§Why CasetextPricing

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

REPLY to opposition to motion re Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment Combined Cross-Motion/Opposition

21 Cited authorities

  1. Department of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Prot. A.

    532 U.S. 1 (2001)   Cited 1,007 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the determination that records are not inter- or intra-agency "rules out any application of Exemption 5"

  2. Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink

    410 U.S. 73 (1973)   Cited 1,086 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. United States Dept. of Justice v. Julian

    486 U.S. 1 (1988)   Cited 374 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(c) and former 18 U.S.C. § 4208(c)(1982 ed.) prohibiting disclosure of portions of presentence reports "relat[ed] to confidential sources, diagnostic opinions, and other information that may cause harm to the defendant or to third parties " could justify withholding under Exemption 3

  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. Petroleum Inf. Corp v. U.S. Dept of Interior

    976 F.2d 1429 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 422 times
    Holding that objective acreage estimates were not protected under the deliberative process privilege because they revealed nothing about "preliminary positions or ruminations about how to exercise discretion on some policy matter"

  6. Miller v. United States Dept. of State

    779 F.2d 1378 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that an agency carries its burden of proof by providing affidavits to explain why documents are subject to an exemption

  7. Oglesby v. U.S. Dept. of Army

    79 F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 245 times
    Finding the NSA's descriptions inadequate where the agency's declaration "offered no details regarding the [withheld] documents, but conclusively stated they were all currently and properly classified"

  8. Cuneo v. Rumsfeld

    553 F.2d 1360 (D.C. Cir. 1977)   Cited 184 times
    Holding that FOIA "established a national policy of public disclosure of government information."

  9. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California v. Train

    491 F.2d 63 (D.C. Cir. 1974)   Cited 190 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Exemption 5 protected a factual summary of a publicly available record

  10. CNA Financial Corp. v. Donovan

    830 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987)   Cited 114 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the scope of the [Trade Secrets] Act is at least co-extensive with that of Exemption 4 of FOIA"

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

    5 U.S.C. § 552   Cited 12,151 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