FOIA Activity: 12 New Procedural or Substantive Decisions

We have added 12 decisions of a procedural or substantive nature filed between August 27, 2023 and September 2, 2023. These are associated with 11 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. CAE 2:2022cv02148 — Jamul Action Committee v. Dept. of Interior et al

   • August 29, 2023: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/28/2023 GRANTING [25] Motion to Dismiss, without leave to amend, and this case is closed. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)
2. DC 1:2018cv01556 — BUZZFEED INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al

   • August 30, 2023: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re: Defendants' [35] Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's [36] Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/30/2023. (lcb)
3. DC 1:2019cv01502 — HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTER v. PARK POLICE

   • August 29, 2023: MEMORANDUM OPINION RE: [23] Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and [25] Plaintiff's Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 8/29/23. (lca)
4. DC 1:2020cv00113 — CULLEN v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

   • August 30, 2023: MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of Order granting Defendants' [53] Motion for Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiff's [55] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and for In Camera Review, and entering final judgment for Defendants on Count I of Plaintiff's [13] First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 8/30/2023. (lctjk3)
5. DC 1:2021cv01319 — MOUNTGORDON v. UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

   • August 30, 2023: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons provided in the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) Defendant's motion for summary judgment, Dkt. [14] , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part and (2) Plaintiff' s cross-motion for summary judgment, Dkt. [22] , [23] , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall file on or before October 30, 2023, a joint status report advising the Court as to any further productions and proposing next steps in this litigation. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 08/30/2023. (lcrdm3)
6. DC 1:2021cv02108 — WILDERNESS WORKSHOP v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al

   • September 1, 2023: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re [19] Motion for Summary Judgment and [22] Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Jia M. Cobb on September 1, 2023. (lcjmc3)
   • September 1, 2023: ORDER granting in part and denying in part [19] Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying [22] Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Jia M. Cobb on September 1, 2023. (lcjmc3)
7. DC 1:2022cv01594 — MARTIN v. GARLAND et al

   • September 1, 2023: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/1/23. (psu2)
8. MD 1:2022cv00420 — Yadav et al v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services et al

   • September 1, 2023: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby on 9/1/2023. (bas, Deputy Clerk)
9. NYE 1:2019cv07079 — CLEAR et al v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

   • August 28, 2023: ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. This action is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), provided that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over any issue that might arise relating to the enforcement of this Stipulation and Order. Pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E), as soon as reasonably practicable after the Court has approved and docketed this Stipulation and Order, Defendant shall pay to Plaintiffs the sum of $120,000.00 (One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents) in attorneys' fees and litigation costs. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. on 8/28/2023. (CG)
10. NYS 1:2019cv06867 — Osen LLC v. United States Central Command

    • September 1, 2023: OPINION AND ORDER re: [66] CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Osen LLC, [62] SECOND MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by United States Central Command. As the Second Circuit has remarked., "[c]ourts are not well-suited to evaluate the constantly evolving military conditions and national security challenges faced by U.S. forces and personnel. Judges do not abdicate their judicial role by acknowledging their limitations and deferring to an agency&#03 9;s logical and plausible justification in the context of national security; they fulfill it.".Am. Civ. Liberties Union v, U.S. Dep't of Just., 901 F.3d 125, 136 (2d Cir. 2018). This case requires the Court to fulfill its judicial role in exactly that manner. While Plaintiffs, clients have a legitimate interest in obtaining the Vehicle Information that Plaintiff seeks, Defendant likewise has a legitimate and vital interest in protecting American interests from national security th reats, Courts lack the qualifications and expertise to evaluate those threats and to ascertain what information, if released, would unacceptably enhance them; thus, the law entrusts the officials responsible for protecting national security, not th is Court, to make such evaluations and to decide on that basis whether to release or withhold information. There can be no guarantee, of course, that such decisions are correct, but so long as Defendant's reasoning is logical and plausible th is Court cannot supplant that reasoning with its own. And because Defendant's reasoning is logical and plausible, its motion for summary judgment is granted, and Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendant need not produce the Vehicle Information in response to Plaintiff's requests (although, as the parties agree, see, e.g., Unclassified Doyle Declaration paragraph 13 n.2, images or information shall not be redacted where the very same images or information has alr eady been released to Plaintiff in response to a prior request). Within seven days of the public filing of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall submit a joint letter informing the Court of whether this case may be closed, or whether the Court should retain jurisdiction because disputes over the redaction of specific documents remain to be resolved. See Dkt. 61 at 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions pending at Docket Numbers 62 and 66. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge John P. Cronan on 8/29/2023) (jca)
11. NYS 1:2021cv02166 — Bonner v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation et al

    • August 31, 2023: ORDER granting [78] Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 8/31/2023) (jca)