Source: https://www.foiaadvisor.com/?offset=1544191851154&category=Court+Opinions+%282018%29
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:42:29+00:00

Document:
Planned Parenthood v. Azar (W.D. Wash.) -- in “reverse-FOIA” case, ruling that plaintiff was entitled to preliminary injunction protecting its grant application because agency’s decision to release it appeared to be arbitrary and capricious and disclosure would likely cause irreparable harm.
Smart-Tek Serv. Solutions Corp. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for plaintiff’s administrative files; (2) IRS properly withheld return information of plaintiff’s corporate alter ego pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); and (3) IRS properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff’s “risk score” pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Phillips v. DOJ (E.D. Cal.) -- dismissing pro se prisoner’s amended Complaint without prejudice because plaintiff failed to show that his request was filed within the statutory deadline.
Charles v. DOJ (M.D. Pa.) -- dismissing suit against Bureau of Prisons because pro se plaintiff, a former prisoner, failed to prosecute claim after being released from custody.
Edmond v. United States (D.D.C.) -- ruling that plaintiff’s request for USPS file on plaintiff was not reasonably described because agency does not maintain centralized files on members of public.
Gonzales v. United States (D.D.C.) -- finding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and dismissing suit because plaintiff failed to respond to agency’s notice pertaining to estimated search fees.
Am. Marine LLC. v. IRS (S.D. Cal.) -- determining that: (1) IRS performed adequate search for plaintiff’s administrative files; (2) IRS properly withheld return information of plaintiff’s corporate alter ego pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with 26 U.S.C. § 6103(a); and (3) IRS properly withheld third-party information pursuant to Exemption 6 and plaintiff’s “risk score” pursuant to Exemption 7(E).
Talbott v. U.S. Dep’t of State (D.D.C.) -- finding that CIA and State Department performed reasonable, supplemental searches for records relating to President Kennedy’s assassination, and denying plaintiff’s bid to overturn six aspects of the court’s previous opinion.
Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez (S.D. Cal.) -- summarily ruling that DHS performed reasonable search and properly withheld records pertaining to plaintiff’s arrest at U.S.-Mexico border, which led to dueling lawsuits between plaintiff and the arresting agent.
Anguiano v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (N.D. Cal.) -- ruling that : (1) ICE failed to show that its search was adequate in all respects; (2) court could not evaluate ICE's use of Exemptions 5 and 7(E) without reviewing certain documents in camera; and (3) ICE properly relied on Exemptions 6 and 7(C) to protect information regarding third parties and ICE employees.
Chase v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- finding that plaintiff had offered no new arguments that warranted changing court’s earlier opinion that government had performed adequate search for records concerning plaintiff’ criminal conviction and that it properly withheld names of third parties pursuant to Exemption 7(C).
Pubien v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys (D.D.C.) -- concluding that EOUSA performed adequate search for grand jury information regarding plaintiff’s criminal case, and that it properly withheld the names of government employees pursuant to Exemption 6.
Liounis v. DOJ (D.D.C.) -- concluding that Executive Office for United States Attorneys performed reasonable search for grand jury records pertaining to plaintiff’s criminal case and properly withheld records pursuant to Exemption 3, in conjunction with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), and Exemption 5 (attorney-work product).
Roseberry-Andrews v. DHS (D.D.C.) -- granting agency’s renewed summary judgment after finding that agency’s supplemental declaration demonstrated adequacy of search for plaintiff’s employment records and that agency had segregated and released all non-exempt material.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 6103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.