Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14509&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:39:18+00:00

Document:
3.	All records the defendant had used in preparing these reports and information.
The plaintiff alleged that it was lawfully entitled to these reports under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) and that the defendant’s failure to process and respond to its request for these records violated the FOIA statutory deadline. Alongside its suit, the plaintiff also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the defendant to expedite the processing of its FOIA request and complete its processing within twenty days.
On February 11, 2014, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Jackson held that EPIC had failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable harm if the DOJ was not ordered to produce the records immediately. Moreover, the Court noted that the classified nature of the documents weighed in favor of the DOJ. 15 F.Supp.3d 32.
On March 18, 2014, the defendant released to the plaintiff the first tranche of records relating to its FOIA request, twenty-five semiannual reports to Congressional committees on use of PRTT devices for surveillance. The defendant withheld portions of these documents for reasons of “national security” under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1), “exemption by statute” under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3), “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) and 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(C), and “disclosure of law enforcement techniques and procedures” under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E).
2.	The defendant had failed to disclose “reasonably segregated portions” of discussions of documents it had withheld in full, including significant United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) legal interpretations, discussions of FISC jurisdiction and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act procedures, and statistics about the number of pen registers filed and U.S. persons targeted.
In December 2014, the defendant released the statistics about the number of pen registers filed and U.S. persons targeted, which it had previously, incorrectly redacted from three semiannual reports.
On February 4, 2016, Judge Jackson denied both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment. He noted that the number of documents whose exemption issues the parties contested had narrowed substantially since the motions were filed and held that the defendant had failed to establish with sufficient specificity its justifications for withholding information in the remaining contested documents. The judge then ordered the defendant to file an updated Vaughn Index, listing the challenged withholdings in the remaining contested documents, and to submit unredacted revisions of these documents to the court for a private review. (2016 WL 447426).
On March 18, 2016, the defendant filed a revised Vaughn Index and submitted the contested documents to the court for private review. The defendant also released to the plaintiff previously withheld portions of seventy-three pages from five semiannual reports but redacted portions of these pages that it had previously released as unredacted in the first tranche of documents in March 2014.
1.	The defendant had implicitly conceded in its most recent release of documents that certain redacted portions of the documents it initially released were not properly exempt and that certain redacted portions of the reprocessed pages were not properly exempt.
2.	The defendant had not provided evidence to show that the remaining disputed material was exempt.
3.	The court record contradicted many of the defendant’s claims about exemption, which was evidence of bad faith.
On November 7, 2017, Judge Jackson granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and ordered the defendant to reprocess the contested parts of the semiannual reports one more time to address certain issues identified in his opinion. 296 F.Supp.3d 109.
On October 12, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal due to a private settlement agreement between the parties. According to EPIC's website, as a result of this lawsuit the DOJ released hundreds of pages of materials related to the governments FISA applications and FISC proceedings. These materials include Semiannual Reports from the Attorney General concerning FISA authorities and related documents filed by the DOJ in the FISC. The released documents can be found here on EPIC's website.

References: § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552