Case law

Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food & Drug Administration

997 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1998

The provision states: The exemptions established in this subpart shall apply to all Food and Drug Adminis *67 tration records, except as provided in sub-part E of this part. … See also 57 Fed.Reg. 17950, 17971 (1992) (“Thus the statute clearly favors disclosure of safety and effectiveness data except in limited situations.”)

Phelps v. Stomber

883 F. Supp. 2d 188 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2012

qualified purchaser,” meaning a QIB with at least $25 million in qualifying investments or an individual with at least $5 million in qualifying investments. … But the theory underlying the fraud claims in particular emerged more clearly at the motions hearing.

Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.

539 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2008

Although the court was addressing a provision that is not cited by plaintiffs here, that court clearly stated that the “FFDCA does not confer a broad, legally enforceable right to information.” Id. at 99 . … They explain that pharmacists are often immune from malpractice suits when they *20 correctly fill a physician’s prescription. Pis.’ Opp. at 11.

In Re: Press Coalition's Motion for Access to Video Exhibits and to Set Aside Standing Order No. 21-28

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2021

First Amendment Right of Access The First Amendment guarantees a qualified right of public access to criminal proceedings and related court documents. Globe Newspaper Co. v. … The media and public access mechanisms outlined in Standing Order No. 21-28 appear to be working. 5 Petitioners have obtained unrestricted access to the video exhibits in many cases and are sharing them with the public, clearly

Giliana v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2022

Supp. 3d 101, 104 (D.D.C. 2018) (Cooper, J.), and the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … Administrative processing generally means that additional information is needed before a consular officer can determine whether an applicant is qualified for the visa for which she has applied.

Duda v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2025

If the agency establishes confidentiality, “both the identity of the source and the information he or she provided will be immune from FOIA disclosure” unless the requester produces “absolutely solid evidence showing that … The crime here was clearly a serious one, thus increasing the level of risk to any cooperating individual.

Ayissi-Etoh v. Fannie Mae

883 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2011

Clearly, Cooper’s comment did not place plaintiff in a “zone of physical danger.” … There is no legal support for expanding the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress to a clearly hypothetical scenario.

Young v. COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP

689 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2010

Although not articulated with precision, this administrative complaint was clearly sufficient to put both the EEOC and Covington on notice that a disparate-impact charge was being asserted. … College Dist., 26 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.1994) (“To establish standing, a person need only allege that a discriminatory policy exists that prevents him from competing on an ‘equal basis.’ ”).

Hu v. George Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2011

state and submit their scores for licensure in any other Praxis™ user state.” http://www.ets.org/praxis/faq_test_takers (last visited March 3, 2011). 2 Under the Rehabilitation Act, “[n]o otherwise qualified … allegedly not been appropriately taught; that she was missing six credits for graduation; and that she had failed her comprehensive exam, due allegedly to Professor Clark’s failure to accommodate her language barrier, establishes

Talbot v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2018

Circuit has recognized that the “secondary effects” of a document’s release do not qualify to trigger the applicability of Exemption 6. Arieff v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 712 F.2d 1462, 1468 (D.C. Cir. 1983). … First, the entity that performed the investigation must qualify as a “congressional intelligence committee” or be one of the other listed entities in the statute. Id.

Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd. v. Leavitt

459 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2006

To accomplish these ends, the amendments established new guidelines for the approval of both name-brand and generic drugs. … The FDA has established one exception to this general rule.

Colorado Wild Horse v. Jewell

130 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2015

Because BLM clearly seems to have taken a “hard look” at the available evidence and the alternatives to its proposed action, it is unlikely that Plaintiffs would prevail on the merits of their second NEPA claim. B. … Walter Deck ¶ 17 (“Scheduling a gather is extremely difficult because there are only three qualified contractors and BLM has had to work around the most popular hunting seasons during gather operations.”).

Power the Future v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2025

First, the analysis “requires . . . a determination of whether the document in question qualifies as a ‘personnel, medical, or similar file.’” Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Navy, 25 F. … Sept. 30, 2021) (“[I]t is well-established that lower-level government employees in general have a privacy interest in their identities.”).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2025

Because the commissioners’ failure to explain their votes was clearly unlawful, and the FEC has not justified departing from the path laid by the statute, the Court will grant CREW’s motion for summary judgment, declare … It offers no case holding that the administrative record is a “disclosure” or that producing it qualifies as providing “discovery” as those terms are used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Ellis v. Georgetown University Hospital

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2010

Rather, the word "substantially" suggests "considerable" or "to a large degree," and thus "clearly precludes impairments that interfere in only a minor way." Id. at 196- 197. … Accordingly, Ellis has not demonstrated that she qualifies as disabled pursuant to a record of impairment.7 C.

Nortel Networks, Inc. v. Gold & Appel Transfer, S.A.

298 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2004

However, whether undisputed or clearly established facts constitute waiver may, like countless other factual issues posed in litigation, be a question appropriate for summary resolution. See Word v. … The April agreement Nortel’s status as a beneficiary of the July agreement is established by a specific provision of that agreement.

United States v. Rodriguez

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2022

The Court is not basing its determination on a finding that the mere appearance of the word “otherwise” is sufficient to answer the question and establish that the first clause, section 1512(c)(1), was not meant to serve … In addition, the clause left unclear how much risk was required for a crime to qualify as a violent felony. Id. at 598.

Reiter Consulting Services, Inc. v. Hildenbrand

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

Namely, the plaintiffs motion for leave to amend and the plaintiff's opposition to summary judgment were filed well past clearly set deadlines, the plaintiff has made no serious effort to justify those delays, and their arguments … In the face of a futility challenge predicated on lack of personal jurisdiction, “the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a factual basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Crane v. N.Y.

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Cafritz

762 F. Supp. 1503 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1991

The fact that Weil, Gotshal requested the retainer fee as part of its standard practice does not immunize Mr. Cafritz from a finding that the transaction was contemplated to maximize Mr. … This Court cannot coerce the FDIC to abide by standard operating procedures when Congress has clearly determined to wage battle under a new standard. C.

District of Columbia Ex Rel. Strittmatter Metro, LLC v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland

208 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2016

It is the sovereign immunity of the government and the lack of privity of contract between the government owner of the project and the subcontractor from which this need for remedial protection arises. … The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania reviewed the judicial treatment of this issue and expressed this proposition clearly in Zurich American Insurance Co., a case in which the prime