39 new FOIA court documents, plus case descriptions

We have added 39 documents from 8 FOIA cases filed between June 15, 2014 and June 21, 2014. 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. AQUALLIANCE v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (filed Jun 16, 2014)
   Aqualliance, a non-profit dedicated to defending northern California waterways, submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Land Reclamation for records concerning the amount of water transferred in 2013 under the purview of federal and California water authorities. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, indicated that it was considered a voluminous request, and asked for clarification. Aqualliance provided the needed clarification and BLM indicated it would begin providing interim responses, and, further, that some information might be exempt. Aqualliance submitted a second FOIA request to BLM for records of all applications for approval of specific water transfers from the Sacramento River watershed to south of the Delta. The agency acknowledged receipt of the second request and again indicated that its size meant it would take a considerable amount of time to process. The agency further told Aqualliance that it was reviewing the documents for exemptions. The agency then provided an interim response to the first request. After receiving nothing further pertaining to either request, Aqualliance filed suit.
   Issues: improper withholding, disclosure of all responsive records, attorney’s fees
2. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Jun 17, 2014)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records from the Interactive Case Management System detailing the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman spent on the investigation of the IRS for targeting conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. After the agency failed to respond within the 20-day time limit, Judicial Watch filed suit.
   Issues: conduct adequate search, disclosure of all non-exempt records by date certain, production of Vaughn index, attorney’s fees
3. Meyer v. Social Security (filed Jun 18, 2014)
   Eric Meyer and a number of other plaintiffs filed suit against the Social Security Administration and other feral government components seeking to invalidate the privacy restrictions contained in the privacy regulations for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, arguing that they prohibit unrelated individuals from contacting each other. This is not a FOIA action, but instead is an attempt to repeal privacy restrictions on personal information.
   Issues: N/A
4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY v. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (filed Jun 17, 2014)
   PEER submitted a FOIA request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for records concerning FEMA’s administration of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Energy Allocation Initiative grants for Superstorm Sandy in the State of New Jersey. FEMA acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated it would take a 10-day extension. After hearing nothing further from the agency, PEER filed suit.
   Issues: improper withholding, disclosure of all responsive records, attorney’s fees
5. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Jun 17, 2014)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for records concerning the processing of a previous Judicial Watch request submitted in May 2011. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and indicated it would be unable to respond within 20 days. After the expiration of the 20-day time limit, Judicial Watch filed suit.
   Issues: conduct adequate search, disclosure of all non-exempt records by date certain, production of Vaughn index, attorney’s fees
6. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (filed Jun 18, 2014)
   Judicial Watch submitted two FOIA requests to the Internal Revenue Service for records concerning allegations that several agency employees had urged taxpayers to vote for President Obama in violation of the Hatch Act. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests and several weeks later denied Judicial Watch’s requests by indicating that records pertaining to alleged violations of the Hatch Act were considered personal records rather than agency records. Judicial Watch filed an administrative appeal and the agency upheld its original denial. Judicial Watch then filed suit.
   Issues: conduct adequate search, disclosure of all non-exempt records by date certain, production of Vaughn index, attorney’s fees
7. Patel et al v. Department of Health and Human Services (filed Jun 18, 2014)
   Shatish Patel and three other doctors submitted a FOIA request to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concerning St. Luke’s Sugar Land Hospital. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and the doctors were told that the regional office had gathered records responsive to their request. However, after failing to provide any responsive records, the doctors filed suit.
   Issues: improper withholding, immediate disclosure of all responsive documents, attorney’s fees
8. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP v. United States Food and Drug Administration (filed Jun 20, 2014)
   The law firm of Faruqi and Faruqi, the court-appointed counsel for a securities class action suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit against Chelsea Therapeutics International, submitted an email request to the FDA for information letters sent to Chelsea Therapeutics. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further, the law firm sent a second identical email request, which was also acknowledged. However, after hearing nothing more pertaining to either request, the law firm filed suit.
   Issues: improper withholding, disclosure of all responsive records, attorney’s fees