§Why CasetextPricing

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Labor

REPLY to opposition to motion re Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment, 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment Plaintiff's reply to defendant's opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

8 Cited authorities

  1. Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts

    492 U.S. 136 (1989)   Cited 819 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that documents are only “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA if the agency both “create or obtain” the documents and “control” them

  2. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink

    410 U.S. 73 (1973)   Cited 1,087 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege does not protect "memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material or purely factual material contained in deliberative memoranda and severable from its context . . ."

  3. Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Abramson

    456 U.S. 615 (1982)   Cited 692 times
    Holding that information originally gathered for law enforcement purposes by the FBI did not lose its status under Exemption 7 because it was placed in a different compilation for a political purpose by the White House

  4. Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dept. of Energy

    617 F.2d 854 (D.C. Cir. 1980)   Cited 1,183 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when agency auditors communicate information from third parties to the agency's regional counsel and ask for legal advice, the regional counsel's written responses containing "neutral, objective analyses of agency regulations" are not privileged

  5. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Food Drug Admin

    449 F.3d 141 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 455 times
    Holding that Exemption 6 authorized the FDA to redact the names of agency personnel from documents released in response to a FOIA request for records related to the abortifacient drug, RU-486

  6. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dept. of Justice

    365 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2004)   Cited 175 times
    Holding that the deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General are not "close presidential advisors" whose communications automatically fall within the purview of the presidential communications privilege

  7. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Reno

    Civil Action No. 00-0723 (JR) (D.D.C. Jul. 26, 2001)   Cited 6 times
    Finding that, while it appeared that litigation over INS's decision to return Elian Gonzalez to Mexico was "likely," it was not so obvious that the district court could simply take judicial notice of it and a "barebones, conclusory" declaration did not establish that litigation was inevitable

  8. Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,166 times   556 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party