Case law

Avirgan v. Hull

118 F.R.D. 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1987

During that testimony, Robinette admitted under grant of limited immunity, that he had accepted payments of several thousand dollars from retired Air Force Major General Richard V. … It is well established that a movant for a protective order must articulate specific and particular facts showing good cause, and not merely allege *262 “stereotyped and conclusory statements.”

Buzzfeed Inc. v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2019

Exemption 6 covers “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). … When an agency invokes both Exemptions 6 and 7(C), courts “focus” on Exemption 7(C) because it “establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v.

WPOW, Inc. v. MRLJ ENTERPRISES

584 F. Supp. 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1984

Thus, plaintiff clearly has a copyright on the engineering report. … But defendants can hardly be deemed “qualified” on the basis of an application which is a copy of another applicant’s work.

Buitrago v. D.C. Department of Health

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2024

The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability,” 42 U.S.C. … To establish a valid failure-to-accommodate claim, “a plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that ‘(1) she was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the [employer] had notice of her disability

Mostofi v. Network Capital Funding Corp.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2011

is improper) because a 1 The parties’ diversity of citizenship is undisputed. 2 claim that seeks the disgorgement of funds, as Mostofi’s does, qualifies … Supp. 2d 96, 105 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[C]ase law . . . establishes clearly that actual and statutory damages should not be aggregated in representative actions like [CPPA cases].”).

Bowden v. Small

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

As the plaintiff admits, he is clearly larger than the only woman on the staff, Pl.'s Opp'n, Ex. 5 (Bowden Dep. … s Opp'n at 11, the evidence clearly shows that she too was required to perform outdoor work, Pl.'

Government of Rwanda v. Rwanda Working Group

150 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

Thereafter, the United States no longer will regard such persons as being entitled to the privileges, immunities, and protections which they now enjoy by virtue of their official status.” See id. at 15 . … The plaintiff further asserts that no genuine issues of fact exist because both contracts clearly *7 detail services that were never performed, and defendant Johnson accepted and endorsed both payments by the predecessor

United States Ex Rel. Hollander v. Clay

420 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 1976

Certainly the Justice Department qualifies as such a department. … Defendant presents no compelling reason to deviate from this established law and practice.

Stonehill v. National Archives and Records Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2024

But NARA has established that OF-11s cannot be “reasonably expected” to be found inside Criminal Division document boxes. … To start, the Court is not convinced that the “clearly indicates” standard applies here.

Estate of Esther Klieman v. Palestinian Authority

293 F.R.D. 235 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2013

Plaintiffs argue that these statements will establish the PA/PLO’s liability for the attack that resulted in Klieman’s death. Id. at 7. … Plaintiffs assert that Judge Facciola’s decision is clearly erroneous and contrary to law.

Beltranena v. U.S. Department of State

821 F. Supp. 2d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2011

Grafeld states that the Department conducted nine searches in four records systems, and that she clearly identifies who performed the searches, as well as their qualifications and experience. … Indeed, that statute has already been held to qualify as a withholding statute under Exemption 3. Under section 222(f), the Secretary of State has no authority to disclose material to the public.

Russell v. District of Columbia

747 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1990

Russell to establish his claim of an oral contract. … Russell’s “Personnel Action” statements clearly stated the temporary or term nature of his appointment. When hired in 1987 by the federal government, Mr.

Abuhouran v. United States State Department

843 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2012

E 03 the name of “a US individual” planning a “private visit” under FOIA exemption 6 because it asserts that disclosure of the name would constitute “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” … Marshal--do not establish ‘a meaningful evidentiary showing.’") (quoting Favish, 541 U.S. at 175).

Lundy v. Interfirst Corp.

105 F.R.D. 499 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1985

requested are voluminous. 6 The Comptroller has asserted at least colorable claims that a significant portion of the remaining documents is protected from disclosure by the intragovernmental opinion privilege. 7 Plaintiffs clearly … On April 25, 1984, plaintiffs submitted to the Comptroller a request to release documents pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 4.19 , the regulation establishing the procedure for obtaining documents from the Comptroller.

Estes v. U.S. Department of the Treasury

219 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2016

In the meantime, Treasury promulgated a rule, and this Court’s task is to evaluate whether that rule altered a clearly established policy without sufficient explanation. … But the statements do not establish the opposite with respect to possession.

National Association for Home Care & Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius

142 F. Supp. 3d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2015

Invoking the familiar Chevron framework, HHS counters that the meaning of the verb “document” is broad enough to encompass a requirement to “explain,” based on findings made at a face-to-face encounter, why the patient qualifies … limited to determining, within reason, how physicians should document that an appropriate face-to-face encounter actually took place—that is, that an encounter occurred that truly focused on determining whether a patient qualifies

A.B. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2010

Although it is somewhat unclear as to whether Plaintiff has met her burden of pleading to establish municipal liability against the District of Columbia under Section 1983, the Court declines to make a ruling on this issue … The portion of Best that Chief Judge Lamberth cites to in DL discusses the Best court’s denial of the defendant-employees’ qualified immunity defense. See id. at 49.

Young v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2021

Prostate cancer does not qualify an employee for the SEC. See 42 C.F.R. § 83.0; 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(gg) (listing the twenty-two types of cancers that qualify for the SEC, none of which is prostate cancer). … Turning to the second Bennett prong, plaintiffs assert that legal consequences clearly flowed from HHS’s determination not to estimate doses for certain workers—namely, that this caused their DOL application for EEOICPA

Dual v. Griffin

446 F. Supp. 791 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 1977

The only two candidates to compete for this position, plaintiff and Kaplan, were evaluated by a screening panel, found “qualified” and “highly qualified” respectively, 10 and were referred to Acting Director of the Management … experience — was apparently less qualified. 21 *797 In light of this evidence, this Court cannot quarrel with the review panel evaluation of plaintiff and Kaplan as “qualified” and “highly qualified,” respectively, 22 nor

Thorpe v. District of Columbia

303 F.R.D. 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2014

In addition, “a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, … The “common- sense requirement” that plaintiffs “establish that a class exists” is “not designed to be a particularly stringent test,” but rather requires plaintiffs to “be able to establish [that] ‘the general outlines