FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES 1 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. …- 1 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES 1 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2) Abbott Labs. v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,137 (D.D.C. 1980). 2

- 1 -

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES

1 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2) Abbott Labs. v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,137 (D.D.C.1980).

2 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, adequacy ofagency affidavit, in camera inspec-tion, "mosaic," summary judgment,waiver of exemption (administra-tive release)

Abbotts v. NRC, 3 GDS ¶83,257 (D.D.C. 1983), incamera affidavits ordered, No. 77-0624 (D.D.C.Sept. 27, 1983), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. May 1, 1984), rev'd & remanded, 766 F.2d604 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

3 (b)(7)(A) ABC Home Health Servs. v. HHS, 548 F. Supp.555 (N.D. Ga. 1982).

4 Attorney's fees Abdoo v. FBI, No. 78-189 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 1979).

5 (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, summary judgment

Abdullah v. FBI, No. 92-0356 (D.D.C. Aug. 10,1992).

6 Adequacy of request, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies

Abel v. IRS, 70-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9590(C.D. Cal. 1970).

7 (a)(1)(D), publication Abernathy v. Yeutter, 725 F. Supp. 459 (W.D. Mo.1989).

8 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a), attor-ney's fees

Abernethy v. IRS, 909 F. Supp. 1562 (N.D. Ga.1995), aff'd, No. 95-9489 (11th Cir. Feb. 13, 1997).

9 (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), adequacyof request, proper party defendant

Abraham & Rose v. United States, No. 96-72337,1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18387 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 20,1996), rev'd & remanded, 138 F.3d 1075 (6th Cir.1998), on remand, 36 F. Supp. 2d 955 (E.D. Mich.1998).

10 (b)(7)(A), discovery/FOIA inter-face, injunction of agency proceed-ing pending resolution of FOIAclaim

Abrahamson Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. NLRB, No.76-C-248 (N.D. Ill. 1976), aff'd, 561 F.2d 63 (7th

Cir. 1977).

11 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), as-surance of confidentiality, law en-forcement purpose

Abrams v. FBI, 511 F. Supp. 758 (N.D. Ill. 1981).

12 Privacy Act access Abramsky v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 478F. Supp. 1040 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

13 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), law enforcementpurpose

Abramson v. FBI, 1 GDS ¶79,230 (D.D.C. 1979),rev'd & remanded, 658 F.2d 806 (D.C. Cir. 1980),rev'd & remanded, 456 U.S. 615 (1982), remanded,No. 79-2500 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 26, 1982), summaryjudgment granted, 566 F. Supp. 1371 (D.D.C.1983).

- 2 -

14 (b)(5), deliberative process, discov-ery in FOIA litigation, incorpora-tion by reference, summary judg-ment

Access Reports v. DOJ, No. 88-1433 (D.D.C. Mar.8, 1989), reconsideration denied (D.D.C. Dec. 4,1989), rev'd, 926 F.2d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 1991).

15 (b)(2), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), duty to search, in cam-era inspection

Accuracy in Media v. FBI, No. 97-2107 (D.D.C.Mar. 31, 1999).

16 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), adequacy ofagency affidavit, discovery in FOIAlitigation, in camera inspection,summary judgment

Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. Nat'l Park Serv., No. 97-2109, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18373 (D.D.C. Nov.13, 1998), aff'd, 194 F.3d 120 (D.C. Cir. 1999),cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1111 (2000).

17 (b)(7)(A), in camera inspection Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. United States SecretServ., No. 97-2108, 1998 WL 185496 (D.D.C. Apr.16, 1998).

18 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(D), delib-erative process, in camera inspec-tion

Ace Contracting Co. v. Dep't of Labor, 3 GDS ¶82,317 (N.D. Ga. 1980), subsequent decision, 3 GDS¶82,446 (N.D. Ga. 1980), attorney's fees denied, 3GDS ¶82,447 (N.D. Ga. 1980).

19 (b)(5), (b)(6), mootness Ackerly v. Ley, 420 F.2d 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

20 (b)(6), summary judgment Ackerson & Bishop Chartered v. USDA, No. 92-1068 (D.D.C. July 15, 1992).

21 (b)(5), waiver of exemption Action on Smoking & Health v. CAB, 2 GDS ¶82,072 (D.D.C. 1981).

22 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), de novo review,summary judgment

Acumenics Research & Tech., Inc. v. DOJ, No. 87-0384 (E.D. Va. June 23, 1987), aff'd, 843 F.2d 800(4th Cir. 1988).

23 Privacy Act access, (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), duty tosearch, law enforcement purpose

Adams v. FBI, No. 97-2861 (D.D.C. Mar. 3, 1999).

24 (b)(6) Adams v. FBI, No. 78-0849 (D.D.C. Oct. 31,1978).

25 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney's fees,deliberative process, reasonablysegregable

Adams v. United States, 673 F. Supp. 1249 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), subsequent decision, 686 F. Supp. 417(S.D.N.Y. 1988).

26 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(2), (b)(3),26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, summary judg-ment

Adamson v. DOJ, No. 93-20577 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3,1995).

27 Duty to search, no record withinscope of request

Adler v. OPM, 3 GDS ¶83,200 (D.D.C. 1983).

28 (b)(4) Aero Design Enters. v. Dep't of Transp., No. 85-2022 (D. Colo. Jan. 23, 1986).

29 Preliminary injunction Aerojet Techsys. Co. v. Dep't of the Navy, No. 86-1635 (D.D.C. Sept. 10, 1986).

- 3 -

30 Reverse FOIA, (b)(7)(C), sum-mary judgment

AFL-CIO v. FEC, 177 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C.2001).

31 (b)(3), 13 U.S.C. §301(g), 50U.S.C. app. §2411(c), (b)(4),(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), deliberativeprocess, incorporation by reference,promise of confidentiality

Africa Fund v. Mosbacher, No. 92-289, 1993 WL183736 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1993).

32 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C.§403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(5),(b)(7)(D), deliberative process

Afshar v. Dep't of State, 1 GDS ¶80,280 (D.D.C.1980), aff'd in part, vacated in part, rev'd in part &remanded, 702 F.2d 1125 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

33 (b)(1), E.O. 12958, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403-3(c)(6), summaryjudgment

Aftergood v. CIA, No. 98-2107, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 18135 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 1999).

34 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403, (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(A), adequacy of agencyaffidavit, in camera affidavit, incamera inspection, leaks, VaughnIndex, waiver of exemption

Agee v. CIA, 1 GDS ¶80,105 (D.D.C. 1980), onmotion for summary judgment, 1 GDS ¶80,212 (D.D.C. 1980), summary judgment denied in part, 1GDS ¶80,213 (D.D.C. 1980), partial summaryjudgment granted, 517 F. Supp. 1335 (D.D.C.1981), summary judgment granted, 524 F. Supp.1290 (D.D.C. 1981), attorney's fees granted, No.79-2788 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 1982).

35 (a)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(A) Agric. Servs. Ass'n v. ICC, 1 GDS ¶79,231 (D.D.C.1979).

36 (b)(4), (b)(5), customary treat-ment, deliberative process, incor-poration by reference, VaughnIndex, voluntary submissions

AGS Computers v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 92-2714 (D.N.J. Jan. 12, 1993), summary judgmentgranted in part (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 1993).

37 Attorney's fees, exceptional cir-cumstances/due diligence, expe-dited processing, preliminary in-junction

Aguilera v. FBI, 941 F. Supp. 144 (D.D.C. 1996),attorney's fees granted, No. 94-2723 (D.D.C. Dec.5, 1997), appeal dismissed, No. 98-5035 (D.C. Cir.Mar. 18, 1998).

38 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), burden ofproof, incorporation by reference

Ahearn v. United States Army Materials & Mechs.Research Ctr., 580 F. Supp. 1405 (D. Mass. 1984),subsequent decision, 583 F. Supp. 1123 (D. Mass.1984).

39 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Ahmed v. Reno, No. 94-2438 (D.D.C. Nov. 15,1995).

40 (b)(1), in camera inspection Ahrens v. FBI, No. 90-30003 (D. Mass. Oct. 23,1990).

41 (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D) Aiken v. Obledo, 442 F. Supp. 628 (E.D. Cal.1977), subsequent decision, 480 F. Supp. 1314(E.D. Cal. 1979).

42 (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), deliberative process,inter- or intra-agency memoranda,law enforcement amendments(1986), law enforcement purpose

Aircraft Gear Corp. v. NLRB, No. 92-C-6023 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 14, 1994).

- 4 -

43 Exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence

Aircraft Gear Corp. v. Vander Schaaf, No. 94-C-870 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 1994).

44 (b)(4), adequacy of request,prompt disclosure, reasonably se-gregable, Vaughn Index

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Dep't of Transp., 1 GDS¶80,255 (D.D.C. 1980), subsequent decision subnom. Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. FAA, 552 F. Supp.811 (D.D.C. 1982).

45 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality, attorney's fees, discovery inFOIA litigation, in camera inspec-tion, Vaughn Index

Ajluni v. FBI, No. 94-325, 1996 WL 776996 (N.D.N.Y. July 13, 1996), in camera inspection ordered(N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1996), amended (N.D.N.Y.Sept. 21, 1996), summary judgment granted, 947 F.Supp. 599 (N.D.N.Y. 1996), decision on fees, 1997WL 196047 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1997).

46 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), as-surance of confidentiality, delibera-tive process, incorporation by ref-erence, waiver of exemption

Akron Standard Div. of Eagle-Picher Indus. v. Don-ovan, No. C83-320 (N.D. Ohio June 4, 1984), aff'din part & remanded, 780 F.2d 568 (6th Cir. 1986),reh'g en banc denied, 788 F.2d 1223 (6th Cir. 1986).

47 Jurisdiction Akutowicz v. Dep't of State, No. 86-518 (D. Conn.Dec. 15, 1987), aff'd, 859 F.2d 1122 (2d Cir. 1988).

48 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), adequacy ofagency affidavit, attorney-clientprivilege, deliberative process, rea-sonably segregable

Alamo Aircraft Supply v. Weinberger, No. 85-1291,1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29010 (D.D.C. Feb. 21,1986).

49 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), summaryjudgment

Alaska Pulp Corp. v. NLRB, No. 90-1510 (W.D.Wash. Nov. 4, 1991).

50 (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), lawenforcement purpose, reasonablysegregable

Albin v. IRS, 44 A.F.T.R. 2d 79-5207 (D.D.C.1979).

51 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), duty tosearch, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), reasonably segrega-ble, Vaughn Index

Albuquerque Publ'g Co. v. DOJ, 726 F. Supp. 851(D.D.C. 1989).

52 (a)(1)(D), publication Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1984).

53 (b)(7)(C) Aldridge v. Comm'r, No. 7:00-131, 2001 WL196965 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2001), dismissed (N.D.Tex. Apr. 27, 2001).

54 (a)(1), (a)(1)(D), publication Aleknagik Natives, Ltd. v. United States, 635 F.Supp. 1477 (D. Alaska 1985), aff'd, 806 F.2d 924(9th Cir. 1986).

55 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess, exceptional circumstances/due diligence

Aleman v. Shapiro, No. 85-3313 (D.D.C. June 30,1986), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. May 5,1987).

56 (b)(6) Alexander v. FDIC, No. C-96-2782 (N.D. Cal.Mar. 24, 1997).

- 5 -

57 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7)(B),(b)(7)(C), deliberative process, lawenforcement amendments (1986),voluntary submissions

Alexander & Alexander Servs. v. SEC, No. 92-1112, 1993 WL 439799 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 1993).

58 De novo review, discovery in FOIAlitigation, exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, exceptional cir-cumstances/due diligence, expe-dited processing, failure to meettime limits, preliminary injunction

Al-Fayed v. CIA, No. 00-2092 (D.D.C. Sept. 20,2000), preliminary injunction denied (D.D.C. Dec.11, 2000), stay granted (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 2001),aff'd, 254 F.3d 300 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

59 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403, leaks

Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby, 509 F.2d 1362 (4th

Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 992 (1975).

60 (b)(5), attorney-client privilege,litigation authority, stay pendingappeal, waiver of exemption

Algernon Blair Indus. Contractors v. TVA, 540 F.Supp. 551 (M.D. Ala. 1982), stay denied, No. 81-733 (M.D. Ala. July 2, 1982), on in camera inspec-tion (M.D. Ala. Aug. 12, 1982), reconsideration de-nied (M.D. Ala. Dec. 14, 1982).

61 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),assurance of confidentiality, "mo-saic"

Alirez v. NLRB, 2 GDS ¶81,121 (D. Colo. 1980),aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 676 F.2d 423 (10th Cir.1982).

62 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D) Allard v. Benner, 2 GDS ¶81,103 (D.D.C. 1981).

63 (b)(6), FOIA/PA interface Allard v. HHS, No. 4:90-156 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 14,1992), aff'd, No. 92-1303 (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 1992)(unpublished order), 972 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1992)(table cite).

64 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), summary judg-ment

Allen v. BATF, No. 91-2640 (D.D.C. June 30,1992), summary affirmance granted, No. 92-5312(D.C. Cir. May 25, 1993).

65 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(2), (b)(3),50 U.S.C. §403, adequacy of agen-cy affidavit, attorney's fees, discov-ery in FOIA litigation, in cameraaffidavit, in camera inspection

Allen v. CIA, 1 GDS ¶80,033 (D.D.C. 1980), aff'din part, rev'd in part & remanded, 636 F.2d 1287(D.C. Cir. 1980), on remand, 516 F. Supp. 653 (D.D.C. 1981), aff'd, No. 81-2020 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 16,1982) (unpublished memorandum), 675 F.2d 1339(D.C. Cir. 1982) (table cite), attorney's fees denied,3 GDS ¶83,111 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd (D.C. Cir.Mar. 1, 1984) (unpublished memorandum), 731F.2d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (table cite).

66 (b)(1), (b)(5), attorney-client priv-ilege, attorney work-product privi-lege, deliberative process, duty tosearch

Allen v. DOD, No. 80-0700 (D.D.C. Feb. 10,1984).

- 6 -

67 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), agency rec-ords, attorney's fees, Congressionalrecords, disclosure to Congress, feewaiver, improper withholding, lawenforcement amendments (1986),"mosaic," proper party defendant,Vaughn Index

Allen v. DOD, No. 81-2543 (D.D.C. Jan. 19,1982), summary judgment denied, 580 F. Supp. 74(D.D.C. 1983), partial summary judgment granted(D.D.C. Aug. 24, 1984), partial summary judgmentgranted, 658 F. Supp. 15 (D.D.C. 1986), interim at-torney's fees granted, 713 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1989),subsequent decision (D.D.C. Oct. 10, 1989).

68 (b)(5), attorney's fees, Congres-sional records, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies, fee waiver

Allen v. FBI, 551 F. Supp. 694 (D.D.C. 1982), sub-sequent decision, 3 GDS ¶83,004 (D.D.C. 1982),interim attorney's fees denied, 716 F. Supp. 667 (D.D.C. 1988), second motion for interim attorney'sfees granted, 749 F. Supp. 21 (D.D.C. 1990), onreconsideration, 751 F. Supp. 255 (D.D.C. 1990).

69 Duty to search, jurisdiction Allen v. IRS, No. 85-1732 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 1986).

70 (a)(1)(D), publication Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

71 Attorney's fees Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy v. Costle, 631F. Supp. 1469 (D.D.C. 1986).

72 (b)(6), summary judgment Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Dep't of the Inte-rior, 53 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.D.C. 1999), remandedfor further action in accordance with settlement,No. 99-5292 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 16, 1999).

73 Attorney's fees, mootness Allied Sheet Metal Fabricators v. VA, No. C84-1219 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 26, 1985).

74 (b)(5) Allison v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 86-1861 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 1986).

75 Mootness Allison v. IRS, No. 96-142, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS6710 (D. Mont. Apr. 8, 1997), aff'd, No. 97-35434,1997 WL 786247 (9th Cir. Dec. 18, 1997) (unpub-lished memorandum), 132 F.3d 38 (9th Cir. 1997)(table cite).

76 (a)(2), summary judgment Allison v. IRS, No. 96-156, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS4727 (D. Mont. Mar. 27, 1997).

77 (b)(4), reasonably segregable, sum-mary judgment, Vaughn Index,voluntary submissions, waiver ofexemption

Allnet Communication Servs. v. FCC, 800 F. Supp.984 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, No. 92-5351 (D.C. Cir.May 27, 1994).

78 Attorney's fees, duty to search, resjudicata

Allnut v. United States, No. 00-2571, 2001 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 7004 (D. Md. May 8, 2001).

- 7 -

79 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a), (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E), agen-cy records, attorney's fees, attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, duty to search, ex-haustion of administrative reme-dies, fees (Reform Act), fee waiver(Reform Act), law enforcementpurpose, res judicata

Allnutt v. DOJ, No. Y98-1722, 2000 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 4060 (D. Md. Mar. 6, 2000) (magistrate'srecommendation), adopted with minor modifica-tions, 99 F. Supp. 2d 673 (D. Md. 2000) (Nos. Y98-901, Y98-1722), renewed motion for summary judg-ment granted, 2000 WL 852455 (D. Md. Oct. 23,2000), aff'd sub nom. Allnutt v. Handler, 8 Fed.Appx. 225 (4th Cir. 2001).

80 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7)(C), reasonably segregable,summary judgment

Allnutt v. IRS, No. 97-1555, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS3973 (D.D.C. Feb. 29, 2000).

81 Summary judgment Allnutt v. United States, No. 94-3491 (D. Md.Nov. 9, 1995).

82 (b)(6), agency records, duty tosearch

Allnutt v. United States Tr., No. 97-2414 (D.D.C.Aug. 2, 1999).

83 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, res judicata

Alman v. United States, No. 81-444 (M.D. Fla.Feb. 6, 1984), aff'd, 751 F.2d 1259 (11th Cir. 1984).

84 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F),attorney work-product privilege,deliberative process, duty to search,exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), law enforcementpurpose

Almy v. DOJ, No. 90-362 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 13,1995), subsequent order (N.D. Ind. June 2, 1995),aff'd, No. 96-1207, 1997 WL 267884 (7th Cir. May7, 1997) (unpublished order), 114 F.3d 1191 (7th

Cir. 1997) (table cite).

85 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F),adequacy of agency affidavit, delib-erative process, improper withhold-ing, judicial records

Alvarez v. DOJ, 1 GDS ¶80,177 (D.D.C. 1980),subsequent decision, 1 GDS ¶80,198 (D.D.C.1980).

86 (b)(2), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confidenti-ality

Alvarez v. Dep't of the Treasury, 1 GDS ¶80,176(D.D.C. 1980).

87 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Alvarez v. Executive Office of the United States At-torney, No. 80-1395 (D.D.C. Oct. 30, 1980).

88 (b)(7)(A), de novo review, lawenforcement amendments (1986),summary judgment, Vaughn Index

Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. EPA, No. 86-2176,1987 WL 17071 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 1987), aff'd, 856F.2d 309 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

89 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, summary judg-ment

Amadon v. FBI, No. C1-82-835 (S.D. Ohio July 21,1983).

90 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), injunction of agencyproceeding pending resolution ofFOIA claim, waiver of exemption

Amerace Corp. v. NLRB, 91 L.R.R.M. 2344 (W.D.Tenn. 1975), subsequent decision, 431 F. Supp. 453(W.D. Tenn. 1976).

91 (b)(4), (b)(7), law enforcementpurpose, promise of confidentiality

Am. Airlines v. Nat'l Mediation Bd., 453 F. Supp.430 (S.D.N.Y. 1978), rev'd, 588 F.2d 863 (2d Cir.1978).

