BIRD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE and 13 other new FOIA lawsuits, plus case descriptions

We have added 86 documents from 14 FOIA cases filed between September 22, 2019 and September 28, 2019. 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. BIRD v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Sep 24, 2019)
   Kai Bird, a historian and journalist, submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning a 1980 cable sent by the U.S. Embassy in Madrid pertaining to an unofficial visit by William Casey, who at the time was Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Bird filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. United States Patent & Trademark Office (filed Sep 23, 2019)
   Legal Force RAPC Worldwide, a law firm specializing in filing U.S. trademark applications, submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for records concerning why Sapp, another company, received preferential treatment compared to other trademark firms. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency ultimately denied the request under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). RAPC filed an administrative appeal. RAPC also filed an appeal with the Office of Government Information Services. The agency acknowledged receipt of the appeal. The agency then denied the appeal based on Exemption 6. RAPC then filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
3. NORDLICHT v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (filed Sep 23, 2019)
   Mark Norlicht submitted a FOIA request to the Securities and Exchange Commission for records concerning communications between former SEC Director of Enforcement Andrew Ceresny and members of the media from January 2014 to December 2016. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency told Norlicht that there were 6180 potentially responsive emails. He agreed to narrow the time frame and the publications for which he was seeking records. The agency indicated that it was processing his request but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Norlicht filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Recovery of Costs
4. REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al (filed Sep 23, 2019)
   The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted FOIA requests to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and the FBI for records concerning Bryan Carmody and a list of keywords. The Reporters Committee provided a privacy waiver from Carmody. The Reporters Committee also requested a fee waiver. Both agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests. The FBI denied the request under Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). The Reporters Committee filed an administrative appeal of that decision. The Office of Information Policy upheld the FBI’s denial. The Reporters Committee also submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for records about Carmody. The Reporters Committee also provided a privacy waiver from Carmody and requested a fee waiver. EOUSA acknowledged receipt of the request. After hearing nothing further from any of the agencies, the Reporters Committee filed suit..
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
5. STOP GEOENGINEERING MINNESOTA v. U.S. AIR FORCE (filed Sep 24, 2019)
   Stop Geoengineering Minnesota submitted four FOIA requests to the Department of Air Force for records concerning the agency’s involvement in weather modification. SGM also requested a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, SGM filed administrative appeals. After hearing nothing more pertaining to any of its requests, SGM filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
6. ORTIZ HERNANDEZ v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE et al (filed Sep 24, 2019)
   Abimael Ortiz Hernandez, a Mexican citizen, submitted a FOIA request through his attorney to the Department of State for records about himself. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. The agency located 94 responsive pages but released only eight pages in full and three pages in part. The agency withheld the other records under Exemption 3 (other statutes). Ortiz Hernandez filed an administrative appeal. The agency acknowledged receipt of the appeal but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Ortiz Hernandez filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
7. Western Watersheds Project v. Department of the Interior (filed Sep 24, 2019)
   Western Watersheds Project submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Management for records concerning the agency’s outcome-based grazing initiative and 11 projects implementing the program in six states. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request. After hearing nothing further from the agency, WWP filed an administrative appeal. After hearing nothing, WWP filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
8. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (filed Sep 25, 2019)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning Victor Shokin’s resignation as Ukraine’s Prosecutor General and communications between the State Department and the Office of the Vice President regarding Shokin. 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
9. International Refugee Assistance Project v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al. (filed Sep 25, 2019)
   The International Refugee Assistance Project submitted FOIA requests to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Department of State for records concerning guidance provided for working with refugees. IRAP also requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. Both agencies acknowledged receipt of the requests. Both agents granted IRAP’s request for a fee waiver. USCIS did not respond to IRAP’s request for expedited processing, while the State Department denied IRAP’s expedited processing request. IRAP filed an administrative appeal the denial. After hearing nothing further from the agencies, IRAP filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
10. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation v. U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services et al (filed Sep 26, 2019)
    Kaiser Health News, part of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, submitted a FOIA request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for records concerning Risk Adjustment Data Validation reviews for payment years 2011, 2012, and 2013. Kaiser Health News also requested a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Kaiser Health News filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
11. CITIZENS UNITED v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (filed Sep 26, 2019)
    Citizens United submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Treasury for records concerning the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as an advisor during the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and told Citizens United that its request was being placed on the complex track for processing. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Citizens United filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
12. Ecological Rights Foundation v. United States Air Force (filed Sep 27, 2019)
    The Ecological Rights Foundation submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Air Force for records concerning former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt’s use of Air Force planes for international travel. After hearing nothing further from the agency the Ecological Rights Foundation filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
13. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE et al (filed Sep 27, 2019)
    The Electronic Privacy Information Center submitted a FOIA request to the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence for records prepared for or used by the Commission during its meetings. EPIC also requested expedited processing. The Commission acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the Commission, EPIC filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
14. The New York Times Company et al v. Customs and Border Protection (filed Sep 27, 2019)
    New York Times reporter Caitlin Dickerson submitted two FOIA requests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The first FOIA request asked for records sent by supervisors to staff in the El Paso sector concerning references to family separation and zero tolerance. The second FOIA request asked for the same types of records nationwide. Dickerson requested expedited processing and a fee waiver for both requests. The agency granted Dickerson’s request for a fee waiver but denied her request for expedited processing. The agency subsequently told Dickerson that her nationwide request had been closed as being duplicative of an earlier request. The New York Times then filed suit.
    Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees