FOIA Activity: 11 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 11 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between June 24, 2018 and June 30, 2018. These are associated with 10 FOIA cases pending in federal district court. Note that because there can be delays between the date a decision is made and when it shows up on PACER, this listing includes only decisions that appeared on PACER during this period.

Click on the date to view the full text of the decision. Click on a case title below to view other details for that case, including links to the docket report and complaint.

1. CAC 2:2018cv01286 — Ana Muniz v. United States Department of Homeland Security

   • June 26, 2018: DISMISSAL ORDER [15] by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the separately filed stipulation of the parties, this action is dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)
2. CAC 8:2017cv00705 — Thomas Burton v. John F. Kelly

   • June 25, 2018: [STRICKEN AS ENTERED IN ERROR] JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF [23] by Judge Andrew J. Guilford. (es) Modified on 6/26/2018 (lb).
   • June 26, 2018: JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Defendant on all causes of action. (mt)
3. CAN 4:2017cv06753 — Carlson v. United States Postal Service

   • June 25, 2018: STIPULATION AND ORDER re [22] STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER continuing case management conference filed by United States Postal Service. Case Management Statement due by 8/7/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/14/2018 01:30 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 4, 3rd Floor. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 6/25/18. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2018)
4. DC 1:2014cv02186 — GOLDSTEIN v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

   • June 25, 2018: ORDER denying Plaintiff's [74] Motion for Reconsideration and granting Defendant's [77] Motion for Clarification. Defendant shall file a Status Report no later than July 25, 2018, updating the court on the release of records, if any, that are responsive to Item 8 of Plaintiff's FOIA Request. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/25/2018. (lcapm1) Modified document type on 6/26/2018 (zjd).
5. DC 1:2014cv02189 — GOLDSTEIN v. TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

   • June 25, 2018: ORDER denying Plaintiff's [78] Motion for Reconsideration. Please see the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 06/25/2018. (lcapm1) Modified document type on 6/26/2018 (zjd).
6. DC 1:2015cv02194 — HEFFERNAN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

   • June 27, 2018: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on June 27, 2018. (lcrbw2)
7. ILN 1:2017cv05035 — LAF et al v. Department of Veterans Affairs

   • June 27, 2018: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 6/27/2018:(rao, )
8. INS 2:2016cv00096 — HIGGS v. UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

   • June 25, 2018: ORDER – For the reasons explained herein, Mr. Higgs' Motion for Summary Judgment [64] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Park Police's Motion for Summary Judgment [71] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: Mr. Higgs' Motion is DENIED and Park Police's Motion is GRANTED with regard to the exemptions claimed under FOIA's confidential source exemption at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(D); Mr. Higgs' Motion is GRANTED and the Park Police&# 039;s Motion is DENIED with regard to the exemptions claimed under FOIA's unwarranted invasion of personal privacy exemption at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (7)(C), and the Park Police is ORDERED to produce unredacted versions of all documents it pr eviously withheld under Exemption 7(C) on or before Friday, July 13, 2018; Mr. Higgs' Motion is GRANTED and the Park Police's Motion is DENIED with regard to the exemptions claimed under FOIA's law enforcement techniques and proced ures exemption at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) related to the NCIC Reports, and the Park Police is ORDERED to produce unredacted versions of all portions of NCIC Reports it previously withheld under Exemption 7(E) on or before Friday, July 13, 201 8; Mr. Higgs' Motion is GRANTED and the Park Police's Motion is DENIED with regard to the exemptions claimed under FOIA's law enforcement techniques and procedures exemption at 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E) related to the Ballistic s Reports, and the Park Police is ORDERED to produce unredacted versions of all portions of the Ballistics Reports it previously withheld under Exemption 7(E) on or before Friday, July 13, 2018 (SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 6/25/2018. (DWH)
9. NYS 1:2017cv03391 — American Civil Liberties Union et al v. Department of Defense et al

   • June 27, 2018: OPINION & ORDER re: [35] MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, [42] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Central Intelligence Agenc y. For the foregoing reasons, the CIA's motion for summary judgment is denied in full and the ACLU's motion for summary judgment is denied except as to FOIA request two, as to which it is granted. The CIA is directed to submit an y new Glomar response with respect to requests one, three, four and five within two weeks of this order. Upon submission of such a response, the Court will entertain a joint proposal from counsel as to a prompt schedule for briefing the validit y of such a response. If no such response is submitted, the CIA is directed promptly to produce responsive records and/or a Vaughn index to plaintiffs, as have the other three defendants. As to request two, the CIA is directed forthwith to c ollect records responsive to this request and to be prepared, after the status of the other four requests has been resolved, promptly to produce to the ACLU responsive materials and/or a Vaughn Index chronicling withheld materials. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at Dkts. 35 and 42. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 6/27/2018) (mro)
10. NYS 1:2017cv06354 — The New York Times Company et al v. Central Intelligence Agency

    • June 29, 2018: OPINION AND ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is DENIED; Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. re: [12] CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by The New York Times Company, Matthew Rosenberg, [9] MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Central Intelligence Agency. (Signed by Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr on 6/29/2018) (rjm)