respond within the statutory time limit. Levinthal filed an administrative appeal which was denied. He then filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
15. Sai v. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (filed Oct 5, 2015)
    Sai, a resident of Wilmington, DE, submitted an electronic complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against the Transportation Security Administration. He requested that he be allowed to conduct the litigation electronically, although he was not a resident of the Northern District of Texas. Although he has not stated any claim so far, his complaint probably will include a claim that the agency violated FOIA. Unlike his complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, the Northern District of Texas has not responded yet. Because the FOIA’s venue requirements allow a plaintiff to file in the district in which he resides, the district in which the records are located, or the District of Columbia, the Northern District probably will question his standing to bring suit in the Northern District of Texas. This may develop into a FOIA suit, but at the moment is only about standing to sue.
    Issues: Litigation – Jurisdiction – Venue
16. Mance v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (filed Oct 5, 2015)
    Antonio Mance, a state prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning who made inquiries to the NCIC on Martell Rodgers. Mance was convicted of shooting into a car in which Rodgers was a passenger. The FBI denied access to the information on the basis of Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Mance appealed the agency’s denial, which was upheld. Mance then filed suit.
    Issues: Exemption 7(C) – Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
17. HARDY v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES et al (filed Oct 7, 2015)
    David Hardy, an attorney and blogger on firearms law issues, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for records concerning various firearms laws and regulations. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but had not yet responded. Hardy also submitted a FOIA request to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General for records related to a 2007 OIG report about the BATF. OIG also failed to respond to Hardy’s request. He then filed suit on both requests.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
18. Microsoft Corporation v. Department of the Treasury (filed Oct 7, 2015)
    Microsoft Corporation submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Treasury for records related to IRS temporary regulations purporting to allow contractors to question witnesses pursuant to summons. After hearing nothing further about their request, Microsoft filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
19. Microsoft Corporation v. Internal Revenue Service (filed Oct 7, 2015)
    Microsoft Corporation submitted two FOIA requests in 2011 to the IRS for records related to two separate IRS examinations of Microsoft. The IRS consolidated the two requests. The agency finally responded in 2015 by disclosing 2,564 responsive records, withholding parts of 583 records, and fully withholding 6,069 records. Microsoft appealed the agency’s denial, which was upheld on appeal. Microsoft then filed suit.
    Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
20. Sai v. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) (filed Oct 8, 2015)
    Sai, a resident of Wilmington, DE, submitted an electronic complaint to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado against the Transportation Security Administration indicating that he was bringing suit against the agency for FOIA violations. The court responded that his complaint was deficient because he had not shown that he had standing to sue in Colorado. Sai’s response argues that he should be allowed to submit court filings electronically and, apparently, that his residency is not fatal to his ability to continue his suit in Colorado. While this may develop into a FOIA case, there is no actual allegation at this point.
    Issues: Litigation – Jurisdiction – Venue
21. LANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Oct 8, 2015)
    The Landmark Legal Foundation submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Health and Human Services for records concerning the use of personal email, text, or other private communications by HHS employees. Landmark also requested expedited processing. The agency told Landmark that it did not have any responsive records. Landmark queried the agency as to whether it had searched any personal email accounts of employees. The agency indicated it had no mechanism to do so but offered to search the email accounts of all political appointees. Finding that offer unsatisfactory, Landmark filed an administrative appeal and then, ultimately, filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Search – Reasonableness of search
22. Legal Aid Justice Center v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (filed Oct 9, 2015)
    The Legal Aid Justice Center submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for records concerning Libre by Nexus, an organization that provides bail bonds for immigrants and implies that it has a special relationship to the government. LAJC’s FOIA request focused on records indicating whether Libre by Nexus did have such a relationship. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, LAJC filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees

In addition, we have added 3 documents from 1 case, with an earlier filing date, that has recently appeared on PACER.

• STEIN v. UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (filed Sep 23, 2015)
  Mitchell Stein, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the Securities and Exchange Commission for records related to two actions the SEC had taken against Stein and Heart Tronics, a company with which he was associated. The SEC denied Stein’s request on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceedings). Stein appealed the agency’s decision, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, he filed suit.
  Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index