BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY and 14 other new FOIA lawsuits

We have added 76 documents from 15 FOIA cases filed between August 7, 2016 and August 13, 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. BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (filed Aug 8, 2016)
   The Brennan Center for Justice submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning the closure of immigration proceedings on national security grounds. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement responded that it was referring the request to the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Justice Department. The Brennan Center told ICE that it had already requested records from EOIR and that agency had suggested that ICE would have more records. ICE closed the request and the Brennan Center filed an appeal, asking the agency to conduct a search. As a result of the appeal, ICE conducted a search. It located 106 pages, but redacted 93 pages entirely under a variety of exemptions. The Brennan Center appealed that decision and ICE agreed to conduct another search. That search located 27 more pages, but only one page was disclosed. The Brennan Center once again appealed, but filed suit before the agency responded.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. GOOD FOOD INSTITUTE v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (filed Aug 8, 2016)
   The Good Food Institute submitted three FOIA requests to the Agricultural Marketing Service, a component of the Department of Agriculture. The first request was for records about meetings and budgets of the American Egg Board. Although the agency disclosed 1800 pages, with redactions under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), the Good Food Institute believed the records did not respond to most of its request. The Good Food Institute filed an appeal, which had not been resolved by the time it filed suit. The Good Food Institute’s second FOIA request was for records disclosed in response to a request as the result of another party’s FOIA request. AMS did not acknowledge receipt of the request, but told the Good Food Institute in a telephone conversation that the records would be posted online. The records had not been posted online by the time the Good Food Institute filed suit. The third FOIA request was for records pertaining to actions taken by the American Egg Board on various products. AMS acknowledged receiving the request in a phone conversation and also indicated that the matter dealt with a current internal investigation. The agency provided no further response before the Good Food Institute filed suit. The Good Food Institute also requested a fee waiver for each of its three requests. After no further action on any of its requests, the Good Food Institute filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
3. Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. United States Bureau of Reclamation et al (filed Aug 8, 2016)
   The Alliance for the Wild Rockies submitted FOIA requests to the Bureau of Land Reclamation and the Bonneville Power Administration for records concerning consultations with other agencies pertaining to the operation of certain dams within the bull trout critical habitat. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests and asked the Alliance for clarification. The Alliance provided clarification of its request, but after hearing nothing further from the agencies, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. BARRETT v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (filed Aug 8, 2016)
   David Barrett, a professor of political science at Villanova, submitted three FOIA requests to the CIA for an unredacted copy of Volume 5 of the CIA’s history of the Bay of Pigs invasion. The first request was denied based on the fact that the D.C. Circuit had ruled that the volume was protected by Exemption 5. His second request was still being considered. However, Barrett submitted a FOIA request on July 1, 2016, after FOIA was amended to prohibit agencies from claiming the deliberative process privilege for records more than 25 years old. The agency cancelled Barrett’s third request on the basis that his second request for the same document had not yet been resolved. Barrett then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
5. AMERICAN ANTI-VIVISECTION SOCIETY v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR et al (filed Aug 8, 2016)
   The American Anti-Vivisection Society submitted two FOIA requests to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for records from the agency’s Law Enforcement Management Information System concerning investigations of the import and export of primates. The other request was for import information on dogfish sharks. The agency responded to both requests, but redacted information under Exemption 4 (confidential business information), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The Society filed appeals of both responses, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Society filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (filed Aug 9, 2016)
   The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for records from its Law Enforcement Management Information System, which contains information about importers and exporters as well as other data. The agency withheld information about exporters under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). The Center for Biological Diversity appealed, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, it filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
7. KING & SPALDING, LLP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al (filed Aug 9, 2016)
   The law firm of King & Spaulding submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services concerning Abiomed. HHS responded to the request by indicating that responsive records were protected by Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding). King & Spaulding filed an administrative appeal. HHS also referred the request to FDA, which provided King & Spaulding with some records. DOJ told King & Spaulding that it had located 49 pages which were being processed. After hearing nothing further from either agency, King & Spaulding filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
8. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc. v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al (filed Aug 9, 2016)
   The Southern Poverty Law Center submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Homeland Security for records concerning multi-state immigration raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that allegedly were conducted without warrants. SPLC also requested a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and denied SPLC’s request for a fee waiver. However, after hearing nothing further concerning its request, SPLC filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
9. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (filed Aug 10, 2016)
   The Energy and Environment Legal Institute submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records concerning email correspondence involving three agency employees in reference to two non-government individuals. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told EELI that it had located 9,267 emails that it would process and disclose on a rolling basis. EELI submitted a second FOIA request for emails involving seven agency employees and referring to various keywords. The agency acknowledged receipt of that request. After hearing nothing further from the agency pertaining to either request, EELI filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
10. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT LEGAL INSTITUTE v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Aug 10, 2016)
    The Energy and Environment Legal Institute submitted two FOIA requests to the National Institutes of Health for email correspondence of two NIH employees involving several other parties and keywords. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, EELI filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
11. TRAUTMAN et al v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al (filed Aug 11, 2016)
    Maryellen Trautman and Anthony Clark submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Justice and the National Archives. The agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after hearing nothing further concerning the processing of their requests, Trautman and Clark filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
12. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY v. NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (filed Aug 11, 2016)
    PEER submitted a FOIA request to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for records concerning the agency’s consideration of possibly replacing Fisheries Observers with video