Case law

Sierra Club v. Johnson

444 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2006

“[T]o grant an extension such as required by the EPA, would involve the Court, rather than Congress, in changing, qualifying or amending ... the unqualified, mandatory provisions of Section 7412. … It is emphatically not within an agency’s authority to set regulatory priorities that clearly conflict with those established by Congress. See State v. Gorsuch, 554 F.Supp. at 1062-63 .

Gerlich v. United States Department of Justice

659 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2009

“[T]he Act clearly prohibits even the mere collection of such a record, independent of the agency’s maintenance, use, or dissemination of it thereafter.” Albright, 631 F.2d at 918 . … Likewise, plaintiffs gain nothing by making the general observation that “when a federal agency establishes an employment application process, it necessarily establishes (or incorporates those records into) a record system

Marshall v. James

276 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2003

Clearly, the GPO understood the Plaintiffs discrimination complaint to encompass only her lower performance evaluation and nothing more. … To establish a claim for non-selection, the Plaintiff must prove that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for a position the employer sought to fill; (3) she was not selected by the employer; and

Na'im v. Clinton

626 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2009

The plaintiff alleges that although she was certified as a qualified candidate, Thain did not recommend her for the promotion. Id. at 4 & Ex. 2 at 102-03. … As for the plaintiffs allegations regarding the demeaning comments, the record clearly reflects that these comments began before the plaintiff filed her first EEO complaint in September 2001. See PL’s Opp’n at 2-3.

Friendship Edison Public Charter School Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 2009

I set an evidentiary hearing where I expected defendant to provide a witness or a number of witnesses to testify, either from personal knowledge, or, if they were appropriately qualified, as experts about the following … The 2005 evaluations are clearly the value of “b.” Therefore, to establish an estimated value for “y,” Dr. Marryshow had only to compare the 2002 evaluations to the 2005 evaluations.

American Farm Bureau v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

121 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2000

EPA 22 F.3d 1125 , 1132-33 (D.C.Cir.1994), and the complaint clearly alleges that in practice EPA has treated these policies as final, binding rules. (Complaint at ¶¶ 72-75). … While it is entirely possible, if not likely, that EPA could prove, after discovery, that its science policies do not qualify as final agency action or are not *106 binding rules, at the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage the

Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Mueller

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2020

Having reviewed the averments in the Brinkmann declaration, the Court finds that the redacted information in the Weekly Press Report qualifies for protection under the deliberative-process privilege, and the disclosure … Supp. 2d at 211 (“It is well-established that information identifying law enforcement and support personnel can be withheld pursuant to Exemption 7(C).”).

Durant v. District of Columbia Government

875 F.3d 685 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 2017

The letter alleged that the Department retaliated against him by failing to notify him of job vacancies and giving preferential hiring treatment to other, less qualified Department employees. … A sworn statement by a Department official explaining the Department’s reasons for eliminating Durant’s position satisfied the Department’s burden of “explaining clearly the [nonretaliatory] reasons for its actions.”

United States v. Marlow

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2021

Marlow’s trial established the connection between Crystal Washington and Mr. Marlow. … Morales] did not include what would later come to light as fundamental errors on their part in the general area of examination of firearms and ballistics: the area in which they were qualified as expert witnesses.”

Taylor v. Blakey

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 2011

If information qualifies as a trade secret, it is protected from disclosure under Exemption 4 and the inquiry ends. Id. at 1283. … It is well established that the actual public disclosure of trade secrets eliminates the trade secret status of such information. See, e.g., Ruckelshaus v.

Ellis v. Georgetown University Hospital

631 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2009

to Georgetown, Ellis’s formal EEOC charge “is devoid of any reference to a claim of retaliation” and, moreover, she “failed to check the box for ‘retaliation’ in either her Charge or Intake Questionnaire, both of which clearly … According to Georgetown, Ellis now claims, for the first time, that (i) she has a “record of impairment” qualifying her as disabled under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the DCHRA, (ii) Georgetown “regarded her as” disabled

Jones v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2016

And the hiring managers that I’ve been working with for several years, and we’ve already establish a rapport that they’re looking for. … Sometime before WASA completed the hiring process – although the record does not clearly state when – Taylor sued WASA for discrimination. See MSJ at 8; DSMF, ¶ 24.

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Norton

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2011

narrow reasons may provide a basis” for “depart[ing] from the law[-]of[-]the[-]case and this Court’s mandate,” id. at 8 (internal quotation marks omitted): “(1) if there is new intervening law; (2) if a prior holding is clearly … See Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554 (holding that the Indian Reorganization Act’s employment preference for qualified Indians does not constitute invidious racial discrimination because “[t]he preference, as applied, is granted

United for Fbi Integrity v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2024

First, “whereas Exemption 6 requires that the invasion of privacy be ‘clearly unwarranted,’ the adverb ‘clearly’ is omitted from Exemption 7(C).” U.S. Dep't of Just. v. Reps. Comm. … Zummer’s pattern of litigation, his well-established grievances against Mr.

Breen v. Tucker

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2011

Breen for the several vacancies to which he later applied, resulting in him “not [being] selected although imminently qualified.” Id. at 3. Mr. … Breen also clearly states the relief he is seeking: that the Court hold the District in contempt for violating the order to induce the District’s compliance.” Id. The District also argued that Mr.

United States v. Nguyen

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2018

Nor do they represent “the egregious facts necessary to establish that the statements he made during questioning were involuntary.” … These forms, he contends, featured “language which clearly threatened his employment.” Id. The evidence belies his arguments. When Agent Keck encountered him, Mr.

Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2019

To survive a motion to dismiss, “the plaintiff must clearly allege facts demonstrating each element.” Id. (alteration adopted and internal quotation marks omitted). … Cir. 2011) (“[A]n organization’s diversion of resources to litigation or to investigation in anticipation of litigation is considered a ‘self-inflicted’ budgetary choice that cannot qualify as an injury in fact for purposes

Cheatham v. Holder

935 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 2013

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … This argument, which misses the point and is riddled with clearly inaccurate factual statements, is unpersuasive. Mr.

Founding Church of Scientology v. Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

459 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 1978

of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws, (3) pursuant to which one or more of the conspirators did or caused to be done an act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby (4) the plaintiff … United States, 515 F.2d 246 (5th Cir. 1975). 7 Here, plaintiff clearly stated a sum certain.

Kishore v. U.S. Department of Justice

575 F. Supp. 2d 243 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2008

Criminal Rule 6(e) qualifies as a statute under Exemption 3, because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Government v. … It is established, however, that the public interest in disclosure “does not include helping an individual obtain information for his personal use” to overturn a conviction. Oguaju v.