Skip to content

72 new FOIA court documents, plus case descriptions

by on January 28, 2014

We have added 57 documents from 8 FOIA cases filed between January 19, 2014 and January 25, 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. BEVERIDGE & DIAMOND, P.C. v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al (filed Jan 21, 2014)
    Beveridge & Diamond submitted a request to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Centers for Disease Control for records pertaining to an update of scientific studies concerning the impact on health from exposure to Libby amphibole asbestos. Having heard nothing from the agency, the law firm filed suit after the statutory deadline for responding expired.
    Issues: failure to timely respond, disclosure of non-exempt records, expedited proceedings, attorneys fees
  2. Pro Publica, Inc. v. Federal Emegency Management Agency (filed Jan 21, 2014)
    ProPublica made a request to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for its database of individual claim records for Hurricane Sandy. The agency indicated it would withhold personally identifying information under Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). ProPublica appealed the agencys decision, but after hearing nothing further, filed suit.
    Issues: expedited proceedings, improper withholding of home addresses and/or census block information, enjoin FEMA from withholding home address or census block information responsive to ProPublicas requests, attorneys fees
  3. Meyer v. United States of America, The (filed Jan 21, 2014)
    Meyer worked as a contractor for the State Departments Bureau of Diplomatic Security in Iraq. He was investigated for alleged improprieties stemming from his visit to a recreation facility in Iraq in 2012. As a result, he was terminated. He requested the transcript of his interview during the investigation and all other records related to the investigation. After hearing nothing further from the agency, he filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, improper withholding, expedited proceedings, attorneys fees
  4. Bolze v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (filed Jan 21, 2014)
    Bolze submitted several requests to the CFTC. The agency responded that it had located four records that were being withheld. The CFTC upheld that decision on appeal. Bolze then filed suit.
    Issues: disclosure of records
  5. NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION, INC. v. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES (filed Jan 23, 2014)
    The National Shooting Sports Foundation submitted a request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms concerning the agencys decisions regarding the classification of certain types of ammunition and exemptions to those classifications. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further, the Foundation appealed to the Office of Information Policy. After hearing nothing from OIP, the Foundation filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, improper withholding, disclosure of non-exempt records, attorneys fees
  6. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (filed Jan 24, 2014)
    Judicial Watch requested any records concerning the selection of CGI to design the healthcare website. After the agency failed to respond within the statutory time limit, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, disclosure of non-exempt records, production of Vaughn index, attorneys fees
  7. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Jan 24, 2014)
    Judicial Watch submitted several requests to the Air Force concerning the costs of various flights taken by President Obama and/or members of his family. After hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit.
    Issues: adequacy of search, production of non-exempt records by date certain, attorneys fees
  8. RODRIGUEZ v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (filed Jan 25, 2014)
    Robert Rodriquez made two FOIA requests to the Defense Department pertaining to the veracity of comments made by P.M. Tamburrino in relation to Rodriquezs action to correct his military records and Tamburrinos authority to act on behalf of the agency. Rodriquez requested expedited processing. The agency responded by denying his request for expedited processing and asserted that because of unusual circumstances the agency would be unable to respond within the statutory time limit. After hearing nothing further, Rodriquez filed suit.
    Issues: failure to grant expedited processing, disclosure of non-exempt records, waiver of fees, attorneys fees

In addition, we have added 15 documents from 2 cases, with earlier filing dates, that have recently appeared on PACER.

  • The New York Times Company et al v. United States Department of Justice (filed Jan 17, 2014)
    New York Times reporter Michael Schmidt submitted a FOIA request to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for records concerning how the agency was advising its investigators to act in accordance with the recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Jones, which held that use of a GPS tracking device to monitor a vehicles movements constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. The agency responding by redacting the majority of the records disclosed, claiming Exemption 5 (privileges), Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). Schmidt appealed, challenging the redactions made under Exemption 5 and Exemption 7(E). After hearing nothing further from the agency, the newspaper filed suit.
    Iss!
    ues:
    improper withholding, disclosure within 20 days after court order, attorneys fees
  • MEDICASOFT, LLC v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (filed Jan 14, 2014)
    Medicasoft is a provider of software to the global healthcare market. Info World entered into a Master Software License Agreement with Veterans Affairs and subsequently assigned its rights under the licensing agreement to Medicasoft. Medicasoft submitted four FOIA requests to the VA concerning the agencys use of the Info World software and its refusal to compensate Medicasoft for its use. The agency responded with records that had been heavily redacted under Exemption 3 (other statutes), Exemption 4 (confidential business information), and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Medicasoft appealed the redactions, but after the agency indicated only that it was working on the appeal, the company filed suit.
    Issues: improper withholding, immediate disc! losure 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: