Skip to content

66 new FOIA court documents, plus case descriptions

by on January 21, 2014

We have added 66 documents from 9 FOIA cases filed between January 12, 2014 and January 18, 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. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. SECRET SERVICE (filed Jan 13, 2014)
    Judicial Watch submitted several requests to the Secret Service concerning the use of government funds to provide security and other services to President Obama and/or his family on recent trips. After hearing nothing from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, disclosure of non-exempt records, production of Vaughn index, attorneys fees
  2. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Jan 13, 2014)
    Judicial Watch submitted a request to the Air Force for records concerning Michelle Obamas trip to Ireland. Having heard nothing more from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit after the statutory time limit expired.
    Issues: adequacy of search, disclosure of non-exempt records, production of Vaughn index, attorneys fees
  3. Hamilton v. United States of America (filed Jan 13, 2014)
    Hamilton requested a copy of a draft of a memo from the VA Hospital in Albuquerque. The VA responded by providing a copy of the memo but not the draft version. Hamilton appealed and after the VA Hospital failed to respond, he filed suit. Issues: improper withholding, attorneys fees
  4. LEOPOLD v. CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (filed Jan 14, 2014)
    Leopold requested a copy of an internal CIA report on its interrogation and detention program which was referred to by Sen. Mark Udall during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. Leopold requested expedited processing and a fee waiver. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Leopold filed suit.
    Issues: failure to grant expedited processing, improper withholding, attorneys fees
  5. COFIELD v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al (filed Jan 15, 2014)
    Cofield filed a complaint in state court against President Obama, Congress, and a number of agencies. The House of Representatives filed a notice of removal asking the district court to dismiss it as a defendant. Issues: N/A
  6. LOCASCIO v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (filed Jan 16, 2014)
    LoCasio was tried along with John Gotti and was convicted on various charges. He filed a request with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys for 644 reels of tape played in open court at the Gotti trial and asked for expedited processing. After LoCasios attorney paid nearly $2,000 in search fees, the agency told LoCasios attorney that it was unable to determine what tapes were played because the transcripts were sealed. As a result, EOUSA claimed it was unable to determine if the tapes were disclosable. LoCasios attorney appealed to the Office of Information Policy, which rejected the appeal on the basis that EOUSA had not made a determination of whether or not the tapes could be disclosed. LoCasios attorney then narrowed the request to ask for that portion of the trial transcript containing the testimony of an expert witness during which LoCasio claimed the tapes had been played in open court. EOUSA finally responded by indicated that it could not find the tapes.! OIP upheld that decision and LoCasio filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, order requiring EOUSA to retrieve tapes from FBI, disclosure of tapes, repayment of search fees, attorneys fees
  7. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (filed Jan 16, 2014)
    The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for records regarding the legal status of the northern swift fox, an endangered species likely to be impacted by the construction of the Keystone Pipeline Project. The agency responded that it had no records on the legal status of the northern swift fox. The Center appealed the agencys no records decision, but after hearing nothing further, the Center filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, improper withholding of records, attorneys fees
  8. CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY v. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (filed Jan 16, 2014)
    The Center for Biological Diversity submitted a request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a 2009 memorandum concerning the legal status of the thick-billed parrot, the wood bison, the margay, and the northern swift fox under the Endangered Species Act. The agency withheld the memorandum under Exemption 5 claiming it was protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Center appealed the agencys decision, but after hearing nothing further, filed suit.
    Issues: improper withholding, attorney-client privilege, attorneys fees
  9. Brickman v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al (filed Jan 16, 2014)
    Brickman submitted a request to the Inspector General of the Agriculture Department for information about loans provided under the Biorefinery Assistance Program and the Advanced Biofuel Producer Program. The agency eventually provided 46 redacted pages, but Brickman believed none of the records were responsive to his request and appealed. After the agency failed to respond within the statutory time limit, Brickman filed suit.
    Issues: improper withholding, disclosure of non-exempt records, attorneys fees
Advertisements

From → FOIA, PACER

Leave a Comment

 

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: