CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE and 7 other new FOIA lawsuits

We have added 69 documents from 7 FOIA cases filed between November 27, 2016 and December 3, 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. CAUSE OF ACTION INSTITUTE v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (filed Dec 1, 2016)
   Cause of Action Institute submitted two FOIA requests to the IRS for records pertaining to communications and transmittals from the IRS to the Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation. Cause of Action Institute requested the documents after the Chief Counsel of the IRS issued guidance that such records should be considered congressional records, not agency records subject to FOIA. The agency denied Cause of Action Institute’s requests based on its determination that such records were not agency records. Cause of Action Institute filed an administrative appeal and the agency upheld its initial decision. Cause of Action Institute then filed suit.
   Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. Michigan Immigrant Rights Center et al v. Department of Homeland Security et al (filed Nov 30, 2016)
   The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center and the ACLU of Michigan submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for records concerning the agency’s interior enforcement operations in the Detroit sector. The agency disclosed more than 4600 pages redacted under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy), Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The agency provided no records pertaining to the second section of the request. The organizations filed an administrative appeal during the processing of the request and the agency closed the appeal because it had not finished processing the records. The Michigan Immigrant Rights Center then filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
3. DISCEPOLO v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Nov 28, 2016)
   Sara Discepolo submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut for complaints she filed in 2000. She submitted a second FOIA request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts for records about herself. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorney’s responded to both requests by indicating that no records were found. She appealed the decisions to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the no records response from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Connecticut. Discepolo claimed the Justice Department did not specifically respond to the denial of her request to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts. She filed suit on both claims.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
4. Tuzinski v. Transportation Security Administration (filed Nov 28, 2016)
   Michelle Tuzinski and John Grazian, her attorney, submitted a FOIA request to the Transportation Security Administration for records concerning conditions at Parking Lot J at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport. After the agency failed to respond, Tuzinski and Grazian filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
5. CLARK HILL PLC et al v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL et al (filed Nov 30, 2016)
   The law firms of Clark Hill, PLC, Wasserman, Mancini & Chang, and the Law Office of Zahedi, PLLC submitted FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Archives & Records Administration for records concerning the 2007 investigation and conviction of Robert Schofield, a former supervisory district adjudication officer for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, for accepting bribes in return for favorable treatment in procuring citizenship or naturalization. USCIS responded that the records would cost $213,000. The FBI denied access to the records on the basis of Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). The law firms filed an administrative appeal. The Office of Information Policy upheld the FBI’s decision. The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security denied the request under Exemption 7(C). The law firms filed an administrative appeal and the OIG’s decision was upheld. NARA told the law firms that the records contained sensitive personal information, but the agency had not responded by the time the law firms filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al (filed Dec 1, 2016)
   Fresenius Medical Care Holdings submitted a FOIA request to the Center for Medicare Services for records concerning a survey conducted of Fresenius’s dialysis facilities in Mississippi by the Mississippi State Department of Health. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but despite several attempts to ascertain the status of its request, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings filed suit after hearing nothing further from the agency.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
7. Basey v. Department of the Army et al (filed Dec 2, 2016)
   Kaleb Lee Basey submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Army for records concerning its authority to authorize State of Alaska law enforcement officials to conduct searches and seizures of property outside military-controlled areas. Basey sent a second FOIA request to the Army for records concerning the swearing out of charges against Basey by two Criminal Information Division Command agents. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but had not responded to either request by the time Basey filed suit. Basey also submitted a request to the FBI for records concerning disciplinary actions taken against several FBI agents involved in the investigation. The FBI denied his request and Basey filed an administrative appeal. After hearing nothing further from the FBI, Basey filed suit against both agencies.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs

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

• MATTHEWS v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (filed Apr 16, 2015)