- 8 -

92 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), adequacy ofagency affidavit, attorney's fees,attorney work-product privilege,burden of proof, injunction ofagency proceeding pending res-olution of FOIA claim

Am. Ass'n of Founds. for Med. Care v. FTC, 1 GDS¶80,227 (D.D.C. 1980), supplemental affidavits or-dered, 2 GDS ¶81,148 (D.D.C. 1981), remanded onattorney's fees, No. 81-2014 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 31,1982) (unpublished memorandum), 675 F.2d 1339(D.C. Cir. 1982) (table cite), motion for attorney'sfees granted, No. 80-0896 (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 1983).

93 (b)(5), attorney work-product priv-ilege, deliberative process

Am. Aviation Research Ass'n v. Dep't of the Navy,No. 84-888 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 1985).

94 Attorney's fees Am. Broad. Cos. v. Dep't of Labor, 1 GDS ¶79,232(D.D.C. 1979).

95 (a)(1)(D), publication Am. Broad. Cos. v. FCC, 682 F.2d 25 (2d Cir.1982).

96 Discovery in FOIA litigation,Vaughn Index

Am. Broad. Cos. v. United States Info. Agency, 599F. Supp. 765 (D.D.C. 1984), subsequent decision,No. 84-0536 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 1985).

97 (b)(3), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b),§2000e-8(e), summary judgment,Vaughn Index

Am. Centennial Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 722 F. Supp.180 (D.N.J. 1989).

98 (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), burden ofproof, FOIA as a discovery tool

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Brown, 609 F.2d 277(7th Cir. 1979), rev'd & remanded, 619 F.2d 1170(7th Cir. 1980) (en banc).

99 Reasonably segregable, VaughnIndex

Am. Civil Liberties Union Found. v. DOJ, 833 F.Supp. 399 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

100 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(7), ade-quacy of agency affidavit, law en-forcement purpose

Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ, No. C82-1946(N.D. Ohio Dec. 6, 1983).

101 (b)(1), in camera inspection Am. Civil Liberties Union v. DOJ, 548 F. Supp. 219(D.D.C. 1982).

102 Attorney's fees, mootness Am. Commercial Barge Line Co. v. NLRB, No. 83-236-C (S.D. Ind. Apr. 30, 1986).

103 (b)(7)(A), attorney's fees, moot-ness, summary judgment

Am. Commercial Barge Lines Co. v. NLRB, No.C1-82-537 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 1983), attorney's feesawarded (S.D. Ohio Dec. 29, 1983), rev'd, 758 F.2d1109 (6th Cir. 1985).

104 Burden of proof, in camera inspec-tion

Am. Dental Ass'n v. FTC, 1980-81 Trade Cas.(CCH) ¶63,641 (N.D. Ill. 1980).

105 (b)(5), adequacy of request, delib-erative process, discovery/FOIA in-terface, exhaustion of administra-tive remedies, fees, fee waiver, per-sonal records

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Dep't of Com-merce, 632 F. Supp. 1272 (D.D.C. 1986), aff'd, 907F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

106 (b)(5), deliberative process, incor-poration by reference

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Dep't of Educ., 3GDS ¶82,491 (D.D.C. 1982).

107 (a)(2)(A), (b)(5), incorporation byreference

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Dep't of the Army,441 F. Supp. 1308 (D.D.C. 1977).

- 9 -

108 (b)(6), FOIA/PA interface Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. FLRA, 786 F.2d554 (2d Cir. 1986), reh'g en banc denied, No. 85-4144 (2d Cir. June 4, 1986).

109 Agency Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Gordon, No. 81-1737 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 1981).

110 (b)(5), deliberative process Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. HHS, 63 F. Supp.2d 104 (D. Mass. 1999), aff'd, No. 99-2208, 2000U.S. App. LEXIS 10993 (1st Cir. May 18, 2000) (percuriam).

111 Attorney's fees Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Rosen, 418 F.Supp. 205 (N.D. Ill. 1976).

112 (b)(6), agency records Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. United States, 712F.2d 931 (4th Cir. 1983).

113 (b)(6), FOIA/PA interface Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. VA, 1 GDS ¶80,135 (D.D.C. 1980), on motion for summary judg-ment, 2 GDS ¶81,159 (D.D.C. 1981).

114 Attorney's fees Am. Fed'n of Labor v. Ruckelshaus, No. 82-1195(D.D.C. Jan. 16, 1984).

115 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 10U.S.C. §140c(a), "mosaic," reason-ably segregable, summary judgment

Am. Friends Serv. Comm. v. DOD, No. 83-4916,1986 WL 10659 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 1986), vacated& remanded, 831 F.2d 441 (3d Cir. 1987), on re-mand (E.D. Pa. Aug. 4, 1988), aff'd, 869 F.2d 587(3d Cir. 1989).

116 (b)(5), (b)(7)(D), attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess

Am. Gen. Ins. Co. v. SEC, 1 GDS ¶80,080 (D.D.C.1980).

117 (a)(1)(D), publication Am. Inst. for Imported Steel v. United States, 600F. Supp. 204 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1984).

118 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(3), 22U.S.C. §286f, §3104

Am. Jewish Cong. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 549 F.Supp. 1270 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, 713 F.2d 864(D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 895 (1983).

119 (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. app. §2406(c),attorney's fees

Am. Jewish Cong. v. Morton, No. 75-1541 (D.D.C.Apr. 30, 1976), rev'd sub nom. Am. Jewish Cong. v.Kreps, 574 F.2d 624 (D.C. Cir. 1978), on motionfor attorney's fees, 2 GDS ¶81,387 (D.D.C. 1981).

120 Discovery/FOIA interface, waiverof exemption

Am. Library Ass'n v. Faurer, No. 84-0481 (D.D.C.June 3, 1985), summary judgment granted on othergrounds, 631 F. Supp. 416 (D.D.C. 1986).

121 Discovery/FOIA interface Am. Lumber Corp. v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.,886 F.2d 50 (3d Cir. 1989).

122 (a)(2)(A), (b)(5), burden of proof,inter- or intra-agency memoranda,mootness

Am. Mail Line v. Gulick, 411 F.2d 696 (D.C. Cir.1969).

123 (b)(5), deliberative process, reason-ably segregable

Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 846 F. Supp. 83 (D.D.C. 1994).

- 10 -


Am. Postal Workers Union v. Office of SpecialCounsel, No. 85-3691 (D.D.C. June 24, 1986).

125 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4) Am. Scissors Corp. v. GSA, No. 83-1562, 1983 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11712 (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 1983).

126 (b)(5), (b)(7)(E), deliberativeprocess, incorporation by reference,law enforcement amendments(1986)

Am. Soc'y of Pension Actuaries v. IRS, 746 F. Supp.188 (D.D.C. 1990).

127 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process Am. Soc'y of Pension Actuaries v. Pension BenefitGuar. Corp., No. 82-2806 (D.D.C. July 22, 1983).

128 (b)(5), deliberative process, inter-or intra-agency memoranda,Vaughn Index

Am. Soc'y of Pension Actuaries v. Pension BenefitGuar. Corp., 3 GDS ¶82,535 (D.D.C. 1982), sum-mary judgment granted, 3 GDS ¶83,182 (D.D.C.1983).


Am. Whitewater Affiliation v. FERC, No. 86-1917,1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17067 (D.D.C. Dec. 2,1986).

130 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(5), deliber-ative process

Americas Watch v. Dep't of State, No. 84-1601 (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 1985).

131 (b)(7)(A), FOIA as a discoverytool, injunction of agency proceed-ing pending resolution of FOIAclaim

AMF Head Div. of AMF, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 L.R.R.M. 2420 (D. Colo. 1976), rev'd & remanded, 564F.2d 374 (10th Cir. 1977).

132 (b)(3), 15 U.S.C. §57b-2(f), (b)(5),attorney work-product privilege,deliberative process

A. Michael's Piano, Inc. v. FTC, No. 2:92-603 (D.Conn. Jan. 29, 1993), aff'd in part, vacated & re-manded in part, 18 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1994), cert.denied, 513 U.S. 1015 (1994), on remand (D.Conn. Mar. 8, 1995).

133 Attorney's fees Amis v. IRS, No. 81-5439 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 1982)(unpublished memorandum), 673 F.2d 1343 (11th

Cir. 1982) (table cite), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 905(1982).

134 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103 Ammen v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,235 (W.D. La. 1980).

135 (b)(7), (b)(7)(A) Amolsch & Madden, Inc. v. FTC, 591 F.2d 809(D.C. Cir. 1978).

136 Privacy Act access, (b)(2), (b)(3),Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(F), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, in camera inspec-tion

Amro v. United States Customs Serv., 128 F. Supp.2d 776 (E.D. Pa. 2001).

137 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confidenti-ality, deliberative process, in cam-era inspection

Amway v. FTC, 76-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶60,798(D.D.C. 1976).

138 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C.§403(d)(3), (b)(6)

Anagnos v. CIA, No. 75-2451 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9,1977).

- 11 -

139 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(e)(6) Anastas v. United States, No. C78-2823 (N.D. Cal.May 17, 1979).

140 (b)(7), law enforcement purpose Anchorage Bldg. Trades Council v. HUD, 384 F.Supp. 1236 (D. Alaska 1974).

141 Jurisdiction, proper party defendant Anderson v. Bates, No. 92-2896 (D.D.C. June 8,1993).

142 (a)(1)(D), (a)(2)(B), attorney'sfees, publication

Anderson v. Butz, 428 F. Supp. 245 (E.D. Cal.1975), aff'd, 550 F.2d 459 (9th Cir. 1977), on mo-tion for attorney's fees, No. 5-75-401 (E.D. Cal. Jan.15, 1980).

143 Attorney's fees, disciplinary pro-ceedings

Anderson v. Carlson, No. 84-2550 (D.D.C. Jan. 23,1985).

144 (b)(1), (b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1202(f),49 U.S.C. §1357(d)(z), 50 U.S.C.§403-3(c)(6), (b)(5), (b)(7)(E),deliberative process, in camerainspection, reasonably segregable,Vaughn Index

Anderson v. CIA, No. 94-2032 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,1999), subsequent opinion, 63 F. Supp. 2d 28 (D.D.C. 1999).

145 (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §3153(c)(1),§4208, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),assurance of confidentiality, attor-ney work-product privilege, delib-erative process, in camera inspec-tion

Anderson v. DOJ, No. 95-1880, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 5048 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 1999).

146 Privacy Act access, (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(F), summary judgment

Anderson v. DOJ, No. 95-1888, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 4731 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 1999).

147 Summary judgment Anderson v. DOJ, No. 91-0352 (D.D.C. June 14,1991).

148 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),attorney's fees, waiver of exemption

Anderson v. Dep't of Labor, No. 87-1846 (D. Ariz.Mar. 7, 1989), attorney's fees awarded (D. Ariz.Apr. 5, 1990).

149 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(c),(b)(7)(A), waiver of exemption

Anderson v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 98-1112 (W.D.Tenn. Mar. 24, 1999).

150 Privacy Act access, attorney's fees Anderson v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 76-1404 (D.D.C. July 19, 1977), attorney's fees awarded (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 1977), vacated & remanded, 648F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1979), supplemental opinion subnom. Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Dep't ofthe Treasury, 656 F.2d 848 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

151 Adequacy of request, summaryjudgment

Anderson v. Doe, No. 92-20 (W.D. Pa. May 27,1992) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(W.D. Pa. June 16, 1992).

152 Fee waiver (Reform Act) Anderson v. DEA, No. 93-253 (W.D. Pa. May 11,1995) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(W.D. Pa. June 21, 1995).

- 12 -

153 Privacy Act access, (b)(2),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confidenti-ality, dismissal for failure to prose-cute, summary judgment

Anderson v. DEA, No. 92-225 (W.D. Pa. May 18,1994) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(W.D. Pa. June 27, 1994), appeal dismissed, No. 94-3387 (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 1994).

154 Attorney's fees, exceptional cir-cumstances/due diligence, pro selitigant

Anderson v. DEA, No. 82-2232 (D.D.C. Nov. 18,1982).

155 (b)(3), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b),§2000e-8(e), destruction of rec-ords, discovery in FOIA litigation,exhaustion of administrative rem-edies

Anderson v. EEOC, No. 83-2570 (D. Md. Nov. 14,1983).

156 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Anderson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 86-0125(D.D.C. July 29, 1986), summary judgment denied(D.D.C. Sept. 25, 1986), appeal dismissed, No. 86-5651 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 14, 1987).

157 (b)(7)(D), FOIA/PA interface Anderson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 85-2028(D.D.C. Feb. 10, 1986).

158 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), duty to create arecord, FOIA/PA interface, juris-diction

Anderson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 85-2596(D.D.C. Feb. 7, 1986).

159 Agency Anderson v. Fed. Pub. Defender, No. 95-1485 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 1996).

160 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, 21 U.S.C. §331(j), §360(c),(b)(4), attorney's fees, discovery inFOIA litigation, mootness

Anderson v. HHS, No. C84-861 (D. Utah Dec. 11,1985), summary judgment granted (D. Utah Aug.12, 1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part & remanded,907 F.2d 936 (10th Cir. 1990), dismissed as moot(D. Utah June 29, 1992), aff'd, 3 F.3d 1383 (10th

Cir. 1993), attorney's fees granted in part (D. UtahApr. 28, 1994), aff'd, 80 F.3d 1500 (10th Cir. 1996).

161 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 5U.S.C. §552a(j)(2), FOIA/PA in-terface, Vaughn Index

Anderson v. Huff, 3 GDS ¶83,124 (D. Minn. 1982).

162 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F), duty tosearch, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), summary judgment

Anderson v. United States Marshals Serv., 943 F.Supp. 37 (D.D.C. 1996).

163 (b)(5), attorney work-product priv-ilege

Anderson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 3 GDS¶83,055 (D.D.C. 1983).

164 Privacy Act access, (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies

Anderson v. United States Postal Serv., 7 F. Supp.2d 583 (E.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd, 187 F.3d 625 (3d Cir.1999) (table cite).

165 (b)(7)(A) Anderson Greenwood & Co. v. NLRB, 604 F.2d322 (5th Cir. 1979).

166 (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403-3(c)(5) Andrade v. CIA, No. 95-1215, 1997 WL 527347(D.D.C. Aug. 18, 1997).

- 13 -

167 Agency Andrade v. United States Sentencing Comm'n, 989F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1993).

168 Preliminary injunction Andrade v. United States Sentencing Comm'n, No.90-15970 (9th Cir. Mar. 22, 1991) (unpublishedmemorandum), 928 F.2d 1136 (9th Cir. 1991) (tablecite).

169 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D) Andrejko v. Civiletti, No. 78-0207 (D.D.C. Jan. 12,1979).

170 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403g, ade-quacy of agency affidavit, in cam-era inspection, "mosaic"

Andres v. CIA, 2 GDS ¶82,089 (D.D.C. 1981),rev'd & remanded, No. 81-1780 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 17,1982) (unpublished memorandum), 673 F.2d 550(D.C. Cir. 1982) (table cite).

171 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) Andrews v. DOJ, 769 F. Supp. 314 (E.D. Mo.1991).

172 (b)(6), discretionary release, FOIA/PA interface

Andrews v. VA, 613 F. Supp. 1404 (D. Wyo. 1985),rev'd, 838 F.2d 418 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied,488 U.S. 817 (1988).

173 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, displace-ment of FOIA, Vaughn Index

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. IRS, No. 78-1326 (D.D.C.Nov. 27, 1978), rev'd & remanded, No. 80-1883(D.C. Cir. July 27, 1979), on remand, 493 F. Supp.549 (D.D.C. 1980).

174 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess, reasonably segregable

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Dep't of the Air Force,44 F. Supp. 2d 295 (D.D.C. 1999).

175 Agency records Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Sec'y of Agric., 813 F.Supp. 882 (D.D.C. 1993).

176 Summary judgment Anselmo v. DOJ, No. 87-0886 (D.D.C. Feb. 29,1988).

177 Privacy Act access, (b)(1), (b)(3),50 U.S.C. §403, (b)(6), duty tosearch

Anthony v. CIA, 1 GDS ¶79,196 (E.D. Va. 1979).


Antonelli v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 91-C-5776(N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 1991), subsequent decision (N.D.Ill. Mar. 30, 1993).

179 Adequacy of request Antonelli v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 91-C-5776(N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 1991).

180 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Antonelli v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 85-3786 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 1986).

181 Pro se litigant Antonelli v. DEA, No. 84-2483 (D.D.C. Sept. 16,1985) (consolidated), reinstatement denied (D.D.C.Feb. 6, 1986) (consolidated), on appeal, No. 85-6118 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20, 1986) (consolidated).

182 (b)(2), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), in camera in-spection, Vaughn Index

Antonelli v. DEA, 739 F.2d 302 (7th Cir. 1984).

- 14 -

183 Mootness Antonelli v. DEA, No. 83-C-5807 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3,1984), subsequent decision (N.D. Ill. June 8, 1984),appeal dismissed, No. 84-1955 (7th Cir. Aug. 6,1984).


Antonelli v. Executive Office for United States At-torneys, No. 91-C-6092 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 1992),aff'd, No. 92-2416 (7th Cir. June 6, 1994) (unpub-lished order), 25 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 1994) (tablecite).

185 Exceptional circumstances/duediligence, exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, expedited proc-essing

Antonelli v. FBI, No. 84-1047 (D.D.C. June 27,1984), subsequent decision (D.D.C. Sept. 12,1984), reinstatement denied (D.D.C. Nov. 13,1984).

186 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), dutyto search, fee waiver, FOIA/PA in-terface, "Glomar" denial, stay pend-ing appeal, Vaughn Index

Antonelli v. FBI, 536 F. Supp. 568 (N.D. Ill. 1982),stay granted, 553 F. Supp. 19 (N.D. Ill. 1982), sub-sequent decision, No. 79-C-1432 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14,1982), rev'd, 721 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. de-nied, 467 U.S. 1210 (1984).

187 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Antonelli v. HHS, No. 88-2075 (D.D.C. June 12,1989).

188 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies

Antonelli v. IRS, No. 85-0048 (W.D. Mo. Sept. 24,1985).

189 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 5U.S.C. §552a(j)(2), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(D), FOIA/PA interface,"Glomar" denial, proper party de-fendant

Antonelli v. Mullen, No. 83-C-1001 (W.D. Wis.June 27, 1984).

190 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), Vaughn Index Antonelli v. Sullivan, 732 F.2d 560 (7th Cir. 1984).

191 (b)(7)(A), duty to search, summaryjudgment

Antonelli v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 93-0109 (D.D.C. Feb. 23, 1996).

192 (b)(7)(A), attorney's fees Antonsen v. DOJ, No. 82-008 (D. Alaska Mar. 20,1984).

193 (a)(1), publication Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive WasteComm'n v. O'Leary, 932 F. Supp. 646 (M.D. Pa.1995), rev'd & remanded on other grounds, 93 F.3d103 (3d Cir. 1996).

194 (b)(5), deliberative process, discov-ery in FOIA litigation, duty tosearch

Applegate v. NRC, 3 GDS ¶83,081 (D.D.C. 1983),reconsideration denied, No. 82-1829 (D.D.C. Feb.14, 1983), summary judgment granted, 3 GDS ¶83,201 (D.D.C. 1983).

195 No record within scope of request Applewhite v. United States Postal Serv., No. 87-0012 (D.D.C. May 12, 1987).

- 15 -

196 Privacy Act access, (b)(2), (b)(3),18 U.S.C. §2510, Fed.R.Crim.P.6(e), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), dismissal forfailure to prosecute, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies, fees (Re-form Act), reasonably segregable,summary judgment

Aquino v. DEA, No. 99-1031 (D.D.C. June 8,2000).

