Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice and 7 other new FOIA lawsuits

We have added 50 documents from 8 FOIA cases filed between April 17, 2016 and April 23, 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. Electronic Frontier Foundation v. United States Department of Justice (filed Apr 19, 2016)
   EFF submitted two FOIA requests to the Department of Justice for records concerning requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to order Apple or any other communication company to provide technical assistance, and for records concerning the interpretation of the term “specific selection term.” The agency said it could locate no records concerning FISC orders for assistance, but had found two records that might be responsive which were being withheld under Exemption 1 (national security). EFF appealed that decision to OIP, which upheld the agency’s original decision. As to its second request, the agency had not responded by the time EFF filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. HUMANE SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL v. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE et al (filed Apr 18, 2016)
   Humane Society International submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for records concerning its Law Enforcement Management Information System, which maintains records on import and export of all wildlife specimens to and from the United States. The agency had disclosed records to the Humane Society from the database in past years, but the agency changed its policy and began to redact identifying information under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The Humane Society appealed redactions made in response to its requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency concerning its appeal, the Humane Society filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
3. The New York Times Company et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security (filed Apr 19, 2016)
   Reporter Ron Nixon submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning its annual assessments of fusion centers for the years 2009 to 2014. The agency provided responsive records redacted under Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques), and Exemption 7(F) (harm to a person). The New York Times filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the New York Times filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. BIN ALI JABER et al v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE et al (filed Apr 20, 2016)
   Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a Yemeni citizen, and Edward Pilkington, who identified himself as a member of the news media, submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, and Department of Treasury for records about a 2012 drone strike in Yemen that killed several members of bin Ali Jaber’s family. Because the request was made on bin Ali Jaber and Pilkington’s behalf by their attorney, several agencies questioned if the requesters qualified for news media status. The requesters had also asked for expedited processing. After none of the agencies provided substantive responses, bin Ali Jaber and Pilkington filed suit.
   Issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Fee Category – Media or Educational, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
5. Janangelo v. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (filed Apr 20, 2016)
   Peter Janangelo submitted a FOIA request to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration for a copy of a TIGTA report concerning a complaint Janangelo made about an IRS territorial manager in Las Vegas. The agency invoked a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records. Janangelo appealed the Glomar response, which was upheld on appeal. He then filed suit.
   Issues: Determination – Glomar response, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. Salomone v. Lynch (filed Apr 21, 2016)
   William Salomone submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for a list of cases in which the agency settled with defendants and required contributions to various organizations. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Salomone filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs
7. Navigate Affordable Housing Partners Inc v. United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (filed Apr 22, 2016)
   Navigate Affordable Housing Partners, a project contractor for the Department of Housing and Urban Development, submitted two FOIA requests to HUD for records concerning its reasons for canceling certain contracts and solicitations. After hearing nothing from the agency, Navigate Affordable Housing Partners appealed the agency’s failure to respond. Its appeal was granted and the agency was instructed to process the request. After further back and forth with the agency, the organization was told that agency personnel would stop holding such frequent discussions, but provided no indication when the request would be completed. Navigate Affordable Housing Partners then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
8. AGRAMA v.INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (filed Apr 22, 2016)
   Jehan Agrama submitted a FOIA request to the IRS for records concerning why the agency had decided Agrama was required to file certain forms. The agency located 86 pages and disclosed three pages. The agency withheld the remainder of the records under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Agrama appealed the agency’s decision, which was upheld on appeal. Agrama then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 7(A) – Interference with ongoing investigation, Litigation – Attorney’s fees