CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

We have added 100 documents from 17 FOIA cases filed between March 5, 2017 and March 11, 2017. 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. CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Mar 10, 2017)
   Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Acting Attorney General at the Justice Department requesting that the department make publicly available Office of Legal Counsel opinions and an index of those opinions under Section (a)(2) of FOIA. After hearing nothing further from the agency, CREW filed suit.
   Issues: Affirmative disclosure, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. Cunningham v. Broadly et al (filed Mar 7, 2017)
   Benjamin Cunningham submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Marshals Service for records concerning a 2008 crime victims decision. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Cunningham filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit
3. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY et al (filed Mar 6, 2017)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning the investigation of Michael Flynn for his contact with the Russian ambassador. Judicial Watch submitted the same request to the FBI and to the Department of Treasury. The FBI and Treasury acknowledged receipt of the request, while the CIA did not. However, after hearing nothing further from either agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
4. NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES v. UNITED STATES NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION OFFICE (filed Mar 6, 2017)
   Northwest Environmental Advocates submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Agriculture for records concerning contracts with the Freshwater Trust and the Williamette Partnership. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but despite numerous queries to the agency concerning the status of the request, the agency failed to respond. Northwest Environmental Advocates then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
5. Wilderness Watch, Inc. v. Bureau of Land Management (filed Mar 6, 2017)
   Wilderness Watch submitted eight FOIA requests to the Bureau of Land Management for records concerning grazing allotments in designated wilderness areas managed by BLM. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after the agency failed to respond to its request, Wilderness Watch filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. Doung v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (filed Mar 6, 2017)
   William Doung submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service for records concerning himself, his spouse, and his attempts to have her immigrate to the United States from Cambodia. Her visa application was denied because of fraud. Doung then submitted a FOIA request to USCIS for records pertaining to the fraud allegation. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Doung filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
7. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Mar 7, 2017)
   The Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted FOIA requests to several components of the Department of Justice for records concerning evidence-based practices in sentencing. DOJ acknowledged receipt of the request and told EPIC that its request was considered voluminous and would take some time to process. EPIC then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
8. Power Constructors, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor (filed Mar 7, 2017)
   Power Constructors submitted a FOIA request to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for records concerning the agency’s investigation of a 2013 high-voltage electrical accident in Kansas that resulted in the death of a utility worker and the injury of another utility worker. The agency disclosed 350 pages with redactions under Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Power Constructors filed an administrative appeal, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the company filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
9. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (filed Mar 8, 2017)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the CIA for records concerning the CIA’s unclassified assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
10. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Mar 8, 2017)
    Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records concerning the conversation between then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
11. Frost v. United States Department of Justice (filed Mar 9, 2017)
    Vinton Frost submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice. He requested expedited processing, which was denied. Frost filed an administrative appeal, which was also denied. He then filed suit.
    Issues: Expedited processing
12. E.G. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (filed Mar 9, 2017)
    E.G. testified at the request of the Air Force at a discharge hearing at Elgin Air Force Base concerning charges of sexual assault committed by Sgt. John Broome. The board decided to allow Broome to continue in the Air Force. E.G. then submitted a FOIA request to the Air Force for records concerning the board’s proceedings concerning Broome. The Air Force disclosed E.G.’s own testimony, but claimed the rest of the records were protected by Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). E.G. filed an administrative appeal. The Air Force agreed that Exemption 5 did not apply, but that the records were still exempt under Exemption 6. E.G. then filed suit.
    Issues: Exemption 6 – Invasion of privacy, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
13. U.S. RIGHT TO KNOW et al v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (filed Mar 9, 2017)
    U.S. Right to Know submitted a FOIA request to the EPA for records concerning a cancer assessment review committee report on glyphosate and communications with Monsanto concerning glyphosate. U.S. Right to Know also requested a fee waiver. The agency denied the request for a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, U.S. Right to Know filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
14. Cox v. Central Intelligence Agency et al (filed Mar 9, 2017)
    Douglas Cox, a law library professor at the City University of New York Law School, submitted FOIA requests to the CIA and National Archives and Records Administration for records concerning the congressional investigation of torture. NARA responded to his first request for communications between the CIA and NARA, by disclosing NARA’s discussions, but withholding those by the CIA. Cox appealed the decision to NARA, but his appeal remained unresolved by the time he filed suit. Both the CIA and NARA acknowledged Cox’s requests, but after neither agency responded, Cox filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
15. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Land Management et al (filed Mar 10, 2017)
    Rocky Mountain Wild submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Management for records concerning compliance with federal law for specified parcels being put up for sale. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Rocky Mountain Wild filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
16. KEARNS v. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (filed Mar 10, 2017)
    Kevin Kearns, an employee of the Federal Aviation Administration, submitted a FOIA request to the FAA for records concerning complaints filed against him by other employees. The agency responded by disclosing some records, but redacted personally-identifying information under Exemption 6(invasion of privacy). Kearns filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. Kearns submitted a second FOIA request for two internal investigation files. The agency indicated that there were 1,537 responsive pages. The agency withheld 797 pages entirely and 333 pages in part under Exemption 6. Kearns filed an administrative appeal of the decision, but the agency had not responded by the time he filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
17. ROSENBERG et al v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Mar 10, 2017)
    Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for emails sent by John Kelly, then commander of Southern Command, to Lisa Monaco, Homeland Security advisor to then President Obama. Rosenberg also requested expedited processing. The agency denied Rosenberg’s request for expedited processing. Rosenberg then filed suit.
    Issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees

In addition, we have added 2 documents from 2 cases, with earlier filing dates, that have recently appeared on PACER.

• Le, et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (filed Mar 3, 2017)
• Johnson v. Illinois State Police (filed Mar 1, 2017)