76 new FOIA court documents, plus case descriptions

We have added 74 documents from 13 FOIA cases filed between September 7, 2014 and September 13, 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. Buckovetz v. U.S. Department of the Navy (filed Sep 8, 2014)
   Dennis Buckovetz submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Navy for records of an investigation that had formed the basis for three personnel disciplinary actions taken in 2013. The agency denied his request citing Exemption 7(A) (ongoing investigation or proceeding). He appealed the denial and was subsequently told that since the investigation was now closed, the records could be disclosed with redactions under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records). Buckovetz once again appealed but was told his only remedy was to go to court. He then submitted requests for records related to the denial of his earlier request. The Navy indicated those requests were not considered proper at that time and his only remedy was to go to court. He then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 6 – Invasion of privacy, Exemption 7(C) – Invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records, Exemptions, Litigation – Sanctions, Segregability – Disclosure of all non-exempt records
2. Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc v. U.S. Forest Service et al (filed Sep 9, 2014)
   Rocky Mountain Wild, Inc., a non-profit organization seeking to protect wildlands in the Southern Rockies, submitted a FOIA request to the U.S. Forest Service for records concerning the Village at Wolf Creek Access Project. The agency provided some records but withheld more than 1600 pages under Exemption 4, (confidential business information), Exemption 5 (privileges), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). The organization appealed the denial, but after finding the appeal had still not been processed, Rocky Mountain Wild filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 4 – Confidential business information, Exemption 5 – Privileges, Exemption 6 – Invasion of privacy, Exemptions, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
3. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE et al (filed Sep 9, 2014)
   The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services for records concerning the impact of the proposed Keystone Pipeline Project on various migratory species. The agency eventually told the Center that it was referring the documents to the Department of State, which had jurisdiction over the decision to approve the pipeline. The Center appealed the agency’s decision to refer the records to State and after hearing nothing further, the Center filed suit.
   Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Search – Referral, Withholding not related to exemption claims
4. SAINT JOSEPH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Sep 9, 2014)
   Saint Joseph Health System filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services to block disclosure of records provided by Saint Joseph in the course of an investigation of cardiology procedures at Saint Joseph – London, one of six hospitals in Kentucky operated by Saint Joseph Health System. The investigation resulted in a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of the Inspector General. The Poppe Law Firm submitted a FOIA request for the CIA records and the agency provided predisclosure notification to Saint Joseph. Saint Joseph indicated a number of records it thought should be withheld by the agency. The agency agreed to some redactions but told Saint Joseph that it planned to disclose other records Saint Joseph claimed were protected under Exemption 4 (confidential business information). Saint Joseph then filed a reverse-FOIA suit under the Administrative Procedure Act to block disclosure of the disputed records.
   Issues: Litigation – In camera review, Litigation – Reverse-FOIA
5. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Sep 9, 2014)
   Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Prisons for any records concerning the confinement of Jesse Jackson, Jr. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but indicated that it would not process the request without a privacy waiver. Judicial Watch then filed suit.
   Issues: Adequacy – Search, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
6. HINZ v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY et al (filed Sep 10, 2014)
   The Internal Revenue Service claimed that Steven Hinz had violated agency regulations pertaining to tax preparers. Hinz denied that he was a tax preparer and filed suit against the agency under the Privacy Act for failure to maintain complete and accurate records, and failure to provide an accounting of disclosures.
7. Letterese v. Internal Revenue Service (filed Sep 10, 2014)
   Peter Letterese submitted a FOIA request to the Atlanta office of the IRS for records of an investigation pertaining to him. He was told that copies of the records would cost $5,980 in paper form. Letterese then requested the records in electronic format. After repeated failed attempts to access the records from the CDs provided by the agency, Letterese asked the agency to provide a Vaughn index of the records. The agency told Letterese it was not required to provide a Vaughn index and Letterese filed suit.
   Issues: Choice of format, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
8. (PS) Yegorov v. McBrien (filed Sep 11, 2014)
   Yegorov Dmitriy alleged that Sacramento County Court Commissioner Peter McBrien acted improperly in granting a divorce to Melnichuk Nelya. Aside from allegations of torture, abuse, and violations of the Constitution, Dmitriy does not make a claim for disclosure of any records.
9. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Sep 11, 2014)
   EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Defense for records concerning e-vote system testing. EPIC requested expedited processing, inclusion in the news media fee category, and a public interest fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but did not make a determination or address EPIC’s requests for expedited processing, fee category, and fee waiver. EPIC then filed suit.
   Issues: Expedited processing, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Fee Category – Media or Educational, Public Interest Fee Waiver
10. Tunnell v. U.S. Department of Defense (filed Sep 11, 2014)
    Harry Tunnell submitted a FOIA request to the Defense Department’s Office of Inspector General for records concerning the investigation of a complaint he had filed. The OIG eventually sent 75 pages, which Tunnell believed were not responsive to his request. He submitted a second request to the Department of the Army for records concerning investigations conducted by LTG Curtis Scaparrotti of brigade commanders under his command. After repeated contacts with the agency, Tunnell received nothing further in response to his second request. He sent a third request to Joint Base Lewis-McChord for training videos. He heard nothing further in response to this third request. He submitted a fourth request to Joint Base Lewis-McChord for court martial transcripts related to the testimony of an expert witness. He was told his request had been transferred to the Army Court of Appeals, but he heard nothing further in response to the request. Tunnell then filed suit.
    Issues: Choice of format, Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver
11. PATRIOTS FOUNDATION v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY (filed Sep 12, 2014)
    The Patriots Foundation submitted a FOIA request to the Department of the Treasury for records concerning any communications with Sen. Harry Reid and Democratic fundraiser Tom Steyer between May 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after several failed attempts to contact the agency concerning the request, the Patriots Foundation filed suit.
    Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
12. United States Merchant Marine Academy Alumni Association and Foundation v. United States Department of Transportation Maritime Administration et al (filed Sep 12, 2014)
    Because of various adverse actions the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration had allegedly taken against the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy Alumni Association and Foundation, the Association submitted 11 FOIA requests to the agency for a variety of records. Although the Association made an advance payment of $11,000 for processing its requests, the Association and the agency got into a dispute over processing its requests, including the agency’s repeated attempts to try to get the Association to withdraw its requests. The Association finally filed suit.
    Issues: Fees – Advance Payment, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Sanctions – Referral to Special Counsel, Withholding not related to exemption claims
13. Brickman v. United States Department of Agriculture et al (filed Sep 12, 2014)
    James Brickman submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Agriculture for records concerning support for statements made by the Intermediary Relending Program. After appealing the agency’s failure to respond within the statutory time limit, the agency told Brickman that it would cost $690 to process his request. The agency also rejected his request for a fee waiver. Brickman then filed suit.
    Issues: Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Public Interest Fee Waiver, Withholding not related to exemption claims

In addition, we have added 2 documents from 1 case, with an earlier filing date, that has recently appeared on PACER.

• Posner v. Johnson et al (filed Sep 4, 2014)
  Jonathan Posner submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection concerning the denial of his application to join CBP’s Global Entry Program. He also sent requests to U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for records concerning the denial of his application. The Postal Service told Posner it had no records and ICE told Posner that it could not find any responsive records. Posner had nothing further from CBP and filed suit.