197 (b)(1), E.O. 12958, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403-3(c)(6),"Glomar" denial, summary judg-ment

Arabian Shield Dev. Co. v. CIA, No. 3-98-0624,1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2379 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 26,1999), aff'd, No. 99-10327 (5th Cir. Jan. 28, 2000)(per curiam) (unpublished memorandum), 208 F.3d1007 (5th Cir. 2000) (table cite), cert. denied, 531U.S. 872 (2000).

198 (b)(1), E.O. 12958, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403-3(c)(6), "Glomar"denial, summary judgment

Aranha v. CIA, No. 99CIV.8644, 2000 WL1505988 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2000).

199 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), adequacy of agency affi-davit, summary judgment

Aranha v. DOJ, No. 99CIV.2777, 2000 WL1051908 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2000).

200 (b)(5), attorney's fees, deliberativeprocess, disciplinary proceedings

Archer v. Cirrincione, 722 F. Supp. 1118 (S.D.N.Y.1989).

201 (b)(2), (b)(5), attorney's fees, de-liberative process

Archer v. HHS, 710 F. Supp. 909 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

202 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confidenti-ality, law enforcement amendments(1986), law enforcement purpose,summary judgment

Arenberg v. DEA, No. 86-1326 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 30,1987), aff'd, 849 F.2d 579 (11th Cir. 1988).

203 Attorney's fees, status of plaintiff,venue

Arevalo-Franco v. INS, 889 F.2d 589 (5th Cir.1989), attorney's fees denied, 772 F. Supp. 959(W.D. Tex. 1991).

204 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), dismissal forfailure to prosecute, proper partydefendant

Arey v. Knight, No. 76-39 (D. Md. Oct. 5, 1977).

205 (b)(6), in camera affidavit, in cam-era inspection, "mosaic," reasonablysegregable

Arieff v. Dep't of the Navy, 3 GDS ¶82,291 (D.D.C.1982), rev'd & remanded, 712 F.2d 1462 (D.C. Cir.1983).

206 Agency Arkansas v. Schulze, Crim. No. 78-11 (E.D. Ark.Apr. 26, 1979).

207 (a)(1)(D) Arlington Oil Mills, Inc. v. Knebel, 543 F.2d 1092(5th Cir. 1976), reh'g en banc denied, 545 F.2d 168(5th Cir. 1976).

208 (b)(2) Armed Forces Relief & Benefit Ass'n v. DOD, No.89-0689 (D.D.C. May 11, 1989).

- 16 -

209 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. app. §2411(c), (b)(6),agency, agency records, discoveryin FOIA litigation, duty to search,exceptional circumstances/duediligence, exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, expedited proc-essing, in camera affidavit, in cam-era inspection, mootness, prelim-inary injunction, reasonably segre-gable, stay pending appeal, VaughnIndex

Armstrong v. Bush, 139 F.R.D. 547 (D.D.C. 1991),subsequent order sub nom. Armstrong v. ExecutiveOffice of the President, No. 89-0142 (D.D.C. May22, 1992), injunction ordered sub nom. Armstrongv. Bush, 807 F. Supp. 816 (D.D.C. 1992), subse-quent opinion sub nom. Armstrong v. ExecutiveOffice of the President, 810 F. Supp. 335 (D.D.C.1993), enforcement order, 821 F. Supp. 761 (D.D.C. 1993), subsequent order, 829 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993), remanded, 1 F.3d 1274 (D.C. Cir.1993), Vaughn Index ordered, 830 F. Supp. 19(D.D.C. 1993), summary judgment granted, 877 F.Supp. 690 (D.D.C. 1995), stay denied, 877 F. Supp.750 (D.D.C. 1995), in camera inspection ordered(D.D.C. July 28, 1995), subsequent order (D.D.C.Aug. 11, 1995), on in camera inspection, 897 F.Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1995), rev'd, 90 F.3d 553 (D.C.Cir. 1996) (on "agency" issue), aff'd in part, rev'd inpart, 97 F.3d 575 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (on "in camerainspection" issue), reh'g denied, No. 95-5057 (D.C.Cir. Nov. 6, 1996) (per curiam) (on "agency" issue),cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1239 (1997) (on "agency"issue).

210 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), deliberativeprocess

Armstrong v. Civil Div., DOJ, No. 78-1381 (D.D.C.Jan. 30, 1979).

211 Mootness Armstrong v. Dep't of State, No. 78-1691 (D.D.C.Mar. 27, 1979).

212 Fees, fee waiver Armstrong v. FBI, No. 78-1774 (D.D.C. Apr. 27,1979).

213 (b)(2), summary judgment Army Times Publ'g Co. v. Dep't of the Army, 684 F.Supp. 720 (D.D.C. 1988).

214 (b)(6), preliminary injunction, resjudicata, summary judgment

Aronson v. HUD, No. 88-1188 (D. Mass. June 23,1988), rev'd & remanded, 869 F.2d 646 (1st Cir.1989), summary judgment granted (D. Mass. Apr.29, 1991).

215 (b)(6), attorney's fees Aronson v. HUD, No. 86-0333 (D. Mass. Oct. 3,1986), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 822 F.2d 182 (1st

Cir. 1987), attorney's fees granted (D. Mass. Mar. 3,1988), aff'd in part, rev'd in part & remanded, 866F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989), reh'g denied, No. 88-1524 (1st

Cir. Apr. 6, 1989).

216 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a),§6103(m)(1), (b)(6)

Aronson v. IRS, 767 F. Supp. 378 (D. Mass. 1991),aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 973 F.2d 962 (1st Cir.1992).

217 Jurisdiction Arriaga v. West, No. 00-1171, 2000 WL 870867(Vet. App. June 21, 2000).

218 Summary judgment Arrow Line, Inc. v. Skinner, No. 90-0020 (D.D.C.July 11, 1990).

- 17 -

219 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4), agency rec-ords, attorney-client privilege, bur-den of proof, waiver of exemption

Artesian Indus. v. HHS, 646 F. Supp. 1004 (D.D.C.1986).

220 (a)(2), (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103,(b)(5), attorney's fees, deliberativeprocess

Arthur Andersen & Co. v. IRS, 514 F. Supp. 1173(D.D.C. 1981), reconsideration denied, 2 GDS ¶81,237 (D.D.C. 1981), on motion for attorney's fees, 2GDS ¶82,178 (D.D.C. 1982), rev'd & remanded,679 F.2d 254 (D.C. Cir. 1982).

221 (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, Vaughn Index

Art Metal-USA, Inc. v. GSA, 1 GDS ¶80,068 (D.D.C. 1980).

222 (b)(7)(C) Art Metal-USA, Inc. v. IRS, No. 80-1776 (D.D.C.Sept. 11, 1981).

223 (b)(5), attorney-client privilege,deliberative process, discretionaryrelease, waiver of exemption

Art Metal-USA, Inc. v. OMB, 2 GDS ¶81,173 (D.D.C. 1981).

224 Publication Aschenbach v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 588 (D.Conn. 1984).

225 (b)(5), (b)(7), in camera inspec-tion, Vaughn Index

Ash Grove Cement Co. v. FTC, 371 F. Supp. 370(D.D.C. 1973), remanded, 511 F.2d 815 (D.C. Cir.1975).

226 Congressional subpoena, disclosureto Congress, discretionary release

Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 409 F. Supp. 297 (D.D.C.1976), aff'd, 548 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

227 (b)(5), adequacy of agency affida-vit, deliberative process, reasonablysegregable

Ashley v. Dep't of Labor, 589 F. Supp. 901 (D.D.C.1983).

228 Adequacy of agency affidavit,Vaughn Index

Ashton v. Kurtz, 1 GDS ¶80,146 (D.D.C. 1980).

229 Privacy Act access, (b)(2), (b)(3),Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F), in camerainspection, Vaughn Index

Ashton v. VA, No. 94-3793 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24,1998), aff'd, No. 99-6018, 1999 WL 753331 (2dCir. Sept. 3, 1999) (unpublished memorandum),198 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 1999) (table cite).

230 (b)(1), E.O. 11652 Aspin v. DOD, 453 F. Supp. 520 (E.D. Wis. 1978).

231 (b)(5), (b)(7), law enforcementpurpose

Aspin v. DOD, 348 F. Supp. 1081 (D.D.C. 1972),aff'd, 491 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

232 (b)(1), E.O. 12958, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403-3(c)(6), reasonablysegregable, waiver of exemption

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA,177 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2001).

233 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), law enforcement pur-pose

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. CIA,903 F. Supp. 131 (D.D.C. 1995), reconsiderationdenied, No. 94-0655 (D.D.C. Nov. 27, 1995).

- 18 -

234 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(5),(b)(6), deliberative process, duty tosearch, preliminary injunction,summary judgment

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr., Inc. v.CIA, No. 88-2600, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18606(D.D.C. Sept. 29, 1988), summary reversal denied,No. 88-5315 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 13, 1988), summaryjudgment granted, 720 F. Supp. 217 (D.D.C. 1989),summary affirmance granted in part, No. 89-5414(D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 1990), aff'd, 925 F.2d 487 (D.C.Cir. 1991).

235 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),assurance of confidentiality, duty tosearch, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), law enforcementpurpose, reasonably segregable,summary judgment

Assassination Archives & Research Ctr. v. DOJ,No. 92-2193, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5569 (D.D.C.Apr. 29, 1993), reconsideration denied, 828 F.Supp. 100 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd, 43 F.3d 1542 (D.C.Cir. 1995).

236 (b)(5), attorney's fees, deliberativeprocess, preliminary injunction,waiver of exemption

Assembly of Cal. v. Dep't of Commerce, No. S91-990 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 1991), stay denied, No. 91-16266 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 1991), stay granted, 501U.S. 1272 (1991), stay granted (9th Cir. Jan. 31,1992), summary judgment granted, 797 F. Supp.1554 (E.D. Cal. 1992), aff'd, 968 F.2d 916 (9th Cir.1992), attorney's fees awarded (E.D. Cal. May 27,1993).

237 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), in camera in-spection, Vaughn Index

Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. NLRB,No. C2-98-612 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2001).

238 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess

Associated Credit Bureaus v. FTC, 2 GDS ¶82,044(S.D. Tex. 1981).

239 Reverse FOIA, agency subpoena,discretionary release, proper partydefendant

Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. EEOC, 419 F. Supp.814 (E.D. Va. 1976), additional issues decided, 454F. Supp. 387 (E.D. Va. 1978), aff'd, 607 F.2d 1075(4th Cir. 1979), rev'd & remanded on other grounds,449 U.S. 590 (1981).

240 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confidenti-ality, attorney work-product privi-lege, deliberative process

Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. NLRB, 455 F. Supp.802 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).

241 (b)(6), attorney's fees Associated Gen. Contractors v. EPA, 488 F. Supp.861 (D. Nev. 1980).

242 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(B), (b)(7)(C) Associated Gen. Contractors v. SBA, 1 GDS ¶79,119 (D.D.C. 1979).

243 (b)(2), (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality, attorney-client privilege,attorney work-product privilege,deliberative process, FOIA/PAinterface, in camera inspection, lawenforcement purpose, waiver of ex-emption

Associated Press v. DOJ, No. 82-803 (D.N.J. Dec.6, 1982).

- 19 -

244 (b)(4), (b)(6), discovery/FOIA in-terface

Ass'n for Women in Science v. Califano, 566 F.2d339 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

245 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, §7213 Ass'n of Am. R.Rs. v. United States, 371 F. Supp.114 (D.D.C. 1974).

246 Agency, exhaustion of administra-tive remedies

Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Barclay,No. 3-89-0409 (N.D. Tex. June 9, 1989).

247 (b)(5), (b)(6), deliberative process,proper party defendant

Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers v. FTC, 1976-1 TradeCas. (CCH) ¶60,835 (D.D.C. 1976), on motion forstay of discovery, 1976-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶61,021 (D.D.C. 1976).

248 (a)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A),deliberative process, in camera in-spection, Vaughn Index

Ass'n of Nat'l Advertisers v. FTC, 1976-2 TradeCas. (CCH) ¶61,112 (D.D.C. 1976).

249 (b)(3), 45 U.S.C. §362(d), de novoreview

Ass'n of Retired R.R. Workers v. United States R.R.Ret. Bd., 618 F. Supp. 1130 (D.D.C. 1985), aff'd,830 F.2d 331 (D.C. Cir. 1987), reh'g en banc de-nied, No. 85-5995 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 10, 1987).

250 (b)(6) Ass'n of Village Council Presidents v. Pierce, No.82-111 (D. Alaska Oct. 12, 1982).

251 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), adequacy of request, as-surance of confidentiality, attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, proper party de-fendant, waiver of exemption

Astley v. Lawson, No. 89-2806, 1991 WL 7162 (D.D.C. Jan. 11, 1991), subsequent order (D.D.C. Mar.14, 1991).

252 (a)(2), (b)(5) Astro Communications Lab. v. Renegotiation Bd.,No. 70-2403 (D.D.C. May 16, 1974).

253 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4)

AT&T Info. Sys. v. GSA, 627 F. Supp. 1396 (D.D.C. 1986), rev'd & remanded on proceduralgrounds, 810 F.2d 1233 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

254 Agency, exhaustion of administra-tive remedies

Atamian v. Delmarva Found. for Med. Care, Inc.,No. 93-1173 (D. Md. Sept. 21, 1993).

255 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, fees (Reform Act)

Atkin v. EEOC, No. 92-5522 (D.N.J. Jan. 24,1994).

256 Dismissal for failure to prosecute,exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, fees (Reform Act), jurisdic-tion

Atkin v. EEOC, No. 92-3275 (D.N.J. June 24,1993), appeal dismissed, No. 93-5457 (3d Cir. Dec.6, 1993).

257 Transfer of FOIA case Atkin v. EEOC, Nos. 92-1061, 92-1062 (D.D.C.July 7, 1992).

- 20 -

258 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), deliberative process,dismissal for failure to prosecute,duty to search, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies, fees (ReformAct), fee waiver (Reform Act), lawenforcement amendments (1986),law enforcement purpose, summaryjudgment, Vaughn Index

Atkin v. EEOC, No. 91-2508 (D.N.J. Dec. 4, 1992),subsequent order (D.N.J. June 24, 1993), partialsummary judgment granted (D.N.J. July 14, 1993),appeal dismissed sub nom. Atkin v. Kemp, No. 93-5548 (3d Cir. Dec. 6, 1993).

259 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), incamera inspection, law enforce-ment amendments (1986), law en-forcement purpose, summary judg-ment, waiver of exemption

Atkins v. DOJ, No. 88-0842 (D.D.C. Feb. 26,1990), aff'd as moot, No. 90-5095 (D.C. Cir. Sept.18, 1991) (unpublished order), 946 F.2d 1563 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (table cite).

260 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), attorney work-product privilege

Atkinson v. DOJ, No. 91-0856 (E.D. Va. Apr. 14,1992).

261 Fee waiver Atkinson v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶81,274 (D.D.C. 1981).

262 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(8) Atkinson v. FDIC, 1 GDS ¶80,034 (D.D.C. 1980).

263 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process,reasonably segregable

Atkinson v. SEC, No. 83-2030 (D.D.C. Oct. 20,1983).

264 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), waiver of ex-emption

Atlanta Nat'l Real Estate Trust v. DOJ, No. 79-1461A (N.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 1980), subsequent deci-sion (N.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 1981).

265 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4), preliminaryinjunction

Atlantis Submarines Haw., Inc. v. United StatesCoast Guard, No. 93-00986 (D. Haw. Jan. 28,1994).

266 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), deliberativeprocess, FOIA as a discovery tool,injunction of agency proceedingpending resolution of FOIA claim

Atlas Indus. v. NLRB, 91 L.R.R.M. 2676 (N.D.Ohio 1976).

267 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),FOIA as a discovery tool, prelimin-ary injunction

Au & Son v. NLRB, 405 F. Supp. 1200 (W.D. Pa.1975), aff'd, 538 F.2d 80 (3d Cir. 1976).

268 Agency records, attorney's fees,duty to search, failure to meet timelimits, no record within scope of re-quest, summary judgment

Auchterlonie v. Hodel, No. 83-C-6724, 1984 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16911 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 1984).

269 (b)(4), (b)(5), waiver of exemption Audio Technical Servs. v. Dep't of the Army, 487 F.Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1979), appeal dismissed by stip-ulation, No. 79-2505 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 10, 1980).

270 (a)(2)(B), (b)(2), (b)(3), 45 U.S.C.§601, (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7),agency, attorney's fees

Aug v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 425 F. Supp. 946(D.D.C. 1976), order for attorney's fees clarified,No. 74-1054 (D.D.C. Feb. 10, 1978).

271 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), agency records

Augarten v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 93-2293,1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7320 (D.D.C. May 22,1995).

- 21 -

272 Privacy Act access, (b)(2),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F),assurance of confidentiality, sum-mary judgment

Augarten v. DEA, No. 93-2192, 1995 WL 350797(D.D.C. May 22, 1995).

273 (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), lawenforcement purpose

August v. FBI, No. 97-0769 (D.D.C. June 22,1998), remanded, No. 98-5340 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 2,1999), on motion to govern future proceedings(D.C. Cir. Jan. 23, 2002).


Augustyniak v. Wintrode, No. 1:90-03346 (N.D.Ill. July 17, 1991).

275 (a)(1) Aulenback, Inc. v. Fed. Highway Admin., 103 F.3d156 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

276 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confidenti-ality, duty to search, law enforce-ment amendments (1986), lawenforcement purpose, VaughnIndex

Author Servs. v. IRS, No. 90-2187 (C.D. Cal. Nov.14, 1991), summary judgment granted (C.D. Cal.July 29, 1992).

277 Injunction of agency proceedingpending resolution of FOIA claim

Auto. Club v. NLRB, 71 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶13,672(D.D.C. 1973).

278 (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), attorneywork-product privilege, waiver ofexemption

Auto. Imps., Inc. v. FTC, 3 GDS ¶82,488 (D.D.C.1982).

279 (a)(2), (a)(6)(A), (b)(1), (b)(3),49 U.S.C. §1461, (b)(5), promptdisclosure

Aviation Consumer Action Project v. CAB, 412 F.Supp. 1028 (D.D.C. 1976), on motion to compel,418 F. Supp. 634 (D.D.C. 1976).

280 (b)(5), inter- or intra-agency mem-oranda, waiver of exemption

Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Washburn,535 F.2d 101 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

281 Mootness Aviation Data Serv. v. FAA, No. 79-554 (W.D.Okla. July 9, 1979).

282 Privacy Act access, (b)(6), attor-ney's fees, disciplinary proceedings,duty to disclose, FOIA/PA inter-face, mootness, proper party defen-dant, summary judgment

Aviation Data Serv. v. FAA, No. 79-1079 (D. Kan.June 14, 1979), dismissed as moot, 2 GDS ¶81,113(D. Kan. 1979), on motion for attorney's fees, 2GDS ¶81,282 (D. Kan. 1981), rev'd & remanded,687 F.2d 1319 (10th Cir. 1982).

283 Exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, exhaustion of administra-tive remedies, no record withinscope of request, summary judg-ment

Avitia v. DEA, No. 90-0894 (D.D.C. Nov. 8,1990).

284 Fees, Vaughn Index Avondale Indus. v. NLRB, No. 96-1227 (E.D. La.Mar. 20, 1998).

285 (b)(6), (b)(7), law enforcementpurpose

Avondale Indus. v. NLRB, No. 94-2173 (E.D. La.Dec. 15, 1994) (bench order), rev'd & remanded,90 F.3d 955 (5th Cir. 1996).

- 22 -

286 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), sum-mary judgment

Ayers v. IRS, No. 84-472 (D. Ariz. June 30, 1985).


Ayers v. NASA, No. 98-1815 (D.D.C. Feb. 22,1999).

288 (b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1202(f), (b)(5),(b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), assurance of confidenti-ality, deliberative process

Ayoub v. Dep't of State, No. 76-2309 (D.D.C. June30, 1978).

