Case law

Davidson v. United States State Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2016

In his appeal letter, “to establish an error” and to establish that 5 responsive documents “did in fact exist,” Mr. … Davidson contends that “[t]he deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege and can be overcome by a sufficient showing of need.”

Lazaridis v. United States Department of Justice

766 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2011

FOIA Exemption 3 covers records that are “specifically exempted from disclosure by statute ... provided that such statute either “(A) [requires withholding] in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue,” or “(B) establishes … Criminál Rule 6(e) qualifies as a statute under exemption 3, because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Government v.

King & Spalding, LLP v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2018

Defendants qualify their earlier position in one respect, however. … theory, Plaintiff cannot establish that a reasonable person would have more than a suspicion of impropriety.

Paavola v. Hope Village

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2021

that Hope Village erased both paper and electronic files when the facility closed, see Mot. at 5, most of the materials at issue in the motion, such as “personnel files,” “daily count sheets,” and “security log books,” clearly … A record need not bear on every allegation in the complaint to qualify as relevant, and the standard for relevance—at this stage—does not hinge on whether a document would be favorable, or even important, to plaintiff’s

In Re: Application for an Order Permitting Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2019

District courts, including in this district, have regularly found that arbitrations conducted pursuant to Bilateral Investment Treaties, and specifically by the ICSID, qualify as international tribunals under the statute … Asking this Court for that same discovery from Karkey’s U.S. counsel, Arnold & Porter, is clearly an end-run around the Tribunal’s evidentiary procedures, which apply to both Karkey and Pakistan.

Sabra v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2023

The documents withheld under Exemption 7 qualify as “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). … “It is well established that the only public interest relevant for purposes of Exemption 7(C) is one that focuses on ‘the citizens’ right to be informed about what their government is up to.’” Davis v. U.S.

Surgey v. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2021

“Exemp- tion 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6 and thus establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” Roseberry-Andrews v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 299 F. … Cir. 2007)). 20  It appears that the EPA qualifies for the presumption.

Airlie Foundation, Inc. v. United States

826 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 1993

Second, AFI argues that the criminal case materials are “clearly hearsay” as to it, unless a particular exception overcomes their hearsay character. … To qualify for an exemption, an organization must be both organized and operated exclusively for one or more exempt purposes.

Petition of the United States on Behalf and for the Benefit of Smithsonian Institution

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2019

Not quite three decades after the establishment of the Smithsonian, in 1883, Carl J. Drake was born in Seneca County, Ohio. ECF No. 2-1 at 2. … Indeed, the Smith- sonian’s continued compliance with the restriction clearly demonstrates that it is not impracticable. See Smithsonian Inst., 485 F.

Sierra Club v. Jewell

177 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2016

The agency’s analysis clearly conceded that the 11,000 elk population target was being met. NPS-7547. … FWS clearly referred to the document as an “addendum to our biological opinion.” FWS-1661.

Odland v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

34 F. Supp. 3d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2014

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … To qualify for withholding, material must be both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 412 F.3d 125, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security

892 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2012

Under the FOIA, “even if [the] agency establishes an exemption, it must nonetheless disclose all reasonably segregable, nonexempt portions of the requested record(s).” Roth v. U.S. … In part, this is because “federal agencies occasionally will encounter problems outside their ken, and it clearly is preferable that they enlist the help of outside experts skilled at unraveling their knotty complexities

Becker v. Weinberg Group, Inc. Pension Trust

473 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2007

These limitations are among the restrictions the IRC requires of defined benefit plans in order to preserve their tax qualified status. To preserve its tax qualified status, the Plan incorporated these limitations. … Because Plaintiff purports to bring Counts 1, 2, and 6 on behalf of the Plan, any damages she may be able to establish would be paid to the Plan, not to her directly.

Stirrup v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2023

Moreover, each of the Boards has established its own charter. See ECF Nos. 42-3–42-5. B. … To survive a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs need only allege a qualifying “injury resulting from [Defendants’] conduct.” Id. (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)).

Whittaker v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2021

“It is well established that federal district courts have the authority to enforce settlement agreements entered into by the litigants in cases pending before them.” Demissie, 118 F. … Although “[m]utual assent to a contract, often referred to as a ‘meeting of the minds’ is most clearly evidence by the terms of a signed written agreement,” 13 a signed

Covad Communications Company v. Revonet Inc

267 F.R.D. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2010

Outbound leads were generated by calling people or companies and asking whether those entities would be interested in Covad services if they met Covad’s qualifying criteria. Id. … See Motion of Plaintiff Covad Communications Company to Extend the Time for Closing of Fact Discovery and to Establish Discovery Schedule [#54].

New York Times Company v. Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2026

correspondent’ in obtaining or retaining a press credential is not only ‘protected by the first amendment,’ but also ‘undoubtedly qualifies as [a] liberty [interest] which may not be denied without due process of law under … Even assuming that in some narrow circumstances a journalist’s conduct could amount to criminal solicitation as defined in Hansen, the Policy does not clearly distinguish between any such impermissible solicitation and

Dearth v. Holder

893 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2012

The Complaint limits the Second Amendment challenge to § 922(a)(9) in Count 1 to “the receipt and use of firearms by otherwise qualified American citizens solely on account of their residence status outside the United States … Thus, Dearth clearly has the ability to borrow or rent a firearm for lawful sporting purposes and then also use that firearm for self-defense. This would be a much different case if Dearth had none of those options.

Application of Lucille Holdings Pte Ltd Under 28 U.S.C. 1782 v. Edge Funds Management LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2022

Courts have found entities that contemplate initiating foreign litigation qualify as “interested persons.” See, e.g.. In re Tovmasyon, __ F. Supp. 3d __, __, 2021 WL 3737184, at *5 (D. … Here, Lucille’s submissions do not establish that, at the time the application was filed, a foreign proceeding was in its reasonable contemplation.

United States of America v. Anthem, Inc.

236 F. Supp. 3d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2017

Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. at 363 (defendants are not required to “‘clearly’ disprove anticompetitive effect,” but rather to make merely “a ‘showing’”). … Faced with these differences of opinion, the Court notes that these were both highly qualified and articulate economists. As Dr.