PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES and 6 other new FOIA lawsuits, plus case descriptions

We have added 32 documents from 7 FOIA cases filed between November 1, 2015 and November 7, 2015. 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. PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Nov 5, 2015)
   People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals submitted a FOIA request to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for records concerning elephants and tuberculosis. The agency did not acknowledge receipt of the request for six months. PETA contacted the agency asking it to provide an estimated date of completion. The agency told PETA it could not provide an estimate. PETA then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
2. CRUZ v. EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY (filed Nov 6, 2015)
   Felix Cruz, a federal prisoner, submitted a FOIA request to the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for records about himself and his conviction. EOUSA told Cruz that his request was being referred to the FBI, which had his records. The agency further told Cruz that his request was denied on the basis of Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). Cruz appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which upheld the FBI’s decision. Cruz then filed suit.
   Issues: Exemption 7(A) – Interference with ongoing investigation, Litigation – Attorney’s fees
3. Cummings v. Merit Systems Protection Board et al (filed Nov 2, 2015)
   Deward Cummings requested records from the U.S. Postal Service and the Merit Systems Protection Board concerning charges brought against him. Although there is no indication that Cummings made the requests or that the agencies processed the requests, Cummings filed suit against both agencies.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit
4. Ruvalcaba v. Stephens (filed Nov 2, 2015)
   Javier Ruvalcaba filed suit against William Stephens, Director of the Texas Correctional Institutions Division. The complaint does not indicate anything about the cause of action or the basis for the suit except to indicate that it is brought as a federal question.
   Issues: FOIA not mentioned
5. Williams v. HSBC Bank USA NA et al (filed Nov 3, 2015)
   Henry Lee Williams, a resident of Leavenworth, KS, filed suit against HSBC Bank requesting the court order HSBC Bank to release all claims it had against the property of which Williams was the trustee. The complaint cites to FOIA and the Privacy Act, but Williams has no apparent claim under either statute.
   Issues: FOIA mentioned only tangentially
6. ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Nov 4, 2015)
   EPIC submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State for records concerning the EU-US Umbrella Agreement on the data protection framework for EU-US law enforcement cooperation. EPIC requested expedited processing and inclusion in the news media fee category. All three agencies acknowledged receipt of EPIC’s request. Justice claimed unusual circumstances that would cause a delay in processing the request. DOJ also denied EPIC’s request for expedited processing. Homeland Security indicated that it was referring the request to Justice. EPIC then filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Fee Category – Media or Educational, Litigation – Attorney’s fees, Litigation – Vaughn index
7. Military Religious Freedom Foundation v. United States Air Force Academy et al (filed Nov 5, 2015)
   The Military Religious Freedom Foundation submitted a FOIA request to the Air Force Academy for records concerning itself and various members. The Academy responded nine months later by disclosing 1,000 pages, many of them redacted under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). About six months later, the Academy indicated it had located another 7,216 pages, of which it had reviewed 3,173 pages, all of which were being withheld under Exemption 6. The Foundation appealed the Academy’s decision, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Foundation filed suit.
   Issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation – Attorney’s fees