289 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, §7213,discovery/FOIA interface

B&C Tire Co. v. IRS, 376 F. Supp. 708 (N.D. Ala.1974).

290 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4), (b)(6) Babcock v. Butz, No. 75-0205 (D. Vt. Feb. 22,1977).

291 (b)(3), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(b),§2000e-8(e)

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. EEOC, No. 82-C-316(E.D. Wis. Mar. 11, 1983).

292 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, jurisdiction, summary judg-ment

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Rumsfeld, 70 F.R.D. 595(N.D. Ohio 1976).

293 (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403(d)(3),"Glomar" denial, proper party de-fendant

Bachrack v. CIA, No. 75-3727 (C.D. Cal. May 13,1976).

294 Agency, proper party defendant Bacin v. Smith, No. 78-4828 (C.D. Cal. May 11,1979).

295 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(2), (b)(3),8 U.S.C. §1202(f), (b)(5),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F), at-torney work-product privilege, lawenforcement amendments (1986)

Badalamenti v. Dep't of State, 899 F. Supp. 542 (D.Kan. 1995).

296 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), attorney'sfees, deliberative process, destruc-tion of records, discovery/FOIAinterface, fee waiver, mootness,reasonably segregable, waiver ofexemption

Badhwar v. Dep't of the Air Force, 615 F. Supp. 698(D.D.C. 1985), subsequent decision, 622 F. Supp.1364 (D.D.C. 1985), stay granted, No. 84-0154 (D.D.C. Dec. 13, 1985), summary judgment granted inpart, 629 F. Supp. 478 (D.D.C. 1986), interim at-torney's fees awarded (D.D.C. Dec. 11, 1986), aff'din part, vacated & remanded in part, 829 F.2d 182(D.C. Cir. 1987).

297 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney-clientprivilege, deliberative process

Badran v. DOJ, 652 F. Supp. 1437 (N.D. Ill. 1987).

298 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403,(b)(6), (b)(7)(C), attorney's fees

Baez v. CIA, No. 76-1920 (D.D.C. Nov. 3, 1977),on motion for attorney's fees (D.D.C. July 31,1979), aff'd, No. 79-2046 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 1980).

- 23 -

299 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, E.O. 12065,(b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403g,(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), attorney'sfees, belated classification, Fed.R.App.P. 39(a)

Baez v. DOJ, No. 76-1922 (D.D.C. July 5, 1979),aff'd, 647 F.2d 1328 (D.C. Cir. 1980), on motion forcosts, No. 79-1881 (D.C. Cir. May 7, 1981), vaca-ted on panel reh'g, 2 GDS ¶81,223 (D.C. Cir.1981), panel opinion vacated pending reh'g en banc(D.C. Cir. Aug. 18, 1981), costs granted, 684 F.2d999 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (en banc).

300 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403, "mosaic," VaughnIndex

Baez v. NSA, No. 76-1921 (D.D.C. Nov. 2, 1978),modified, 1 GDS ¶80,172 (D.D.C. 1980).

301 Attorney's fees Bahta v. Nelson, No. 85-325 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 27,1985).

302 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney work-product privilege, FOIA as a dis-covery tool

Bailey v. FTC, No. 93-127 (E.D. Ky. July 22, 1994).

303 Agency records Baizer v. Dep't of the Air Force, 887 F. Supp. 225(N.D. Cal. 1995).

304 (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403, in camerainspection, reasonably segregable

Baker v. CIA, 425 F. Supp. 633 (D.D.C. 1977),aff'd, 580 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir. 1978).

305 Exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, expedited processing,Vaughn Index

Baker v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶81,019 (D.D.C. 1980), dis-missed, 3 GDS ¶83,276 (D.D.C. 1983).

306 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2),Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7)(C), adequacy of agency affi-davit, deliberative process, reason-ably segregable

Baker v. DOJ, No. 80-0654 (D.D.C. July 8, 1981).

307 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, jurisdiction

Baker v. IRS, No. S-00-1046, 2000 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 13916 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2000).

308 Attorney's fees, mootness Baker v. IRS, No. 90-1531 (D. Md. Oct. 9, 1990).

309 (b)(3), 13 U.S.C. §9, FOIA as adiscovery tool

Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982).

310 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F)

Baldwin v. FBI, No. C77-343 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 26,1979).

311 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),attorney's fees

Baldwin v. Finney, No. 75-1221 (D.D.C. Dec. 20,1976), rev'd & remanded sub nom. Baldwin v. Ba-ker, 672 F.2d 892 (D.C. Cir. 1977), on remand (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 1978), on motion for attorney's fees(D.D.C. Feb. 25, 1982).

312 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C),adequacy of agency affidavit, at-torney work-product privilege, de-liberative process, waiver of exemp-tion (failure to assert in litigation)

Ballantyne v. Dep't of Labor, No. 84-125 (D. AlaskaApr. 19, 1984).

313 (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),law enforcement purpose

Baltimore Sun v. United States Marshals Serv., 131F. Supp. 2d 725 (D. Md. 2001).

- 24 -

314 (b)(7)(C), attorney's fees, summaryjudgment

Baltimore Sun Co. v. United States Customs Serv.,No. 97-1991 (D. Md. Nov. 21, 1997).

315 (b)(4), (b)(5), attorney's fees, in-ter- or intra-agency memoranda,summary judgment

Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. Dep't of the Interior, No.94-0173 (D. Me. Apr. 17, 1995), attorney's fees de-nied, 903 F. Supp. 169 (D. Me. 1995).

316 (b)(5), discovery/FOIA interface Bank of Am. v. United States, 42 A.F.T.R. 2d 78-5223 (N.D. Cal. 1978).

317 FOIA as a discovery tool, injunc-tion of agency proceeding pendingresolution of FOIA claim, jurisdic-tion

Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. Renegotiation Bd., 466F.2d 345 (D.C. Cir. 1972), rev'd, 415 U.S. 1 (1974).

318 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality, injunction of agency pro-ceeding pending resolution ofFOIA claim

Baptist Mem. Hosp. v. NLRB, 92 L.R.R.M. 2645(W.D. Tenn. 1976), aff'd, 568 F.2d 1 (6th Cir.1977).

319 Privacy Act access, (b)(5),(b)(7)(A), attorney work-productprivilege, FOIA/PA interface, lawenforcement amendments (1986)

Barber v. INS, No. C90-0067 (W.D. Wash. May 15,1990).

320 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, VaughnIndex

Barber v. IRS, 47 A.F.T.R. 2d 81-1126 (N.D. Ala.1981).

321 (b)(7)(D) Barham v. DOJ, No. 84-1573 (W.D. La. Nov. 7,1984), aff'd, No. 84-4822 (5th Cir. June 14, 1985)(unpublished memorandum), 765 F.2d 1118 (5th


322 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F)

Barham v. United States Secret Serv., No. 82-2130(W.D. Tenn. Sept. 13, 1982).

323 (b)(2), (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(7), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F),law enforcement amendments(1986), law enforcement purpose,summary judgment

Barkett v. DOJ, No. 86-2029 (D.D.C. July 18,1989).

324 (b)(5), inter- or intra-agency mem-oranda

Barkett v. DOJ, No. 86-1716 (D.D.C. Mar. 12,1987).

325 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a), (b)(5),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confidenti-ality, attorney-client privilege, at-torney work-product privilege, de-liberative process, summary judg-ment

Barmes v. IRS, 60 F. Supp. 2d 896 (S.D. Ind. 1998).

326 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, (b)(7),(b)(7)(D), in camera inspection

Barnard v. IRS, 2 GDS ¶81,214 (S.D. Fla. 1981).

327 (b)(7) Barnes & Noble Bookstores v. NLRB, 92 L.R.R.M.2169 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

- 25 -

328 (b)(7)(A), adequacy of agency af-fidavit, FOIA as a discovery tool, incamera inspection

Barney v. IRS, No. 78-5100 (D.S.D. 1979), aff'd,618 F.2d 1268 (8th Cir. 1980).

329 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, (b)(7) Barney v. Kurtz, No. 77-5031 (D.S.D. Jan. 12,1978).

330 Attorney's fees Barrett v. DOJ, No. 3:95-264 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 17,1997), aff'd sub nom. Barrett v. United States, No.97-60223 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 1997) (per curiam).

331 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), in camerainspection, "mosaic"

Barrett v. FBI, 3 GDS ¶82,534 (W.D. Okla. 1982).

332 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confidenti-ality, deliberative process, FOIA asa discovery tool, in camera inspec-tion

Barrett v. OSHA, No. C2-90-147 (S.D. Ohio Oct.18, 1990).

333 Attorney's fees, disciplinary pro-ceedings, fees

Barrett v. United States Customs Serv., No. 77-3033 (E.D. La. Feb. 22, 1979) (consolidated).

334 Transfer of FOIA case Barrier v. Carlson, 2 GDS ¶81,058 (D.D.C. 1980).

335 Attorney's fees, mootness Barrier v. DOJ, No. 99-0596 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 30,1999).

336 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, Vaughn Index

Barrier v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶82,062 (D.D.C. 1981), sub-sequent order, No. 81-1947 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1982),dismissed, 3 GDS ¶82,259 (D.D.C. 1982).

337 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), (b)(6)

Bartholdi Cable Co. v. FCC, 114 F.3d 274 (D.C.Cir. 1997).

338 Jurisdiction Bartlett v. DOJ, 867 F. Supp. 314 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

339 (b)(2), (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F), attor-ney work-product privilege, delib-erative process, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies, reasonablysegregable, summary judgment

Bartolotta v. FBI, No. 99-1145 (D.D.C. July 13,2000).

340 (b)(6), failure to meet time limits,FOIA as a discovery tool

Barvick v. Cisneros, 941 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Kan.1996).

341 (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F),summary judgment

Bascaro v. DOJ, No. 87-0264 (D.D.C. Oct. 26,1987).

342 Privacy Act access, (b)(5), (b)(6),deliberative process, FOIA/PA in-terface

Basdekas v. NRC, No. 78-465 (D.D.C. Dec. 20,1978).

343 Fees Bast v. Def. Communications Agency, No. 76-1177(D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1979).

344 Fees Bast v. Def. Communications Agency, No. 76-1178(D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1979).

- 26 -

345 Adequacy of agency affidavit, dis-covery/FOIA interface

Bast v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶81,265 (D.D.C. 1981).

346 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess

Bast v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶82,101 (D.D.C. 1981), sub-sequent decision, 3 GDS ¶82,250 (D.D.C. 1982).

347 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),law enforcement purpose, reason-ably segregable, Vaughn Index,waiver of exemption

Bast v. DOJ, Nos. 78-1058, 78-1059 (D.D.C. Mar.27, 1979), reconsideration denied, 1 GDS ¶79,233(D.D.C. 1979), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 665 F.2d1251 (D.C. Cir. 1981), reh'g denied, Nos. 79-2039,80-1050 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 11, 1981).

348 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) Bast v. DOJ, No. 77-1107 (D.D.C. June 27, 1978).

349 Fees, proper party defendant Bast v. DOJ, No. 76-0797 (D.D.C. May 31, 1978).

350 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), dismissal for fail-ure to prosecute

Bast v. Dep't of State, No. 76-1894 (D.D.C. July 29,1978).

351 (b)(1), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), law enforcement pur-pose

Bast v. FBI, 2 GDS ¶81,270 (D.D.C. 1981).

352 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Bast v. FBI, 2 GDS ¶82,180 (D.D.C. 1981).

353 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assur-ance of confidentiality, attorney-client privilege, deliberative process

Bast v. IRS, 42 A.F.T.R. 2d 78-5078 (D.D.C.1978).

354 (b)(5), judicial records Bast v. Office of the United States Attorney, No.75-902 (E.D. Va. Aug. 10, 1977).

355 (b)(7), (b)(7)(D), attorney's fees,law enforcement amendments(1986), law enforcement purpose

Bates v. DOJ, 767 F. Supp. 857 (M.D. Tenn. 1991).

356 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Bauer v. DOJ, No. C90-3568 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1,1993).

357 Privacy Act access, (b)(7)(A), feewaiver (Reform Act)

Bauer v. DOJ, Nos. 91-0398, 90-2771 (D.D.C. Apr.25, 1991), summary affirmance granted in part subnom. Bauer v. United States, Nos. 91-5159, 91-5160 (D.C. Cir. May 8, 1992) (unpublished order),966 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (table cite).

358 Fees (Reform Act) Bauer v. United States, No. 96-1165, 1998 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 3813 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 1998).

359 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),assurance of confidentiality, delib-erative process, law enforcementamendments (1986), summaryjudgment

Bauer v. United States, No. 92-0376 (D.D.C. Sept.30, 1993), remanded, No. 94-5205 (D.C. Cir. Apr.14, 1995) (per curiam).

360 (b)(3), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C) Bauer v. United States, No. 90-2771 (D.D.C. July30, 1993), summary affirmance granted, No. 93-5327 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 15, 1994).

- 27 -

361 Proper service of process, transferof FOIA case, venue

Bauer v. United States, No. 91-374 (W.D.N.Y. Feb.3, 1992).

362 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(5),deliberative process, duty to search,in camera inspection, reasonablysegregable, Vaughn Index

Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Con-trol v. Dep't of State, 818 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Cal.1992), summary judgment granted in part, No.C89-1843 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 1993).

363 Attorney's fees Bay Area Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Con-trol v. FEMA, No. C83-3164 (N.D. Cal. July 1,1988).

364 Injunction of agency proceedingpending resolution of FOIA claim

Bayview Assocs. v. NLRB, 75 Lab. Cas. (CCH) ¶10,524 (D.D.C. 1974).

365 Mootness, no record within scopeof request

Bazelow v. Civil Serv. Dep't, 1 GDS ¶79,134 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

366 (b)(5), deliberative process BDM Corp. v. SBA, 2 GDS ¶81,217 (D.D.C.1981).

367 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), deliberativeprocess, in camera inspection, in-corporation by reference

BDM Corp. v. SBA, 2 GDS ¶81,044 (D.D.C.1980), reconsideration denied, No. 80-1180 (D.D.C. Dec. 23, 1980), on motion for summary judg-ment, 2 GDS ¶81,189 (D.D.C. 1981), attorney'sfees denied (D.D.C. June 22, 1981).

368 Adequacy of request, duty tosearch

Beacon Journal Publ'g Co. v. Attorney Gen. of theUnited States, No. C77-235 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 10,1978).

369 Attorney's fees Bean, Kinney, Korman & Moore v. Office of ThriftSupervision, No. 89-3110 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 1991).

370 (b)(7)(D), agency, assurance ofconfidentiality, summary judgment

Beard v. DOJ, 917 F. Supp. 61 (D.D.C. 1996).

371 (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), law en-forcement purpose

Beard v. Espy, No. 93-0747 (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 1994),aff'd, No. 94-16748, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 38269(9th Cir. Dec. 11, 1995) (unpublished memoran-dum), 76 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 1995) (table cite).

372 (c)(1), duty to search Beauman v. FBI, No. 92-7603 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 28,1993).

373 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, summary judgment

Becher v. Demers, No. 91-C-99, 1991 WL 333708(W.D. Wis. May 30, 1991).

374 (b)(2), (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(B),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),(b)(7)(F), attorney work-productprivilege, duty to search, "Glomar"denial, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), summary judgment,venue, waiver of exemption

Beck v. DOJ, No. 88-3433, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS1179 (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 1991), reconsideration de-nied (D.D.C. July 24, 1991), summary affirmancegranted in part, No. 91-5292 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 19,1992), aff'd, 997 F.2d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

- 28 -

375 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F), assurance ofconfidentiality, duty to search, incamera inspection, law enforce-ment amendments (1986), law en-forcement purpose, summary judg-ment, Vaughn Index, waiver ofexemption

Beck v. DOJ, No. 87-3356 (D.D.C. Nov. 7, 1989).

376 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), duty to dis-close, duty to search, in camera in-spection, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), law enforcementpurpose, summary judgment,Vaughn Index, waiver of exemp-tion

Beck v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 88-0493 (D.D.C.Nov. 8, 1989), aff'd, 946 F.2d 1563 (D.C. Cir.1991).

377 (b)(2), (b)(3), 26 U.S.C.§6103(b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E), deliberativeprocess, discovery in FOIA litiga-tion, duty to search, law enforce-ment amendments (1986), law en-forcement purpose, reasonably se-gregable, summary judgment

Becker v. IRS, Nos. 91-C-1203, 91-C-1204, 91-C-1205, 1992 WL 67849 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 1992),motion to amend denied, 1993 WL 114612 (N.D.Ill. Apr. 12, 1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 34F.3d 398 (7th Cir. 1994), dismissed, Nos. 91-C-1203, 91-C-1205 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 1995).

378 (b)(2), adequacy of request Beckette v. United States Postal Serv., No. 90-1246(E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 1990), subsequent order, 1993WL 730711 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 1993), aff'd, No. 93-1329 (4th Cir. May 18, 1994) (unpublished order),25 F.3d 1038 (4th Cir. 1994) (table cite).

379 Privacy Act access, (a)(1)(D), pub-lication

Beckette v. United States Postal Serv., Nos. 88-802,89-22 (E.D. Va. July 30, 1989).


Beckwith v. DOJ, No. 77-27 (N.D. Miss. June 15,1978).

381 Duty to search, mootness Beech v. Comm'r, 190 F. Supp. 2d 1183 (D. Ariz.2001).

382 Reverse FOIA, preliminary injunc-tion

Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Harris, No. 86-0349 (W.D.Mo. Apr. 4, 1986), motion to amend denied (W.D.Mo. Apr. 8, 1986).

383 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confidenti-ality

Belenky v. DEA, No. 81-1390 (D.D.C. Nov. 19,1981).

384 Duty to search Belfiore v. United States, No. 77-1176 (D. Mass.Sept. 18, 1978).

385 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103 Belisle v. Comm'r, 462 F. Supp. 460 (W.D. Okla.1978).

386 Summary judgment, Vaughn Index Bell v. DOJ, No. 90-56006 (9th Cir. Aug. 25, 1992)(unpublished memorandum), 977 F.2d 1337 (9th


- 29 -

387 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementamendments (1986)

Bell v. FBI, No. 92-72982 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 19,1993) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(E.D. Mich. Mar. 23, 1993), aff'd, No. 93-1485 (6th

Cir. Oct. 18, 1993) (unpublished memorandum), 9F.3d 106 (6th Cir. 1993) (table cite).

388 (b)(1), discovery/FOIA interface,equitable discretion, in camera in-spection, inter- or intra-agencymemoranda

Bell v. United States, 71 F.R.D. 349 (D.N.H. 1976),aff'd, 563 F.2d 84 (1st Cir. 1977).


Bellinger v. FBI, No. 90-1903 (D.D.C. Oct. 17,1990).

390 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), injunction of agencyproceeding pending resolution ofFOIA claim

Bellingham Frozen Foods v. Henderson, 91 L.R.R.M. 2761 (W.D. Wash. 1976).

391 Fee waiver (Reform Act) Bellitti v. Huff, No. 93-2395 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 1995),appeal dismissed, No. 95-1349 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 18,1995).

392 (b)(5), deliberative process, incamera inspection, reasonably se-gregable, summary judgment

Beltone Elecs. Corp. v. FTC, No. 81-1360 (D.D.C.June 14, 1983), summary judgment granted (D.D.C.Dec. 6, 1983).

393 (b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1226, (b)(6),attorney's fees, duty to search, sum-mary judgment

Belvy v. DOJ, No. 94-923 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 1994)(magistrate's recommendation), adopted (S.D. Fla.Jan. 27, 1995), attorney's fees awarded (S.D. Fla.Dec. 6, 1995) (magistrate's recommendation),adopted (S.D. Fla. June 18, 1996).

