Case law

S.S. Ex Rel. Street v. District of Columbia

68 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2014

The Hearing Officer found that these incidents “may have been accidental” given the fact that the testimony established that S.S. … The court of appeals found that the retaliation claims clearly related to the student’s evaluation and education and thus were subject to exhaustion.

Summers v. United States Department of Justice

517 F. Supp. 2d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2007

Defendants have applied Exemption 1 to portions of documents 1, 2, 7, and 8, using declarations from qualified officials to explain the basis for each decision. … If so, the court must “assess whether the information is of such a nature that its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted privacy invasion.” Id.

United States v. Ausby

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2019

As a general matter, death establishes unavailability. … Circuit did in Carson and Miller, the requirement is clearly met.

Mehari v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 3d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2017

Here, Mehari clearly asserts his civil conspiracy claim pursuant to Section 1985, rather than Section 1983. … “The policy or custom must be pervasive to support municipal liability,” Sanders, 522 F.Supp.2d at 88 , and the one incident of unconstitutional behavior plaintiff alleges here is plainly insufficient to qualify as pervasive

Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

930 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2013

It would most certainly not establish that such fact patterns are the only scenarios in which application of Exemption 8 is appropriate. … any “agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions,” see 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8), not just the SEC.5 The Court is skeptical that a self-regulatory organization like FINRA would logically qualify

Institute for Policy Studies v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

885 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2012

FOIA § 552(b)(6) exempts from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files” if its disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. … Confidentiality can be established expressly or impliedly.

National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2018

Supp. 3d 39, 50 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[I]nternal database codes, fields, and other types of identifiers used by law enforcement agencies to conduct, organize, and manage investigations and prosecutions qualify, at least, as law … Two conditions must be met for a record to qualify for this exemption: (1) “its source must be a Government agency,” and (2) “it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that

Alfa International Seafood, Inc. v. Pritzker

264 F. Supp. 3d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2017

Therefore, the Handbook, properly construed, clearly authorizes the transfer of rulemaking authority from Sullivan to Sobeck. … Ct. at 1868, and it did not do so here, even though it was clearly aware of the Secretary’s intention to regulate seafood fraud.

Gard v. Dept. of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2011

That assertion is clearly wrong, as the merits of Mr. … Gard’s behavior in order to perform that evaluation. 23 Furthermore, as a DOE contractor, he qualifies as an “employee” for the purposes of Section 552a(b)(1).

Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C.

174 F. Supp. 3d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

3 Plaintiff has opposed defendant’s motion, see Pl.’s 3 Defendant does not concede that its communications with the plaintiff were false, but it is only seeking summary judgment on grounds that plaintiff cannot establish … See Pl.’s SOF ¶¶ 1, 4–5, 27–30; see also Pl.’s Opp. at 7, 10; Pl.’s Mem. at 3, 5. 7 These references hardly qualify as citations “to particular parts of materials in the record” required by Rule 56 or Local Rule 7(h), Fed

Whittaker v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2020

Those examples clearly go beyond mere regurgitation of the statutory standard for Exemption 7(E) and instead provide the court with the minimal explanation necessary to justify Defendants’ withholding. … Plaintiff does not dispute that the FBI’s strategic allocation of resources qualifies as a law enforcement technique or procedure. See Pl.’s Reply at 5–6.

Naacp Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2020

And the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that “the punitive consequences of the injunctive order suffice to establish that the order redresses the [agency’s] past FACA transgressions.” Id. at 1022. … A conspicuous disclaimer on the Commission’s report will qualify that legitimacy by ensuring that everyone who views the report learns it was produced unlawfully by a non-representative body.

Randle v. Suntrust Bank, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2024

Following the Court’s preliminary approval, the claims administrator mailed notices to all members of the class and established a website describing the settlement and providing access to all key documents. … “Attorneys are clearly not entitled to reimbursement of expenses where the request is for an amount which is excessive or otherwise non compensable.” Id. (citation omitted).

Ball v. Office of International Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2024

A “veritable avalanche of FOIA-related precedent” guides this Court’s determination of whether the Government has carried its burden of establishing that a given exemption applies. Ullah v. CIA, 435 F. … Cir. 2021) (“We agree with the government that the Child Victims’ Act unambiguously qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute.”).

Brandli v. Micrus Endovascular Corporation

209 F. Supp. 3d 356 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2016

Defendants do not dispute that Brandli is a member of a protected class, that she was qualified for her job, or that her termination was an adverse employment action. … Cir. 2016), demonstrates that she is clearly wrong. See id. at 668-69.

Pharmaceutical Care Management Association v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

This inquiry is “considerably simplified,” id., under ERISA because the text is “clearly expansive,” Travelers, 514 U.S. at 655, in that it expressly preempts “any and all State laws insofar as they . . . relate to any … provide a service “necessary for the establishment or operation of the plan.”

Zukerman v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2019

By referencing the legal standard applicable to nonpublic fora and citing case law applying that standard, USPS clearly evinced an intent to create a nonpublic forum in the 2017 final rule. … This inquiry, like the last, takes into account the government’s purpose in establishing the forum in the first place.

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Chao

297 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2003

A union covered by the statute must file its Form T-l, or qualifying audit in lieu of the Form T-l, simultaneously with the union’s filing of its Form LM-2. See 68 Fed.Reg. at 58418. … Keeping all of these principles in mind, the Court concludes for the following reasons that Plaintiff, AFL-CIO, has clearly demonstrated that the particular provision of the Rule establishing its effective date as of January

United States v. Tann

425 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2006

Defendant asserts that these statements cannot qualify as exceptions to the hearsay rule or as her admissions because of an inability to authenticate those writings; according to Defendant, “[t]here are a number of individuals … For reasons similar to those set forth in Section II(A)(2)(ii), supra, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(b) to establish that a reasonable juror could conclude that

Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran

281 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2003

They didn’t have established expertise; they didn’t have a group of people locally whom they could draw upon to do this. … In making a diagnosis, the psychiatrist looks for a response a qualifying stressor event, three clusters of symptoms.