394 Attorney's fees Benavides v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 88-2883 (D.D.C. Oct. 18, 1991), sanctions denied (D.D.C. Oct.12, 1992), motion to reopen denied (D.D.C. May18, 1993), aff'd, 993 F.2d 257 (D.C. Cir. 1993),cert. denied, 510 U.S. 996 (1993), remanded, No.95-5147, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 6089 (D.C. Cir.Apr. 2, 1996).

395 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(c)(2), assurance of confidentiality,discovery in FOIA litigation, "Glo-mar" denial, law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, summary judgment

Benavides v. DEA, 769 F. Supp. 380 (D.D.C.1990), rev'd & remanded, 968 F.2d 1243 (D.C. Cir.1992), modified & amended, 976 F.2d 751 (D.C.Cir. 1992).

396 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), attorney-client privi-lege, attorney's fees, law enforce-ment amendments (1986), sum-mary judgment

Benavides v. DEA, No. 88-0427 (D.D.C. Feb. 9,1989), summary affirmance granted in part subnom. Benavides v. United States Marshals Serv.,No. 89-5060 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 21, 1989), attorney'sfees denied (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 1990), reconsiderationdenied (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 1990), summary affirm-ance granted, No. 90-5112 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 19,1990) (unpublished memorandum), 923 F.2d 200(D.C. Cir. 1990) (table cite).

397 Mootness Benavides v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 91-2538(D.D.C. Apr. 22, 1992).

- 30 -

398 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), deliberative process,proper party defendant, summaryjudgment

Bender v. Inspector Gen. NASA, No. 1:90-2059(N.D. Ohio May 24, 1991).

399 Discovery in FOIA litigation, ex-ceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, expedited processing

Beneville v. DOJ, No. 98-6137 (D. Or. Dec. 14,1998), protective order granted in large part (D. Or.Feb. 4, 2000).

400 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementamendments (1986), summaryjudgment

Benjamin v. DOJ, No. 88-1361 (D.D.C. May 4,1990).

401 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, proper party defendant,Vaughn Index

Benjamin v. DOJ, No. 85-6579 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 31,1986).

402 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403 Bennett v. DOD, 419 F. Supp. 663 (S.D.N.Y.1976).

403 (b)(2), (b)(6) Bennett v. DOJ, No. 86-0891 (D.D.C. Oct. 28,1986).

404 Attorney's fees, improper withhold-ing, summary judgment

Bennett v. Dep't of the Army, No. 90-1881 (6th Cir.May 22, 1991) (unpublished order), 933 F.2d 1007(6th Cir. 1991) (table cite).

405 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F), duty tosearch

Bennett v. DEA, 55 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 1999).

406 Summary judgment Bennett v. IRS, No. 95-73-B (D.N.H. Nov. 8,1995).

407 Dismissal for failure to prosecute,exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, FOIA as a discovery tool

Benny v. DOJ, No. 86-1172 (D.D.C. Oct. 21,1986), dismissed (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 1989).

408 (b)(5), (b)(7)(D), summary judg-ment

Benny v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 86-0112 (D.D.C. Nov. 24, 1986).

409 Privacy Act access, attorney's fees,mootness

Benoist v. United States, No. 87-1028 (8th Cir. Nov.4, 1987) (unpublished memorandum), 837 F.2d 479(8th Cir. 1987) (table cite).

410 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberativeprocess, improper withholding

Benson v. GSA, 289 F. Supp. 590 (W.D. Wash.1968), aff'd, 415 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1969).

411 Privacy Act access, (b)(6), (b)(7),law enforcement purpose

Benson v. United States, No. 80-15 (D. Mass. June12, 1980).

412 (b)(7), FOIA as a discovery tool Benson v. United States, 309 F. Supp. 1144 (D.Neb. 1970).

413 Attorney's fees, duty to search,summary judgment

Bentson v. Comm'r, No. 83-048 (D. Ariz. Feb. 9,1984), subsequent decision (D. Ariz. Apr. 3, 1984),attorney's fees denied (D. Ariz. Sept. 14, 1984).

414 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), deliberativeprocess, summary judgment

Bentson Contracting Co. v. NLRB, No. 90-0451(D. Ariz. Dec. 28, 1990).

- 31 -

415 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), as-surance of confidentiality, deliber-ative process, waiver of exemption

Ben-Veniste v. DOJ, No. 84-3475 (D.D.C. May 19,1987).

416 Duty to search Benvenuti v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶81,300 (D.D.C. 1981).

417 (b)(2), (b)(7)(E), summary judg-ment

Berg v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, No.93-C-6741 (N.D. Ill. June 21, 1994) (magistrate'srecommendation), accepted & dismissed by stipu-lation (N.D. Ill. July 26, 1994).

418 Duty to search Berg v. DOE, No. 94-0488 (D.D.C. Nov. 5, 1994).

419 No record within scope of request Berkery v. DOJ, No. 92-3738 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 17,1994).

420 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), deliberative process,summary judgment, Vaughn Index

Berkosky v. Dep't of Labor, No. 82-6464 (C.D. Cal.May 2, 1984).

421 (b)(4), attorney's fees Berlin Steel Constr. Co. v. VA, No. 95-752 (D.Conn. Sept. 30, 1996).

422 (b)(8), summary judgment Berliner, Zisser, Walter & Gallegos v. SEC, 962 F.Supp. 1348 (D. Colo. 1997).

423 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(e)(6),(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), dis-placement of FOIA

Bernal v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,140 (N.D. Cal. 1980).

424 (b)(2) Bernknopf v. Califano, 466 F. Supp. 319 (W.D. Pa.1979).

425 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), adequacy ofagency affidavit, attorney work-product privilege, deliberativeprocess, res judicata

Bernson v. ICC, 625 F. Supp. 13 (D. Mass. 1985),reconsideration denied, 635 F. Supp. 369 (D. Mass.1986).

426 (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §4208(b)(2),Fed.R.Crim.P. 32, (b)(6), attor-ney's fees, judicial records, waiverof exemption (failure to assert inlitigation)

Berry v. DOJ, No. 82-2041 (D. Ariz. Mar. 14,1983), rev'd & remanded, 733 F.2d 1343 (9th Cir.1984), on remand, 612 F. Supp. 45 (D. Ariz. 1985),attorney's fees awarded (D. Ariz. Feb. 20, 1986).

427 Preliminary injunction Beta Steel Corp. v. NLRB, No. 2:97-358, 1997 WL836525 (N.D. Ind. Oct. 22, 1997).

428 Reverse FOIA, case or controversy,equitable discretion

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Kreps, No. 78-837 (D.Md. Feb. 4, 1980).

429 Case or controversy, fee waiver,mootness

Better Gov't Ass'n v. Dep't of State, No. 83-2998(D.D.C. Aug. 13, 1984), remanded, 780 F.2d 86(D.C. Cir. 1986) (consolidated), motion to consol-idate on remand denied (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 1986), onremand (D.D.C. July 31, 1986), motion to amenddenied (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 1987).

430 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, fees

Beuth v. Comm'r, No. 85-C-247 (E.D. Wis. June24, 1985).

- 32 -

431 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(7),(b)(7)(A), adequacy of agency af-fidavit, law enforcement purpose

Bevis v. Dep't of State, 575 F. Supp. 1253 (D.D.C.1983), remanded on procedural grounds, No. 84-5069 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 1984), summary judgmentgranted, No. 83-0993 (D.D.C. June 27, 1985), re-manded, 801 F.2d 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1986).

432 (b)(1), duty to search, in camerainspection, reasonably segregable

Bevis v. Dep't of the Army, No. 87-1893 (D.D.C.Aug. 30, 1988), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Sept. 16, 1988).

433 Agency, agency records, stay pend-ing appeal

Bevis v. NSC, No. 85-2933 (D.D.C. May 30, 1986),remanded for clarification, No. 86-5359 (D.C. Cir.July 14, 1986).

434 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, (b)(5),(b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), (b)(8), attorney-clientprivilege, attorney work-productprivilege, deliberative process, dutyto search, summary judgment

Biase v. Office of Thrift Supervision, No. 93-2521(D.N.J. Dec. 10, 1993).

435 (b)(1), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), attor-ney's fees, duty to search

Biberman v. FBI, 496 F. Supp. 263 (S.D.N.Y.1980), subsequent decision, 528 F. Supp. 1140(S.D.N.Y. 1982).

436 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a), dis-placement of FOIA

Big Elk Prods. v. IRS, No. 2:86-1083 (S.D. W. Va.Dec. 5, 1986).

437 (b)(5), deliberative process, reason-ably segregable

Bilbrey v. Dep't of the Air Force, No. 00-0539(W.D. Mo. Jan. 30, 2001), aff'd, 20 Fed. Appx. 597(8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

438 Agency Biles v. City of Grand Rapids, No. 1:90-269 (W.D.Mich. Oct. 9, 1990).

439 (b)(1), E.O. 12958, (b)(2), (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),adequacy of agency affidavit, assur-ance of confidentiality, discovery inFOIA litigation, exceptional cir-cumstances/due diligence, expe-dited processing, in camera inspec-tion, "mosaic," Vaughn Index,waiver of exemption, waiver of ex-emption (administrative release)

Billington v. DOJ, No. 92-0462 (D.D.C. July 21,1992), summary judgment granted in part, 11 F.Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 1998), summary judgmentgranted in part, 69 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D.D.C. 1999),aff'd in part, vacated in part & remanded, 233 F.3d581 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

440 Privacy Act access, (b)(7), ade-quacy of agency affidavit, law en-forcement purpose

Binion v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶82,148 (D. Nev. 1981),rev'd, 695 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1983).

441 (b)(7), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementpurpose

Birch v. United States Postal Serv., No. 83-3071(D.D.C. Oct. 17, 1984), aff'd, 803 F.2d 1206 (D.C.Cir. 1986).

442 Attorney's fees Bird v. Dep't of the Treasury, 2 GDS ¶81,215 (D.D.C. 1981).

443 (a)(1), attorney's fees Birkland v. Rotary Plaza, Inc., 643 F. Supp. 223(N.D. Cal. 1986).

- 33 -

444 (b)(6), (b)(7)(D), duty to create arecord

Bishop v. Civiletti, 2 GDS ¶81,343 (D.D.C. 1981),summary judgment granted sub nom. Bishop v. Bell,2 GDS ¶81,344 (D.D.C. 1981).

445 (b)(3), 38 U.S.C. §3305 Bitzer v. Klag, 3 GDS ¶83,172 (C.D. Cal. 1981).

446 No record within scope of request Black v. CIA, No. C83-3914 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 11,1983), dismissed, 732 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1984).

447 Fee waiver, no record within scopeof request

Black v. CIA, No. 83-3246 (D.D.C. Dec. 30, 1983),reconsideration granted (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 1984), dis-missed (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 1984).

448 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), law enforcementpurpose

Black v. FBI, No. C82-370 (N.D. Ohio May 30,1986), aff'd, Nos. 86-3586, 86-3587 (6th Cir. Feb. 4,1987) (unpublished memorandum), 815 F.2d 75(6th Cir. 1987) (table cite).

449 Fee waiver, judicial records, no rec-ord within scope of request, properparty defendant, summary judg-ment

Black v. GSA, No. C82-1569 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 26,1983), aff'd, 734 F.2d 13 (6th Cir. 1984).

450 Agency, no record within scope ofrequest, proper party defendant,summary judgment

Black v. IRS, No. C82-370 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 23,1984), dismissed, 732 F.2d 153 (6th Cir. 1984).

451 (b)(7), law enforcement purpose Black v. Sheraton Corp., 371 F. Supp. 97 (D.D.C.1974), rev'd, 564 F.2d 531 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

452 (b)(4), (b)(9) Black Hills Alliance v. United States Forest Serv.,603 F. Supp. 117 (D.S.D. 1984).

453 Duty to search, mootness Blackman v. DOJ, No. 00-3004 (D.D.C. July 5,2001), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Oct. 9,2001), summary affirmance denied, No. 01-5431(D.C. Cir. Mar. 29, 2002) (per curiam).


Blackwell v. EEOC, No. 2:98-38, 1999 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 3708 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 1999).

455 Agency Blackwell v. Klincar, No. 84-C-8705 (N.D. Ill. June26, 1990).

456 (b)(1), E.O. 11652 Blaisdell v. DOD, No. 77-83 (C.D. Cal. May 5,1977).

457 (b)(7)(C), duty to disclose, duty tosearch, fee waiver, "Glomar" denial

Blakey v. DOJ, 549 F. Supp. 362 (D.D.C. 1982),aff'd in part & vacated in part, No. 82-2499 (D.C.Cir. Oct. 3, 1983) (unpublished memorandum), 720F.2d 215 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (table cite).

458 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), duty tocreate a record, duty to search

Blanchard v. United States Secret Serv., 2 GDS¶82,093 (D.D.C. 1981).

459 Discovery in FOIA litigation Blankstein v. Bennett, No. 87-2107 (D.D.C. Oct.22, 1987).

- 34 -

460 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), duty tosearch, law enforcement purpose,reasonably segregable, waiver ofexemption

Blanton v. DOJ, 63 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 1999),subsequent opinion, 182 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C.2002).

461 (b)(6), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), "Glomar"denial, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), law enforcementpurpose, summary judgment

Blanton v. DOJ, No. 93-2398, 1994 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 21444 (W.D. Tenn. July 14, 1994).

462 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403g, §403-3(c)(5),(b)(5), deliberative process, incor-poration by reference, summaryjudgment, waiver of exemption

Blazar v. OMB, No. 92-2719 (D.D.C. Apr. 15,1994).

463 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403g,§403-3(c)(6), (b)(5), (b)(6), attor-ney's fees, deliberative process, rea-sonably segregable

Blazy v. Tenet, 979 F. Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1997), at-torney's fees denied, No. 93-2424 (D.D.C. Apr. 6,1998), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5330,1998 WL 315583 (D.C. Cir. May 12, 1998), reh'gdenied (D.C. Cir. July 6, 1998), attorney's fees de-nied on other grounds, 194 F.3d 90 (D.C. Cir.1999).

464 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(2), (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), FOIA/PA in-terface

Block v. FBI, No. 83-0813 (D.D.C. Nov. 19, 1984).

465 (b)(5), agency, agency records, at-torney's fees

Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, No. C75-2092 (N.D. Ga.Aug. 12, 1976), rev'd, 570 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1978).

466 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, pro se litigant

Blue v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 85-3667 (D.D.C. June 30, 1986).


Blue v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 85-3709(D.D.C. Mar. 13, 1986), dismissed (D.D.C. June 30,1986).

468 Agency, jurisdiction Bluethunder v. Kunz, No. 77-165 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2,1990).

469 (b)(3), 39 U.S.C. §410(c)(6),(b)(7)(E), proper party defendant

Blum v. United States, No. 78-1226 (C.D. Cal.Sept. 12, 1978).

470 (a)(1)(D), publication BMY, a Div. of HARSCO Corp. v. United States,693 F. Supp. 1232 (D.D.C. 1988).

471 Attorney's fees Boakye-Yiadom v. INS, No. C 98-3580, 1999 WL782476 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 1999).

472 (b)(3), 15 U.S.C. §57b-2(f),Vaughn Index

Bd. of Educ. v. FTC, 2 GDS ¶81,170 (D.D.C.1980).

473 (b)(4), (b)(6), waiver of exemption Bd. of Trade v. Commodity Futures TradingComm'n, No. 77-0560 (D.D.C. Oct. 28, 1977), aff'din part, rev'd in part, 627 F.2d 392 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

474 (b)(7)(C) Bd. of Trs. v. Dep't of Educ., No. 82-63 (N.D. Miss.Dec. 3, 1983).

- 35 -

475 (b)(7)(A) Bd. of Trs. v. Norton, No. 80-4041 (S.D. Ill. Mar.16, 1981).

476 (b)(5) Bodell v. DOJ, No. 85-3166 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 1986).

477 (b)(5), discovery in FOIA litiga-tion, duty to search

Bodner v. FTC, 1974-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶75,329(D.D.C. 1974), Vaughn Index required, 1975-2Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶60,118 (D.D.C. 1975), subse-quent decision, No. 74-1189 (D.D.C. Feb. 24,1975).

478 Adequacy of agency affidavit, dutyto search

Boggs v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 11 (D.D.C.1997).

479 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality

Bollen v. Civiletti, 2 GDS ¶82,121 (W.D. Pa.1981).

480 Attorney's fees, mootness Bollen v. Smith, No. 82-2424 (W.D. Pa. May 27,1983).

481 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2),(b)(7)(E), duty to search, properparty defendant, summary judg-ment

Bologna v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 93-1495,1994 WL 381975 (D.N.J. Mar. 29, 1994).

482 (b)(6), summary judgment Bongiorno v. Reno, No. 95-72143, 1996 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 4796 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 19, 1996).

483 No record within scope of request Boniface v. DOJ, No. 86-0141 (D.D.C. June 13,1986).

484 Privacy Act access, fee waiver Boniface v. Meese, No. 85-1971 (D.D.C. Dec. 13,1985), summary affirmance granted, No. 86-5125(D.C. Cir. June 12, 1986).


Boniface v. Meese, No. 85-2050 (D.D.C. Dec. 13,1985), summary affirmance granted, No. 86-5126(D.C. Cir. June 12, 1986).

486 Mootness Boniface v. Meese, No. 85-2055 (D.D.C. Dec. 13,1985), summary affirmance granted, No. 86-5127(D.C. Cir. June 12, 1986).


Boniface v. Meese, No. 85-2267 (D.D.C. Dec. 13,1985).

488 (b)(7)(C) Boniface v. Rose, No. 85-1801 (D.D.C. Dec. 18,1985), summary affirmance granted, No. 86-5124(D.C. Cir. June 12, 1986).

489 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, discovery inFOIA litigation, in camera inspec-tion, jurisdiction, summary judg-ment, Vaughn Index

Bonner v. Dep't of State, 724 F. Supp. 1028 (D.D.C. 1989), subsequent order, No. 86-0769 (D.C.Mar. 2, 1990), vacated & remanded, 928 F.2d 1148(D.C. Cir. 1991).

490 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, reasonablysegregable, summary judgment,Vaughn Index

Bonner v. FBI, No. 86-2249 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 1987).

- 36 -

491 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, waiver of exemp-tion

Bonnett v. DOJ, No. 81-267 (N.D. Ind. July 11,1983).

492 Adequacy of request Borden v. FBI, No. 93-11742 (D. Mass. Dec. 22,1993), aff'd, No. 94-1029 (1st Cir. June 28, 1994)(per curiam) (unpublished order), 27 F.3d 554 (1st


493 Summary judgment Borelli v. FBI, No. 99-0464 (D.D.C. July 21, 2000).

494 Duty to search, summary judgment Borelli v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 91-1185 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1992).

495 Duty to create a record Borom v. Crawford, No. 77-C-4500 (N.D. Ill.1978), aff'd, 651 F.2d 500 (7th Cir. 1981).

496 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 18U.S.C. §4208(c), (b)(5),(b)(7)(D), adequacy of request,exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, reasonably segregable,Vaughn Index

Borom v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 5-86-183 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 1986).

497 Attorney's fees, disciplinary pro-ceedings, substantial compliance

Borrell v. Int'l Communications Agency, 3 GDS¶83,021 (D.D.C. 1981), aff'd, 682 F.2d 981 (D.C.Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974 (1984).

498 (a)(2) Borsody & Green v. Rougeau, No. 79-3234 (D.D.C.1981).

499 (b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality

Borton, Inc. v. OSHA, 566 F. Supp. 1420 (E.D. La.1983) (magistrate's recommendation adopted).

500 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), as-surance of confidentiality, law en-forcement amendments (1986),law enforcement purpose, summaryjudgment

Bostic v. FBI, No. 1:94-71 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 16,1994).

501 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), adequacy ofagency affidavit, attorney work-product privilege

Boston Carrier, Inc. v. ICC, No. 83-3741 (D. Mass.Mar. 27, 1984), summary judgment granted, 625 F.Supp. 8 (D. Mass. 1984), dismissed on othergrounds sub nom. Bernson v. ICC, 625 F. Supp. 10(D. Mass. 1984).

502 (b)(7) Boston Univ. v. NLRB, 95 L.R.R.M. 2447 (D. Mass.1977).

503 (b)(1), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), exceptional circum-stances/due diligence, expeditedprocessing, Vaughn Index

Boult v. DOJ, No. C76-1217 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 22,1976), summary judgment granted (N.D. Ga. Oct.31, 1978).

- 37 -

504 (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),adequacy of agency affidavit, lawenforcement amendments (1986),summary judgment, waiver of ex-emption, waiver of exemption (ad-ministrative release), waiver of ex-emption (failure to assert in litiga-tion)

Bowen v. FDA, No. C88-5111 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30,1989), aff'd, 925 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1991).

505 Agency Bowens v. Flowers Funeral Serv., No. 87-C-6481(N.D. Ill. July 29, 1987).

506 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(2), (b)(3),50 U.S.C. §403g, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), incamera inspection, stay pendingappeal

Bowers v. DOJ, 690 F. Supp. 1483 (W.D.N.C.1988), writ of mandamus granted sub nom. In reUnited States DOJ, No. 87-1205 (4th Cir. Apr. 7,1988), on remand sub nom. Bowers v. DOJ, 690 F.Supp. 1483 (W.D.N.C. 1988), on in camera in-spection, No. C-C-86-336 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 9,1990), temporary stay granted, No. 90-2063 (4th

Cir. Apr. 13, 1990), stay pending appeal granted(4th Cir. May 7, 1990), rev'd, 930 F.2d 350 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 911 (1991).

507 (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(C), (b)(7)(A),fees

Bowker v. IRS, No. 80-150 (D. Or. May 11, 1982).

508 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e) Bowman v. DOJ, No. 85-2491 (D.D.C. June 11,1986).

509 (b)(2) Boyce v. Dep't of the Navy, No. 86-2211 (C.D. Cal.Feb. 17, 1987).

510 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), deliberativeprocess

Boyce v. Deputy Dir., No. 78-084 (D.D.C. Oct. 25,1978).

511 Attorney's fees, duty to search,Vaughn Index

Boyd v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 84-2418 (W.D.Tenn. May 23, 1985) (magistrate's recommenda-tion), summary judgment granted (W.D. Tenn.May 29, 1986).

512 (b)(7)(A) Boyd v. Executive Office of the United States At-torneys, No. 5:97-163 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 20, 1998).

513 Mootness Boyd v. United States Dist. Attorney's Office, No.84-5704 (D.C. Cir. May 24, 1985) (unpublishedmemorandum), 764 F.2d 926 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(table cite).

514 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), attorneywork-product privilege, duty tosearch, mootness, referral of re-quest to another agency, summaryjudgment, waiver of exemption

Boyd v. United States Marshals Serv., No. 99-2712,2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14025 (D.D.C. Sept. 25,2000), summary judgment granted in part (D.D.C.Mar. 30, 2001).

515 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Boyle v. Comm'r, No. 98-0716 (D. Ariz. Dec. 7,1998).

- 38 -

516 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), exhaus-tion of administrative remedies, norecord within scope of request,summary judgment

Brace v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 99-2713, 2000U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14781 (D.D.C. Sept. 12, 2000).

517 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F) Brady-Lunny v. Massey, 185 F. Supp. 2d 928 (C.D.Ill. 2002).

518 Attorney's fees Brainerd v. Dep't of the Navy, No. 87-C-4057(N.D. Ill. Apr. 21, 1988).

519 (b)(4), attorney's fees, burden ofproof

Braintree Elec. Light Dep't v. DOE, 494 F. Supp.287 (D.D.C. 1980).

520 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(2), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, discovery in FOIAlitigation, in camera inspection, lawenforcement amendments (1986),law enforcement purpose, reason-ably segregable, summary judg-ment, Vaughn Index

Branch v. FBI, No. 86-1643 (D.D.C. Aug. 12,1986), partial summary judgment granted, 658 F.Supp. 204 (D.D.C. 1987), motion for protective or-der granted (D.D.C. Aug. 10, 1987), partial sum-mary judgment granted (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 1988), incamera inspection ordered (D.D.C. May 16, 1988),partial summary judgment granted, 700 F. Supp. 47(D.D.C. 1988).

521 (b)(3), 44 U.S.C. §2101, §2107,§2108

Brandon v. Sampson, No. 73-2232 (D.D.C. Apr. 3,1974), rev'd & remanded sub nom. Brandon v. Eck-erd, 569 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1977).

522 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), as-surance of confidentiality, attor-ney's fees, de novo review, law en-forcement purpose, mootness,waiver of exemption

Brant Constr. Co. v. EPA, No. 82-596 (N.D. Ind.June 12, 1984), rev'd, 778 F.2d 1258 (7th Cir. 1985).

523 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(7)(C), incamera inspection, summary judg-ment

Braslavsky v. FBI, No. 92-C-3027 (N.D. Ill. June 2,1994), aff'd, No. 94-2609, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS14413 (7th Cir. June 8, 1995) (unpublished order),57 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 1995) (table cite).

524 (b)(3), 15 U.S.C. §57b-2(f),(b)(7)(A)

Braswell, Inc. v. FTC, 2 GDS ¶81,092 (N.D. Ga.1980).

525 Duty to search Bratton v. FBI, No. 00-8591 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 30,2001).

526 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, failure to meet time limits

Brawer v. FBI, No. 75-1700 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 1977).

527 Publication Brecker v. Queens B'nai B'rith Hous. Dev. FundCo., 798 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1986).

528 (b)(1), E.O. 12065 Brein v. DOJ, 3 GDS ¶82,380 (D. Haw. 1982).

529 In camera inspection Brennan v. Tenn. Technological Univ., 76 Lab.Cas. (CCH) ¶33,237 (M.D. Tenn. 1975).

530 (b)(3), 35 U.S.C. §122, waiver ofexemption

Bretschneider v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks,No. 85-151 (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1985).

531 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), waiver of ex-emption (failure to assert in litiga-tion)

Bretti v. DOJ, No. 88-328 (N.D.N.Y. June 18,1990).

- 39 -

532 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), in camera in-spection

Bretti v. DOJ, No. 84-3537 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,1986).

533 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, §6104 Breuhaus v. IRS, No. 78-240 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 13,1979), aff'd, 609 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1979).

534 (b)(7)(C), attorney's fees, duty tosearch

Bricker v. FBI, No. 97-2742 (D.D.C. Mar. 26,1999), attorney's fees denied, 54 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1999), reconsideration denied, 63 F. Supp. 2d57 (D.D.C. 1999).

535 (a)(1), (a)(1)(C), (a)(1)(D) Bright v. INS, 837 F.2d 1330 (5th Cir. 1988).

536 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney-clientprivilege, deliberative process, sum-mary judgment, waiver of exemp-tion

Brinderson Constructors v. Army Corps of Eng'rs,No. 85-0905, 1986 WL 293230 (D.D.C. June 11,1986).

537 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, displace-ment of FOIA, Vaughn Index

Brink v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,195 (E.D. Mo. 1980).

538 (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), law enforcementpurpose

Brinkerhoff v. Montoya, 49 A.F.T.R. 2d 82-839, 3GDS ¶82,421 (N.D. Tex. 1981).

539 Duty to search, proper party defen-dant, summary judgment

Brinton v. Dep't of Labor, No. 87-7010 (E.D. Pa.Mar. 7, 1988), summary judgment granted (E.D. Pa.July 21, 1988).

540 (a)(6)(A), (b)(1), (b)(5), attorney-client privilege, deliberative proc-ess, exhaustion of administrativeremedies, reasonably segregable,waiver of exemption (administra-tive release)

Brinton v. Dep't of State, No. 78-0112 (D.D.C.Nov. 30, 1978), summary judgment granted, 476 F.Supp. 535 (D.D.C. 1979), aff'd, 636 F.2d 600 (D.C.Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 452 U.S. 905 (1981).

541 (a)(2)(A), (a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C),(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney work-product privilege

Bristol-Meyers Co. v. FTC, 598 F.2d 18 (D.C. Cir.1978).

542 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7) Bristol-Meyers Co. v. FTC, 284 F. Supp. 745 (D.D.C. 1968), aff'd in part, rev'd in part & remanded,424 F.2d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 400U.S. 824 (1970).

543 (b)(3), 49 U.S.C. §1504, (b)(5),deliberative process, personal rec-ords, referral of request to anotheragency, Vaughn Index

Bri. Airports Auth. v. CAB, No. 81-1072 (D. D.C.June 25, 1981), subsequent decision, 531 F. Supp.408 (D.D.C. 1982).

544 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(3), 49U.S.C. §1504, (b)(4), (b)(5), be-lated classification, deliberativeprocess, Vaughn Index, waiver ofexemption

Brit. Airports Auth. v. Dep't of State, 530 F. Supp.46 (D.D.C. 1981), on motion to alter or amend,No. 81-1519 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 1981).

545 Vaughn Index Brit. Airports Auth. v. Dep't of Transp., 2 GDS ¶82,099 (D.D.C. 1981).

- 40 -

546 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a),§6103(e)(1), (b)(7)(A), displace-ment of FOIA, fees, Vaughn Index

Britt v. IRS, 42 A.F.T.R. 2d 78-6198 (D.D.C.1978), supplemental decision, No. 77-1325 (D.D.C.June 13, 1979), additional issue decided (D.D.C.Apr. 23, 1981), partial summary judgment granted,547 F. Supp. 808 (D.D.C. 1982), partial summaryjudgment granted (D.D.C. June 9, 1983).

547 (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), attorneywork-product privilege, reasonablysegregable, summary judgment

Brittany Dyeing & Printing Corp. v. EPA, No. 91-2711 (D.D.C. Mar. 12, 1993).

548 Attorney's fees Britton v. AID, 3 GDS ¶82,548 (D.D.C. 1982).

549 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 12 U.S.C.§1437, 18 U.S.C. §1905, nexus test

Broadview Sav. & Loan Co. v. Fed. Home LoanBank Bd., No. C77-1195 (N.D. Ohio June 13,1979), remanded (N.D. Ohio July 16, 1979).

550 (b)(5), deliberative process Brock v. Campbell, No. 79-237 (S.D. Tex. July 24,1979).

551 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process Brockway v. Dep't of the Air Force, 370 F. Supp.738 (N.D. Iowa 1974), rev'd, 518 F.2d 1184 (8th

Cir. 1975).


Brooks v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 78-825 (E.D.Mo. Nov. 21, 1978).

553 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a), (b)(5),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), adequacy ofagency affidavit, mootness, reason-ably segregable

Brooks v. IRS, No. F-96-6284, 1997 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 13678 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 1997), summaryjudgment granted, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21075(E.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 1997).

554 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, nexus test

Brookwood Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Califano, 470 F.Supp. 1247 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd, 614 F.2d 1295(5th Cir. 1980).

555 (b)(5), attorney's fees, attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, incorporation by ref-erence

Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs v. Surface Transp. Bd.,No. 96-1153, 1997 WL 446261 (D.D.C. July 31,1997), attorney's fees awarded (D.D.C. Mar. 10,1998).

556 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, in camera af-fidavit

Browde v. Dep't of the Navy, 3 GDS ¶82,463 (D.D.C. 1982), aff'd, No. 82-2278 (D.C. Cir. June 10,1983) (unpublished memorandum), 713 F.2d 864(D.C. Cir. 1983) (table cite).

557 (b)(4), (b)(5) Brown v. DOE, 1 GDS ¶80,035 (E.D. Wash. 1980).

558 (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), exceptional cir-cumstances/due diligence, exhaus-tion of administrative remedies, in-teraction of (a)(2) & (a)(3), lawenforcement amendments (1986),law enforcement purpose, VaughnIndex

Brown v. DOJ, No. 3-88-216 (D. Minn. Dec. 16,1988).

559 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process Brown v. Dep't of Labor, No. 89-1220, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1780 (D.D.C. Feb. 15, 1991).

- 41 -

560 (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), adequacy ofagency affidavit, discovery/FOIAinterface, in camera inspection,Vaughn Index, waiver of exemp-tion

Brown v. FBI, 658 F.2d 71 (2d Cir. 1981).

561 (b)(5), publication Brown v. FTC, 2 GDS ¶82,026 (D.D.C. 1981).

562 Judicial records Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied on othergrounds, 465 U.S. 1100 (1984).

563 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process,waiver of exemption

Brownstein Zeidman & Schomer v. Dep't of the AirForce, 781 F. Supp. 31 (D.D.C. 1991).

564 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), deliberativeprocess, summary judgment

Brumley v. Dep't of Labor, No. C-87-398 (E.D. Ark.Jan. 28, 1988).

565 (a)(6)(A), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies

Brumley v. Dep't of Labor, No. C84-593 (E.D. Ark.Jan. 9, 1985), aff'd, 767 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1985).

566 Privacy Act access, (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality, duty to search, summaryjudgment

Brunskill v. DOJ, No. 99-3316 (D.D.C. Mar. 19,2001).

567 Adequacy of request Brunwasser v. Jacob, 453 F. Supp. 567 (W.D. Pa.1978).

568 Privacy Act access, (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), assurance ofconfidentiality, deliberative proc-ess, law enforcement amendments(1986), reasonably segregable, sum-mary judgment, waiver of exemp-tion

Bruscino v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 94-1955,1995 WL 444406 (D.D.C. May 12, 1995), summaryaffirmance granted in part, No. 95-5213, 1996 WL393101 (D.C. Cir. June 24, 1996).

569 (b)(5), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F), incamera inspection

Bruscino v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 91-2594 (D.D.C. Apr. 1, 1992).

570 (b)(5), deliberative process, incamera inspection, inter- or intra-agency memoranda, waiver of ex-emption (administrative release)

Brush Wellman, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor, 500 F. Supp.519 (N.D. Ohio 1980).

571 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E) Bryan v. DOJ, No. 77-1814 (D.D.C. Aug. 16,1978).

572 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403, summary judgment

Bryant v. CIA, No. 90-1163, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS8964 (D.D.C. June 28, 1991).

573 (b)(7)(A) Bryant v. IRS, No. 76-31 (D. Me. July 21, 1976).

574 (b)(5), deliberative process, ex-haustion of administrative reme-dies, Vaughn Index

Bryce v. Overseas Private Inv. Corp., No. A-96-595(W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 1998).

575 Exceptional circumstances/duediligence, expedited processing, resjudicata, Vaughn Index

Bubar v. DOJ, 2 GDS ¶81,104 (D.D.C. 1981), dis-missed, 3 GDS ¶83,227 (D.D.C. 1981).

- 42 -

576 Transfer of FOIA case Bubar v. DOJ, No. 79-0141 (D.D.C. May 31, 1979).

577 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(2), (b)(3),28 U.S.C. §534, Fed.R.Crim.P.6(e), (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),Vaughn Index

Bubar v. FBI, 2 GDS ¶82,069 (D.D.C. 1981), par-tial summary judgment granted, 3 GDS ¶82,450 (D.D.C. 1982), summary judgment granted, 3 GDS¶82,477 (D.D.C. 1982), dismissed, 3 GDS ¶82,478(D.D.C. 1982), attorney's fees denied, 3 GDS ¶83,218 (D.D.C. 1983).

578 Proper service of process Buckner v. CIA, No. 92-7177 (4th Cir. Apr. 1,1993) (unpublished memorandum), 991 F.2d 787(4th Cir. 1993) (table cite).

579 (b)(7)(C), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, proper party de-fendant, summary judgment

Buckner v. Huff, No. S93-1517 (D. Md. Nov. 15,1993).

580 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2),(b)(5), (b)(7)(E), adequacy ofagency affidavit, attorney-clientprivilege, attorney work-productprivilege, summary judgment

Buckner v. IRS, 25 F. Supp. 2d 893 (N.D. Ind.1998).

581 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementamendments (1986), summaryjudgment

Buehl v. FBI, No. 88-3724 (D.D.C. Apr. 30, 1990).

582 Agency Buemi v. Lewis, No. 94-1296 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 12,1994), aff'd, No. 94-4156 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 1995)(unpublished order), 51 F.3d 271 (6th Cir. 1995)(table cite).

583 (b)(4), (b)(6), attorney's fees Buffalo Evening News, Inc. v. SBA, 666 F. Supp.467 (W.D.N.Y. 1987).

584 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, summary judgment

Buffalo Evening News v. United States Border Pa-trol, 791 F. Supp. 386 (W.D.N.Y. 1992).

585 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney work-product privilege

Buffalo Newspaper Guild v. NLRB, 2 GDS ¶81,131(W.D.N.Y. 1980).

586 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C. §403,Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), duty to search

Buffone v. CIA, No. 80-2382 (D.D.C. Sept. 30,1981).

587 (b)(3), 28 U.S.C. §534, Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(6), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, pro se litigant

Buhovecky v. DOJ, No. 85-3169 (D.D.C. Feb. 5,1987), summary judgment granted in part, 700 F.Supp. 566 (D.D.C. 1988).

588 Attorney's fees Bullard v. Webster, 623 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1980),cert. denied, 451 U.S. 907 (1981).

- 43 -

589 Fee waiver Bumgarner v. Webster, No. 84-1460 (D.D.C. Aug.31, 1984).

590 (a)(1)(D), publication Bunge Corp. v. United States, 5 Cl. Ct. 511 (1984).

591 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),proper party defendant

Burch v. FLRA, No. C80-1740 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 10,1981), modified (N.D. Ohio May 6, 1981).

592 Jurisdiction Burcher v. McCauley, 871 F. Supp. 864 (E.D. Va.1994).

593 Personal records Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc. v. DOJ, 3 GDS ¶83,064(D.D.C. 1982), aff'd in part & rev'd in part, 742F.2d 1484 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

594 In camera inspection Bureau of Nat'l Affairs, Inc. v. IRS, 24 F. Supp. 2d90 (D.D.C. 1998).

595 (b)(7)(B), (b)(7)(C), law enforce-ment amendments (1986), sum-mary judgment, waiver of exemp-tion

Burge v. Eastburn, No. 88-41 (M.D. La. May 22,1989) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(M.D. La. June 30, 1989), aff'd, 934 F.2d 577 (5th

Cir. 1991).

596 Proper party defendant Burgos v. DOJ, No. 87-1222 (D.D.C. Aug. 19,1987).

597 (b)(4), (b)(5), agency records, at-torney's fees, deliberative process,summary judgment, waiver of ex-emption

Burka v. HHS, No. 92-2636 (D.D.C. Dec. 13,1993), remanded sua sponte, No. 94-5003 (D.C.Cir. June 15, 1994), on remand (D.D.C. Feb. 8,1995), rev'd & remanded, 87 F.3d 508 (D.C. Cir.1996), attorney's fees denied (D.D.C. Mar. 20,1997), aff'd, 142 F.3d 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

598 (b)(7)(D), assurance of confiden-tiality, in camera inspection, pro selitigant, Vaughn Index, waiver ofexemption

Burkall v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 86-2491 (D.D.C.Oct. 27, 1986), summary judgment granted (D.D.C.June 30, 1987).

599 Duty to search Burkall v. United States Marshals Serv., No. 86-1703 (D.D.C. Sept. 26, 1986).

600 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confiden-tiality, deliberative process, duty tosearch, FOIA/PA interface, "Glo-mar" denial, law enforcement pur-pose, mootness, summary judg-ment, Vaughn Index

Burke v. DEA, No. 96-1739 (D.D.C. Mar. 31,1998), subsequent opinion sub nom. Burke v. DOJ,1999 WL 1032814 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 1999).

601 Attorney's fees, fees, fee waiver,proper party defendant

Burke v. Kelley, No. 75-336 (D. Kan. Feb. 13,1976), attorney's fees awarded sub nom. Burke v.DOJ, 432 F. Supp. 251 (D. Kan. 1976), aff'd, 559F.2d 1182 (10th Cir. 1977).

602 (b)(4), (b)(5), deliberative process,in camera inspection, reasonablysegregable, summary judgment

Burke Energy Corp. v. DOE, 583 F. Supp. 507 (D.Kan. 1984).

- 44 -


Burkhart v. FBI, No. 77-1675 (D.D.C. Jan. 10,1979).

604 Venue, 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) Burkhart v. FBI, No. 77-3246 (D. Kan. July 10,1978).

605 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), delibera-tive process, incorporation by ref-erence, law enforcement amend-ments (1986)

Burkins v. United States, 865 F. Supp. 1480 (D.Colo. 1994).

606 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), assurance of confiden-tiality, in camera inspection

Burks v. DOJ, No. 83-189 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9,1985).

607 No record within scope of request Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. EPA, No. 91-1636 (D.D.C. June 15, 1992).

608 Adequacy of agency affidavit Burns v. Comm'r, Nos. 84-170, 84-171 (D. Ariz.Dec. 13, 1984).

609 Duty to search Burns v. DOJ, No. 99-3173 (D.D.C. Feb. 1, 2001).

610 (b)(2), (b)(3), 26 U.S.C.§6103(b)(2), (b)(7)(E), attorney'sfees, "mosaic"

Burns v. IRS, No. 85-1027 (D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 1985),appeal dismissed on procedural grounds, No. 85-2833 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 1986).

611 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), de novo review, dis-cretionary release, promise of con-fidentiality

Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Ctr. v. UnitedStates, 617 F. Supp. 279 (S.D. Fla. 1985).

612 (b)(7)(C), "Glomar" denial, sum-mary judgment

Buros v. HHS, No. 93-571 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26,1994).

613 Jurisdiction Burrell v. Rodgers, 438 F. Supp. 25 (W.D. Okla.1977).

614 Fee waiver Burriss v. CIA, 524 F. Supp. 448 (M.D. Tenn.1981).

615 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 5U.S.C. §552a(j)(2), (b)(7)(A),failure to meet time limits, FOIA/PA interface, summary judgment,waiver of exemption

Burroughs v. BATF, No. 83-C-1095 (N.D. Ill. Jan.18, 1984) (consolidated).


Burroughs Corp. v. Brown, 501 F. Supp. 375 (E.D.Va. 1980), rev'd & remanded sub nom. Gen. Mo-tors Corp. v. Marshall, 654 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1981).


Burroughs Corp. v. Schlesinger, 403 F. Supp. 633(E.D. Va. 1975).


Bush v. FBI, No. 85-1055 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 24,1985).

- 45 -

619 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), exhaustion of adminis-trative remedies, failure to meettime limits, proper party defendant,pro se litigant

Bush v. Webster, No. 83-0374 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 18,1985), aff'd, No. 85-4262 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 1986)(unpublished memorandum), 783 F.2d 1061 (5th


620 Fees, fee waiver Bussey v. Bresson, 2 GDS ¶81,228 (D.D.C. 1981).

621 Privacy Act access, (b)(7),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),assurance of confidentiality, duty tosearch, exhaustion of administra-tive remedies, Vaughn Index

Butler v. Dep't of the Air Force, 888 F. Supp. 174(D.D.C. 1995), summary judgment granted, No. 94-2306, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4062 (D.D.C. Mar.31, 1996), aff'd sub nom. Butler v. United States AirForce, No. 96-5111 (D.C. Cir. May 6, 1997) (percuriam).

622 (b)(2), (b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §2510,Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F), attorneywork-product privilege, duty tosearch, law enforcement amend-ments (1986)

Butler v. DOJ, No. 86-2255, 1994 WL 55621 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 1994), appeal voluntarily dismissed,No. 94-5078 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 8, 1994).

623 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),assurance of confidentiality, attor-ney's fees, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), summary judgment

Butler v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 95-1931, 1997U.S. Dist. LEXIS 802 (D.D.C. Jan. 14, 1997).

624 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, fee waiver

Butler v. IRS, No. C78-1582 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 25,1979).

625 Jurisdiction Butler v. Marshall, No. 92-16955 (9th Cir. June 4,1993) (unpublished memorandum), 995 F.2d 230(9th Cir. 1993) (table cite).

626 Adequacy of request, duty tosearch, mootness, summary judg-ment

Butler v. Nelson, No. 96-48-M, 1997 WL 580331(D. Mont. May 15, 1997).

627 Agency Butler v. United States Prob., No. 95-1705, 1996U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5241 (D.D.C. Apr. 22, 1996).

628 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Caginalp v. IRS, No. 80-1749 (D.D.C. June 15,1982).

629 (b)(5), exhaustion of administra-tive remedies, mootness, stay pend-ing appeal

Caifano v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 85-3513 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 1986), dismissed (D.D.C.Sept. 18, 1986).

630 (a)(6)(A), exceptional circum-stances/due diligence, failure tomeet time limits, Vaughn Index

Caifano v. Wampler, 588 F. Supp. 1392 (N.D. Ill.1984).

631 (b)(7)(A) Cain v. FBI, 2 GDS ¶81,220 (D.D.C. 1981).

632 (b)(5) Cairo Chamber of Commerce v. ICC, 2 GDS ¶81,405 (S.D. Ill. 1981).

- 46 -

633 (b)(3), Pub.L.No. 100-460, §630,no record within scope of request,summary judgment

Cal-Almond, Inc. v. USDA, No. 89-574 (E.D. Cal.Dec. 8, 1989), rev'd & remanded, 960 F.2d 105 (9th

Cir. 1992), on remand (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 1993),modification denied (E.D. Cal. July 12, 1993), ap-peal dismissed by stipulation, No. 93-16727 (9th Cir.Oct. 26, 1994).

634 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103,(b)(7)(A), displacement of FOIA

Cal-Am Corp. v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,189 (C.D. Cal.1980).

635 (b)(4) Calhoun v. Lyng, 864 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1988).

636 (b)(2), (b)(5), deliberative process,incorporation by reference, reason-ably segregable, summary judgment

Cal. Save our Streams Council v. FERC, No. 87-166 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 1987).

637 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(F), incamera inspection, summary judg-ment

Callahan v. Executive Office for United States At-torneys, No. 98-1826 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2001).


Calon v. Apfel, No. 98-3190, 1999 WL 415340(10th Cir. Apr. 26, 1999) (unpublished order), 185F.3d 873 (10th Cir. 1999) (table cite).

639 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(6), at-torney's fees

Cameron v. CIA, No. C76-1741 (N.D. Ga. Sept.30, 1977), attorney's fees denied (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17,1977).

640 Summary judgment Cameron v. DOJ, No. 94-0566 (D.D.C. June 26,1995).

641 Mootness Cameron v. Egger, No. 84-1122 (S.D.N.Y. May 7,1984).

642 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Camp v. Reno, No. 99-2213 (D.D.C. June 1, 2001),summary judgment granted sub nom. Camp v. DOJ(D.D.C. Mar. 5, 2001).

643 Reverse FOIA, (b)(6), preliminaryinjunction, reasonably segregable,waiver of exemption

Campaign for Family Farms v. Glickman, No. 99-1165 (D. Minn. Sept. 20, 1999), aff'd & remanded,200 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 2000), on remand sub nom.Campaign for Family Farms v. Veneman, 2001 WL1631459 (D. Minn. July 19, 2001).

644 Vaughn Index Campaign for Responsible Transplantation v. FDA,180 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2001).

645 Fee waiver Campanille v. DOJ, No. 79-142 (D.D.C. Mar. 15,1979).

646 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), attorney'sfees

Campbell v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. 75-494 (D.Colo. 1975), aff'd, 539 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1976).

- 47 -

647 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, E.O. 12958,(b)(2), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C.§403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),adequacy of agency affidavit, ade-quacy of request, assurance of con-fidentiality, duty to search, exhaus-tion of administrative remedies, feewaiver (Reform Act), law enforce-ment amendments (1986), lawenforcement purpose

Campbell v. DOJ, No. 89-3016 (D.D.C. Jan. 21,1992), summary judgment granted in part, 1996WL 554511 (D.D.C. Sept. 19, 1996), on in camerainspection (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 1997), rev'd & remand-ed, 164 F.3d 20 (D.C. Cir. 1999), summary judg-ment granted in part (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 2001).

648 Summary judgment Campbell v. Frank, No. 88-4820 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30,1989).

649 (b)(2), (b)(6), (b)(7) Campbell v. Guy, No. 5-71646 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2,1975), aff'd sub nom. Campbell v. Attorney Gen.,No. 75-2486 (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 1976) (unpublishedmemorandum), 539 F.2d 711 (6th Cir. 1976) (tablecite).

650 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(B), in cameraaffidavit, in camera inspection

Campbell v. HHS, 518 F. Supp. 1114 (D.D.C.1981), rev'd & remanded, 682 F.2d 256 (D.C. Cir.1982).

651 Fees (Reform Act) Campbell v. Johnson, No. 91-0690 (D.D.C. June11, 1991), summary affirmance granted, No. 91-5217 (D.C. Cir. May 8, 1992) (unpublished order),966 F.2d 701 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (table cite), reh'gdenied (D.C. Cir. July 3, 1992).

652 Fee waiver (Reform Act), summaryjudgment

Campbell v. Sec'y of the Army, No. 88-0860 (D.D.C. Sept. 28, 1988).

653 Attorney's fees, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies, pro se liti-gant

Campbell v. Unknown Power Superintendent of theFlathead Irrigation & Power Project, No. 91-35104(9th Cir. Apr. 22, 1992) (unpublished memoran-dum), 961 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1992) (table cite).

654 Jurisdiction Campos v. INS, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (S.D. Fla.1998).

655 (b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),attorney-client privilege, attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, inter- or intra-agencymemoranda, proper party defen-dant

Canadian Javelin v. SEC, 501 F. Supp. 898 (D.D.C.1980).

656 Discovery/FOIA interface Canal Auth. v. Froehlke, 81 F.R.D. 609 (M.D. Fla.1979).

657 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), de novo review

Canal Ref. Co. v. Corrallo, 616 F. Supp. 1035 (D.D.C. 1985).

658 Mootness Candito v. DEA, No. 3:95-1692 (D. Conn. Aug. 11,1997).

- 48 -

659 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), assurance ofconfidentiality, duty to search, rea-sonably segregable, summary judg-ment

Canning v. DOJ, 919 F. Supp. 451 (D.D.C. 1994),summary judgment granted, No. 92-0463 (D.D.C.June 23, 1995).

660 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, adequacy ofagency affidavit, duty to search, incamera affidavit, Vaughn Index

Canning v. DOJ, No. 92-0503 (D.D.C. July 15,1992), summary judgment granted, 848 F. Supp.1037 (D.D.C. 1994).

661 (b)(2), (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(5), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(E), attorney work-productprivilege, deliberative process, dutyto search, law enforcement amend-ments (1986)

Canning v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 94-2704 (D.D.C. May 7, 1998), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2001).

662 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a),(b)(7)(C), duty to search

Canning v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 91-2324 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 1993).

663 Attorney's fees Cantino v. NLRB, No. 81-1554 (D. Mass. Mar. 18,1982).

664 (b)(7)(A), FOIA as a discoverytool, injunction of agency proceed-ing pending resolution of FOIAclaim

Capital Cities Communication, Inc. v. NLRB, 409F. Supp. 971 (N.D. Cal. 1976).

665 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C) Capital Times Co. v. NLRB, 483 F. Supp. 247 (E.D.Wis. 1980).

666 (a)(2)(C), (b)(2), (b)(7), equitablediscretion

Caplan v. BATF, 445 F. Supp. 699 (S.D.N.Y.1978), aff'd on other grounds, 587 F.2d 544 (2d Cir.1978).

667 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), in camera in-spection, law enforcement amend-ments (1986), law enforcementpurpose

Cappabianca v. Comm'r, United States CustomsServ., 847 F. Supp. 1558 (M.D. Fla. 1994).

668 (a)(1), (a)(2)(C), publication Capuano v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 843 F.2d 56(1st Cir. 1988).

669 Waiver of exemption (failure to as-sert in litigation)

Carabetta Enters., Inc. v. Harris, 86 Lab. Cas.(CCH) ¶33,786 (D.D.C. 1979).

670 Exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, expedited processing

Cardillo v. Smith, No. 84-3906 (D.D.C. Apr. 16,1985), subsequent decision (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 1985).

671 (b)(6), summary judgment Cardona v. INS, No. 93-3912, 1995 WL 68747(N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 1995).

672 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2),(b)(7)(E), attorney's fees

Career Guidance Found. v. IRS, No. 01CV0109,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3840 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 13,2002).

- 49 -

673 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(4), (b)(5),deliberative process, mootness,promise of confidentiality, waiverof exemption (unauthorized re-lease)

Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States Cust-oms Serv., 1 GDS ¶79,162 (D.D.C. 1979), aff'd inpart, rev'd in part, 663 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

674 (b)(5), attorney-client privilege,deliberative process, reasonably se-gregable, Vaughn Index

Carlton v. Dep't of Interior, No. 97-2105 (D.D.C.Sept. 3, 1998), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 98-5518 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 13, 1998).

675 Adequacy of request, no recordwithin scope of request

Carnessale v. Reno, No. 95-0279 (C.D. Cal. May 2,1995).

676 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(5),deliberative process, in camera in-spection, reasonably segregable,summary judgment, waiver of ex-emption

Carney v. CIA, No. 88-0602 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28,1991) (magistrate's recommendation), supplementalrecommendation (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 1991), adop-ted (C.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 1991).

677 (b)(5), (b)(6), adequacy of agencyaffidavit, discovery in FOIA litiga-tion, fee waiver (Reform Act),summary judgment

Carney v. DOJ, No. 92-6204 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 26,1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 19 F.3d 807 (2dCir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 823 (1994).

678 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4) Carolina Biological Supply Co. v. USDA, No. 2:93-0113 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 2, 1993).

679 Privacy Act access, (b)(3), 26U.S.C. §6103(e)(7), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E), law enforce-ment purpose, summary judgment

Carp v. IRS, No. 00-5992, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS2921 (D.N.J. Jan. 28, 2002).

680 Attorney's fees Carpa v. FBI, No. 00-2025 (D.D.C. Oct. 15, 2001).

681 Duty to search Carreras v. United States Customs Serv., No. 96-1435 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 1997), reconsideration de-nied (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 1997), summary affirmancegranted, No. 97-5174 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 23, 1997).

682 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§2518(8), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e),(b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E), (b)(7)(F),attorney's fees, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies, failure tomeet time limits, fees

Carroll v. DOJ, No. 76-2038 (D.D.C. July 29,1977), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. May 26,1978).

683 Mootness Carroll v. IRS, No. C90-270 (N.D. Ohio July 2,1990).

684 (b)(5), adequacy of agency affi-davit, deliberative process, reason-ably segregable, Vaughn Index,waiver of exemption

Carroll v. IRS, No. 82-3524 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 1983),partial summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Jan. 31,1986).

685 Attorney's fees Carson v. Criminal Div. of DOJ, No. 79-93 (D.Conn. Nov. 2, 1979).

- 50 -

686 (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), judicial records, improp-er withholding, mootness, waiver ofexemption (administrative release),waiver of exemption (failure to as-sert in litigation)

Carson v. DOJ, No. 79-0140 (D.D.C. July 25,1979), aff'd in part, rev'd in part & remanded, 631F.2d 1008 (D.C. Cir. 1980), on remand, 2 GDS¶82,011 (D.D.C. 1981).

687 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Carson v. DOJ, No. 78-2431 (D.D.C. Feb. 16,1979), dismissed, 1 GDS ¶80,276 (D.D.C. 1980).

688 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Carson v. DOJ, No. 79-0233 (D.D.C. Feb. 16,1979), summary judgment granted, 1 GDS ¶80,275(D.D.C. 1980).

689 In camera inspection Carson v. United States Marshals Serv., 1 GDS ¶80,275 (D.D.C. 1980).

690 (a)(1)(D) Carter v. Blum, 493 F. Supp. 368 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).

691 (b)(5), deliberative process, sum-mary judgment

Carter v. Dep't of Commerce, 186 F. Supp. 2d 1147(D. Or. 2001).

692 (b)(5), (b)(6), adequacy of agencyaffidavit, attorney work-productprivilege, in camera inspection, rea-sonably segregable

Carter v. Dep't of Commerce, No. 85-0975 (D.D.C.July 23, 1986), summary affirmance granted in part,No. 86-5556 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 1986), aff'd in part& remanded in part, 830 F.2d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1987).


Carter v. DEA, No. 82-2465 (D.D.C. Dec. 22,1982).

694 Duty to search Carter v. Nat'l Sec. Agency, No. 93-3847 (D. Md.Jan. 10, 1995), aff'd, 54 F.3d 772 (4th Cir. 1995)(per curiam).

695 Privacy Act access Carter v. Orr, No. 81-155 (W.D. Okla. Apr. 29,1981).

696 Attorney's fees, mootness Carter v. VA, 780 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1986).

697 Attorney's fees Carver v. IRS, No. 83-3716 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 10,1984), attorney's fees denied (E.D. Mich. Mar. 25,1985), reconsideration denied (E.D. Mich. Apr. 25,1985).

698 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2),§6103(e), §6103(e)(7), summaryjudgment

Casa Investors v. Gibbs, No. 88-2485, 1990 WL180703 (D.D.C. Oct. 11, 1990).

699 (b)(5), inter- or intra-agency mem-oranda

Casanova-Cruz v. United States Parole Comm'n,No. 86-2936 (D.D.C. Nov. 13, 1986), motion to re-open denied (D.D.C. May 20, 1987).

700 (b)(5), deliberative process, discov-ery/FOIA interface

Caspe v. United States, 1 GDS ¶80,048 (S.D. Iowa1980).

701 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), proper partydefendant

Castaneda v. United States, No. 83-0969 (S.D. Cal.Nov. 16, 1983), rev'd, 757 F.2d 1010 (9th Cir.1985), amended, 773 F.2d 251 (9th Cir. 1985).

702 Privacy Act access Castle v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. 77-1544 (D.D.C.Jan. 23, 1979).

- 51 -

703 Privacy Act access, personal rec-ords

Castrey v. McMurray, 3 GDS ¶83,283 (D.D.C.1983).

704 (b)(5), deliberative process, waiverof exemption

Catchpole v. Dep't of Transp., No. 2:96-118 (S.D.Ga. Nov. 11, 1996), rev'd & remanded, No. 97-8058 (11th Cir. Feb. 25, 1998).

705 Attorney's fees, exhaustion of ad-ministrative remedies

Cazalas v. DOJ, No. 79-2088 (E.D. La. Jan. 9,1980), rev'd in part & remanded, 660 F.2d 612 (5th

Cir. 1981), on remand, 2 GDS ¶82,092 (E.D. La.1981), rev'd & remanded, 709 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir.1983).

706 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4), summaryjudgment, voluntary submissions

CC Distribs., Inc. v. Kinzinger, No. 94-1330, 1995WL 405445 (D.D.C. June 28, 1995).

707 (b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), summary judgment

Ceballos-Peralta v. DEA, No. 92-239 (W.D. Pa.July 28, 1994) (magistrate's recommendation),adopted (W.D. Pa. Aug. 31, 1994).

708 (b)(7)(A), discovery in FOIA liti-gation, exceptional circumstances/due diligence, jurisdiction, in cam-era inspection

Cecola v. FBI, No. 94-4866, 1995 WL 143548(N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 1995), summary judgmentgranted in part, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13253 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 7, 1995), case transferred, 1995 WL645620 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 1995).

709 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905

Cedars Nursing & Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. AetnaLife Ins. & Cas. Co., 472 F. Supp. 296 (E.D. Pa.1979).

710 Privacy Act access, reverse FOIA Cell Assocs., Inc. v. Nat'l Insts. of Health, 579 F.2d1155 (9th Cir. 1978).

711 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, E.O. 12065,(b)(2), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D),(b)(7)(F), assurance of confidenti-ality

Cellini v. FBI, No. 77-1933 (D.D.C. June 6, 1979).

712 (b)(6) Celmins v. Dep't of the Treasury, 457 F. Supp. 13(D.D.C. 1977).

713 (b)(5), deliberative process Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Bowers, 1 GDS ¶80,217 (D.D.C. 1980).

714 (b)(5), (b)(7), (b)(7)(A), attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, inter- or intra-agencymemoranda, law enforcement pur-pose, settlement documents

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. DOJ, 576 F. Supp. 739 (D.D.C. 1983), amended, 3 GDS ¶83,240 (D.D.C.1983), stay granted, 3 GDS ¶83,241 (D.D.C. 1983).

715 (b)(5), in camera inspection, moot-ness

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. EPA, 3 GDS ¶83,066 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd, 731 F.2d 16 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

716 (b)(4), adequacy of agency affida-vit, customary treatment, summaryjudgment, voluntary submissions

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat'l Highway Traffic SafetyAdmin., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2000), remand-ed, 244 F.3d 144 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

717 (b)(6), summary judgment Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Nat'l Highway Traffic SafetyAdmin., 809 F. Supp. 148 (D.D.C. 1993).

- 52 -

718 (b)(4), proper party defendant Ctr. for Dev. Policy v. Exp.-Imp. Bank of the UnitedStates, 2 GDS ¶82,201 (D.D.C. 1982).

719 (b)(7), case or controversy Ctr. for Nat'l Policy Review on Race & Urban Issuesv. Richardson, No. 71-2177 (D.D.C. Dec. 8, 1972),rev'd sub nom. Ctr. for Nat'l Policy Review on Race& Urban Issues v. Weinberger, 502 F.2d 370 (D.C.Cir. 1974), dismissed on remand (D.D.C. Sept. 9,1974), aff'd, 534 F.2d 351 (D.C. Cir. 1976).

720 (b)(1), E.O. 12065, (b)(5), Con-gressional records, deliberativeprocess, discovery in FOIA litiga-tion, exceptional circumstances/due diligence, failure to meet timelimits, fee waiver, jurisdiction, "mo-saic," prompt disclosure

Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. CIA, No. 80-1235 (D.D.C. Jan. 8, 1981), on motion for summary judg-ment, 2 GDS ¶81,285 (D.D.C. 1981), subsequentdecision, 3 GDS ¶82,256 (D.D.C. 1982), partialsummary judgment granted (D.D.C. May 17, 1983),remanded, 711 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1983), partialsummary judgment granted, 577 F. Supp. 584 (D.D.C. 1983).

721 Discovery in FOIA litigation Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. DOJ, No. 01-2500,2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2983 (D.D.C. Feb. 21,2002).

722 (b)(1), E.O. 12356 Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. Dep't of State, No. 86-0295 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 1987).

723 (b)(1), E.O. 12356, (b)(3), 50U.S.C. §403(d)(3), §403g, (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(E), deliberativeprocess, discovery in FOIA litiga-tion, exceptional circumstances/due diligence, law enforcementamendments (1986), law enforce-ment purpose, summary judgment

Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. INS, No. 87-2068 (D.D.C. July 27, 1988), Vaughn Index ordered (D.D.C.Apr. 12, 1989), summary judgment granted, 1990WL 236133 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 1990).

724 Discovery in FOIA litigation Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. Office of Indep. Coun-sel, No. 91-1691 (D.D.C. Mar. 2, 1993).


Ctr. for the Def. of Free Enter. v. President'sComm'n on Ams. Outdoors, No. C87-32 (W.D.Wash. Mar. 31, 1987).

726 (b)(4), (b)(7), (b)(7)(C), exhaus-tion of administrative remedies,fees (Reform Act)

Ctr. to Prevent Handgun Violence v. Dep't of theTreasury, 981 F. Supp. 20 (D.D.C. 1997), attorney'sfees granted, 49 F. Supp. 2d 3 (D.D.C. 1999).

727 (b)(3), 41 U.S.C. §253b(m),(b)(4), summary judgment

Ctr. for Pub. Integrity v. DOE, 191 F. Supp. 2d 187(D.D.C. 2002).

728 Privacy Act access, (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7), attorney work-product priv-ilege, duty to search, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies, reasonablysegregable, summary judgment

Centracchio v. FBI, No. 92-0357 (D.D.C. Mar. 16,1993).

729 (b)(5), (b)(6) Cent. Pa. Legal Servs. v. HHS, No. 86-2621 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 1987).

- 53 -

730 (b)(3), Fed.R.Crim.P. 6(e), (b)(5),(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), deliberativeprocess, in camera inspection, judi-cial records

Cerella v. Bell, No. 79-6426 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2,1984) (magistrate's recommendation), adopted(S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 1984).

731 (b)(1), belated classification, incamera inspection

Cervase v. Dep't of State, No. 76-2338 (D.N.J. Apr.1, 1977), aff'd, No. 77-1627 (3d Cir. 1978) (unpub-lished memorandum), 573 F.2d 1301 (3d Cir. 1978)(table cite).

732 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C.§403, (b)(6), duty to search, incamera inspection

Cerveny v. CIA, 445 F. Supp. 772 (D. Colo. 1978).

733 Dismissal for failure to prosecute Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Hall, No. 84-C-10850 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 19, 1985).

734 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D), burden of proof, injunc-tion of agency proceeding pendingresolution of FOIA claim, jurisdic-tion

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. NLRB, 405 F. Supp. 1042(D. Kan. 1975), rev'd, 542 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1976).

735 Agency, mootness Chaklos v. Reich, No. 95-1763 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 20,1998).

736 (a)(2)(C), (b)(3), 26 U.S.C.§6103, §7213, (b)(5), (b)(6),(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C), attorney'sfees, deliberative process

Chamberlain v. Alexander, 419 F. Supp. 235 (S.D.Ala. 1976), modified sub nom. Chamberlain v.Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied,444 U.S. 842 (1979).

737 (b)(7)(C), duty to search, inter-action of (a)(2) & (a)(3)

Chamberlain v. DOJ, 957 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C.1997), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5095,1997 WL 583885 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 22, 1997) (un-published order), 124 F.3d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1997)(table cite).

738 FOIA as a discovery tool Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Le-gal Aid Soc'y, 423 U.S. 1309 (1975).

739 Vaughn Index Chamber of Commerce of the United States v.OMB, 1 GDS ¶80,240 (D.D.C. 1980), dismissed,No. 80-1384 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 1981).

740 Case or controversy Chambers v. Carlson, No. 87-0393 (D.D.C. June16, 1987).

741 (b)(5) Chambers v. United States Parole Comm'n, No. 86-1704 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 1986), stay pending appeal(D.D.C. Nov. 12, 1986).


Chandler v. IRS, No. 90-35501 (9th Cir. Mar. 5,1991) (unpublished memorandum), 927 F.2d 608(9th Cir. 1991) (table cite).

743 Mootness Chandler v. IRS, No. 90-1062 (D. Or. Apr. 16,1991).


Chang v. INS, No. 88-450 (S.D. Tex. May 13,1988).

- 54 -


Chapman v. Co-Dir., DOJ, No. 94-103 (D. Minn.June 19, 1995) (magistrate's recommendation),adopted (D. Minn. June 29, 1995).

746 (b)(6), exhaustion of administra-tive remedies

Chappell v. Hodgson, No. 15-480 (D. Conn. July19, 1973).

747 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, (b)(4), discretionary re-lease, promise of confidentiality

Charles River Park "A," Inc. v. HUD, 360 F. Supp.212 (D.D.C. 1973), rev'd & remanded, 519 F.2d935 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

748 (b)(3), 42 U.S.C. §2000e,(b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(D)

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. Perry, 571F.2d 195 (4th Cir. 1978).

749 (b)(7)(C) Chasse v. DOJ, Nos. 1:98-207, 1:98-208 (D. Vt.Jan. 14, 1999) (magistrate's recommendation),adopted (D. Vt. Feb. 9, 1999), aff'd sub nom. De-vine v. United States, 202 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2000).

750 (b)(7)(A), injunction of agencyproceeding pending resolution ofFOIA claim

Chassen Bakers, Inc. v. NLRB, 91 L.R.R.M. 2345(M.D. Pa. 1975).

751 Exhaustion of administrative rem-edies, jurisdiction

Chatigny v. United States, No. 90-0844 (C.D. Cal.Nov. 27, 1990).

752 Fee waiver, pro se litigant Chauvin v. HHS, No. 83-9073 (S.D.N.Y. May 22,1984).

753 (a)(1)(D), publication Chaves County Home Health Servs. v. Sullivan,732 F. Supp. 188 (D.D.C. 1990).

754 (b)(5) Chavez v. DOJ, No. 85-2988 (D.D.C. Sept. 19,1986).

755 (b)(7) Chavkin v. Alexander, 401 F. Supp. 817 (S.D.N.Y.1975).

756 (a)(2) Checkosky v. SEC, 23 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 1994).

757 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(e)(7),displacement of FOIA, fee waiver

Cheek v. IRS, No. 83-C-6851 (N.D. Ill. June 11,1984).

758 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(a)(1),§6103(e)(7), displacement ofFOIA, FOIA/PA interface

Cheek v. IRS, 703 F.2d 271 (7th Cir. 1983).

759 (b)(5), attorney-client privilege,attorney work-product privilege,deliberative process, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies, summaryjudgment, waiver of exemption

Chemcentral/Grand Rapids Corp. v. EPA, No. 91-C-4380 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 1992) (magistrate's rec-ommendation), adopted, 1992 WL 281322 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 5, 1992).

760 (b)(5), deliberative process Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Consumer Prod. SafetyComm'n, 600 F. Supp. 114 (D.D.C. 1984), motionto amend denied, No. 84-1852 (D.D.C. Feb. 14,1985), renewed motion to amend denied (D.D.C.Mar. 12, 1985).

- 55 -

761 (b)(5), inter- or intra-agency mem-oranda, reasonably segregable,waiver of exemption (administra-tive release)

Chem. Mfrs. Ass'n v. OSHA, No. 80-0605 (D.D.C.Dec. 12, 1980).

762 Reverse FOIA, (b)(4), voluntarysubmissions

Chem. Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. O'Leary, No. 94-2230,1995 WL 115894 (D.D.C. Feb. 28, 1995).

763 (a)(1)(D), publication Chen v. Slattery, 862 F. Supp. 814 (E.D.N.Y.1994).

764 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(E) Cheney v. FBI, No. 86-C-126 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 6,1987).

765 Privacy Act access, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies, FOIA/PAinterface

Cheney v. Graham, No. 86-C-197 (W.D. Wis. Apr.21, 1986), dismissed sub nom. Cheney v. DOJ(W.D. Wis. Apr. 6, 1987).

766 (b)(3), 10 U.S.C. §130, (b)(5), de-liberative process, exhaustion ofadministrative remedies, in camerainspection, mootness

Chenkin v. Dep't of the Army, No. 1:93-494, 1994U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20907 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 14, 1994),summary affirmance denied, No. 94-7109 (3d Cir.Aug. 26, 1994), aff'd as moot, 61 F.3d 894 (3d Cir.1995).

767 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103, displace-ment of FOIA

Chermack v. IRS, 2 GDS ¶81,171 (N.D. Tex.1981).

768 (b)(3), 7 U.S.C. §2276, agency rec-ords, attorney's fees

Chesapeake Bay Found. v. USDA, No. 89-1943 (D.D.C. Mar. 26, 1990), subsequent order (D.D.C.Nov. 26, 1990), attorney's fees awarded, 785 F.Supp. 1030 (D.D.C. 1992), rev'd & remanded, 11F.3d 211 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S.927 (1994), renewed motion for attorney's feesgranted, 917 F. Supp. 64 (D.D.C. 1996), rev'd, 108F.3d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

769 (a)(1)(D), (a)(2)(A) Cheshire Hosp. v. N.H.-Vt. Hospitalization Serv.,689 F.2d 1112 (1st Cir. 1982).

770 Attorney's fees Chestnut v. Farmers Home Admin., No. 83-6399(D. Or. Sept. 14, 1984) (magistrate's recommenda-tion), adopted (D. Or. Oct. 9, 1984).

771 Vaughn Index Chetwynd v. FBI, No. 88-2666 (D.D.C. Nov. 18,1988), summary judgment granted (D.D.C. Apr. 24,1989).

772 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905

Chevron Chem. Co. v. Costle, 443 F. Supp. 1024(N.D. Cal. 1978).

773 (b)(4), summary judgment Chi. Tribune Co. v. FAA, No. 97 C 2363, 1998 WL242611 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 1998).

774 (b)(5), (b)(6), attorney-client priv-ilege, agency records, attorneywork-product privilege, delibera-tive process, improper withholding,waiver of exemption

Chi. Tribune Co. v. HHS, No. 95-C-3917, 1997U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2308 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 1997)(magistrate's recommendation), adopted (N.D. Ill.Mar. 28, 1997), reconsideration denied (N.D. Ill.Mar. 13, 1998), judgment enforced, 1999 WL299875 (N.D. Ill. May 4, 1999), stay denied (N.D.Ill. May 21, 1999), emergency stay denied, No. 99-2162 (7th Cir. June 9, 1999).

- 56 -

775 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), attorney work-product privilege, mootness, properparty defendant, waiver of exemp-tion

Chilivis v. SEC, 1 GDS ¶79,208 (N.D. Ga. 1979),aff'd, 673 F.2d 1205 (11th Cir. 1982).

776 (b)(6), attorney's fees Chin v. Dep't of the Air Force, No. 97-2176 (W.D.La. June 24, 1999), aff'd, No. 99-31237 (5th Cir.June 15, 2000).

777 Jurisdiction Chiron Corp. v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 27 F.Supp. 2d 257 (D.D.C. 1998), petition dismissed,198 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

778 (b)(5), deliberative process Chocolate Mfrs. Ass'n v. FTC, Nos. 78-1240, 78-1879 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 1978).

779 No record within scope of request Chodos v. FBI, No. 78-2020 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,1979).

780 (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),exceptional circumstances/due dil-igence, FOIA as a discovery tool,waiver of exemption

Choe v. Smith, No. C87-1764 (W.D. Wash. Apr.20, 1989), reconsideration denied (W.D. Wash.June 6, 1989), aff'd on other grounds, No. 90-35339(9th Cir. June 17, 1991) (unpublished memoran-dum), 935 F.2d 274 (9th Cir. 1991) (table cite).

781 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6130(a),(b)(7)(C), attorney's fees, disciplin-ary proceedings, duty to search,summary judgment

Chourre v. IRS, No. C01-5171, 2002 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 2925 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 4, 2002).

782 (b)(7)(C), summary judgment,waiver of exemption

Christian v. Coleman, No. 90-1814 (D.D.C. Mar.17, 1992).

783 (b)(5), attorney work-product priv-ilege, discovery/FOIA interface,duty to search

Christmann & Welborn v. DOE, 589 F. Supp. 584(N.D. Tex. 1984).

784 (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F),summary judgment

Christy v. DOJ, No. 94-2632 (D.D.C. July 31,1995).

785 (b)(6) Christy v. United States, 68 F.R.D. 375 (N.D. Tex.1975).

786 Attorney's fees Chrysler Corp. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 1 GDS ¶80,110 (D.D.C. 1980).

787 Reverse FOIA Chrysler Corp. v. Marshall, No. 74-850 (E.D. Mo.Nov. 29, 1978).

788 (b)(5), (b)(7)(A), (b)(7)(C),(b)(7)(D)

Chrysler Corp. v. NLRB, 92 L.R.R.M. 3191 (E.D.Mich. 1976).

789 Reverse FOIA, (b)(3), 18 U.S.C.§1905, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-8(e), 44U.S.C. §3504, (b)(4), de novo re-view, discretionary release, nexustest

Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger, 412 F. Supp. 171 (D.Del. 1976), vacated, 565 F.2d 1172 (3d Cir. 1977),rev'd sub nom. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S.281 (1979), on remand, 611 F.2d 439 (3d Cir.1979).

- 57 -

790 (b)(2), (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103,(b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), Vaughn Index

Church of Scientology v. Bell, No. 76-1006 (D.D.C.June 8, 1977), summary judgment granted, 1 GDS¶80,082 (D.D.C. 1980), remanded sub nom.Church of Scientology v. Smith, 644 F.2d 39 (D.C.Cir. 1981), on remand, 2 GDS ¶82,152 (D.D.C.1982).

791 (b)(1), (b)(3), 50 U.S.C.§403(d)(3), (b)(7), (b)(7)(E),adequacy of agency affidavit, dutyto search

Church of Scientology v. Bush, No. 75-1048 (D.D.C. June 8, 1977), remanded, No. 78-1832 (D.C.Cir. Nov. 15, 1978), on remand sub nom. Church ofScientology v. Turner, 1 GDS ¶79,170 (D.D.C.1979), aff'd, 662 F.2d 784 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

792 (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(C), attorney-client privilege, attorney's fees, at-torney work-product privilege, dutyto search, res judicata

Church of Scientology v. Califano, 1 GDS ¶79,172(D.D.C. 1979).

793 (a)(6)(B), (b)(1), E.O. 11652,(b)(7), (b)(7)(C), agency records,law enforcement purpose, referralof request to another agency

Church of Scientology v. Dep't of the Air Force,No. 76-1008 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 1978).

794 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, (b)(6),(b)(7)(C), adequacy of agency af-fidavit, burden of proof, in camerainspection, reasonably segregable

Church of Scientology v. Dep't of the Army, No.75-3056-F (C.D. Cal. June 2, 1977), aff'd in part,rev'd in part, 607 F.2d 1282 (9th Cir. 1979), reh'gdenied, 611 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1980) (consolidated).

795 (b)(1), E.O. 11652, (b)(6), (b)(7),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), in camerainspection, law enforcement pur-pose

Church of Scientology v. DOD, No. 75-4072 (C.D.Cal. June 2, 1977), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 611F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1980) (consolidated).

796 Summary judgment, Vaughn Index Church of Scientology v. DOJ, No. 78-679 (M.D.Fla. Dec. 20, 1979).

797 (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(F)

Church of Scientology v. DOJ, 410 F. Supp. 1297(C.D. Cal. 1976), aff'd, 612 F.2d 417 (9th Cir.1979).

798 (b)(1), (b)(3), 8 U.S.C. §1202(b),(b)(6), (b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), ade-quacy of agency affidavit, discoveryin FOIA litigation, duty to search,reasonably segregable, VaughnIndex

Church of Scientology v. Dep't of State, 493 F.Supp. 418 (D.D.C. 1980), supplemental decision, 1GDS ¶80,262 (D.D.C. 1980).

799 (b)(2), (b)(7), (b)(7)(A),(b)(7)(C), (b)(7)(D), (b)(7)(E),(b)(7)(F), law enforcement pur-pose

Church of Scientology v. DEA, 2 GDS ¶82,045(W.D. Tex. 1981).

Documents

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES 1 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. …- 1 - FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT CASES 1 (b)(3), 26 U.S.C. §6103(b)(2) Abbott Labs. v. IRS, 1 GDS ¶80,137 (D.D.C. 1980). 2