Randy Baker v. National Archives, et al, C.A. No. 96-494TPJ, U.S.D.C. D.C., March 14, 1996. Plaintiff sued the National Archives and six other Federal agencies, inclusive of DoD for not responding to his request to view finding aids that correspond with records transferred to the National Archives' classified reading room, and for a copy of declassification guidelines used by the Archives. On March 20, 1996, plaintiff withdrew his suit, and the case was dismissed without prejudice.

James D. Hunsberger v. Department of Defense, C.A. No. 93-CV-00387, U.S.D.C. D.C., March 20, 1996. Requester sought records showing he was brainwashed by the Government. No records whatsoever were located on Mr. Hunsberger. Court ruled an adequate search had been performed and dismissed the case.

Davis v. United States, et al, C.A. No. 96-10119DPW, U.S.D.C. MA, January 23, 1996. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a variety of documents from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. The Government provided the documents to the plaintiff and the suit was subsequently dismissed by stipulation.

Harper v. United States, C.A. Nos. 92-462 and 92-464, U.S.D.C. OR, May 28, 1992. FOIA suit by convict serving life sentence for espionage challenging withholding of records under FOIA exemption 1, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) (classified records). On July 5, 1995, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed district court's grant of Government's motion for summary judgment and remanded to the district court. The Government filed new Vaughn indices in August 1995 and January 1996. After complete briefing, the district court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the cases on September 26, 1996.

Harrison v. United States, C.A. No. 95-917-ST, U.S.D.C. OR, July 18, 1995. Pro se plaintiff filed suit alleging failure to provide records related to a dispute involving apparent misrepresentations by plaintiff to USAA insurance. The Government answered the complaint on August 24, 1995. Court dismissed the complaint on March 26, 1996.

Moore v. United States, C.A. No. 93-1797, U.S.D.C. D.C., July 14, 1993. Plaintiff sued challenging the Army's "no records" response to plaintiff's request for certain documents relating to the Panama Canal. The court, concluding that the Army had conducted a thorough search, nevertheless gave plaintiff the option of paying for an additional search, which the Army estimated would cost $360. Moore declined and the case was dismissed on February 26, 1996.

Balfour Beatty, Incorporated v. Department of the Navy, C.A. No. 93-2118, U.S.D.C.S.D. FL. This Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), Southern Division (SOUTHDIV), case was filed on October 26, 1993, and involved two FOIA requests submitted on September 1 and September 14, 1993, seeking a copy of the Caddell Construction Company, Inc.'s technical proposal and abstract of offers pertaining to the award of contract N62427-91-C-0750 for a Power & Desalination Plant in the Ascension Islands. The complaint alleged that the Navy failed to process the requests within 10 working days and that the plaintiff had thereby exhausted its administrative remedies. On November 24, 1993, NAVFAC SOUTHDIV disclosed the personnel resumes and corporate brochures from the responsive technical proposal, but withheld the remaining portions under exemption (b)(4). NAVFAC SOUTHDIV also withheld the Technical Review Committee report under exemption (b)(5). A motion for summary judgment was filed on April 4, 1994. Balfour Beatty, Incorporated then responded with a petition for discovery on May 2, 1994. The Government filed a motion for a protective order on May 13, 1994, which was granted on June 15, 1994.

On December 2, 1994, the court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment. The court protected the disputed portions of the technical proposal under exemption (b)(4), citing both the competitive harm test of National Parks and the voluntary submission ("confidential" if the information is of a kind that would customarily not be released to the public) test of Critical Mass. The court also protected the deliberative portions of a Technical Evaluation Board (TEB) Report under exemption (b)(5) and the factual materials in the TEB Report under exemption (b)(4). Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on December 22, 1994. The Government responded on January 10, 1995. Plaintiff filed a reply on January 17, 1995. On June 16, 1995, the motion for reconsideration was denied by the court. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 3, 1995, with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On February 2, 1996, the court granted the appellant's motion for dismissal of the appeal with prejudice.

Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corporation v. United States, C.A. No. 2:96CV191, U.S.D.C.E.D. VA. In an action filed on March 1, 1996, the Norfolk Shipbuilding and Drydock Corporation sought injunctive relief under the FOIA from the withholding of records. The records sought were evaluated bid prices of unsuccessful offerors in a negotiated procurement. On March 29, 1996, the plaintiff sent a letter to the Clerk of the Court enclosing a Stipulation of Dismissal because Military Sealift Command had fully responded to the FOIA request.

B. G. Burkett v. Department of the Navy, C.A. No. 3:94-CV-1191-D, U.S.D.C.N.D. TX. From July 19, 1991 to January 26, 1994, the plaintiff repeatedly attempted to obtain the personnel, medical, and investigation records of LCDR Larry Sherman Jacobson. The plaintiff was requesting this information to write a book on the abuse of naval awards. The Government filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment on October 7, 1994. The plaintiff filed opposition to the Government's motion. A reply to plaintiff's opposition was filed by the Government on November 22, 1994. Plaintiff then requested an in-camera review of records. The Government filed an opposition. A decision in favor of the Government was issued on June 17, 1996.

Phillip M. Duse v. Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), C.A. No. 96-704-A, U.S.D.C.E.D. VA. The plaintiff filed a FOIA/PA request for records from the FBI, DOD IG, NCIS, and USAF IG pertaining to investigations concerning himself. After a diligent search by NCIS personnel, no records were located and the plaintiff was afforded a "no records" determination. The plaintiff appealed the NCIS "no records" determination. On March 14, 1996, the Judge Advocate General upheld the initial determination by NCIS. On May 21, 1996, plaintiff filed his complaint. On June 20, 1996, NCIS provided a declaration to the AUSA regarding the adequacy of the search conducted. An answer to plaintiff's complaint was filed by the Government on June 21, 1996, and a motion for summary judgment was filed on August 30, 1996. On September 27, 1996, the plaintiff filed his opposition to the Government's motion for summary judgment. On October 11, 1996, the Government filed a reply to the plaintiff's opposition to motion for summary judgment. A joint motion to dismiss was filed on October 22, 1996, and the case was dismissed on October 23, 1996.

Eric Engberg v. United States Navy, C.A. No. 1:95CV01615, U.S.D.C. D.C. The plaintiff, a reporter for CBS News, had filed a FOIA request with the Naval Support Facility Thurmont (Camp David) and with Helicopter Maintenance Squadron One (HMX-1) for records pertaining to the use of HMX-1 helicopters by White House staff. The FOIA request was denied by both the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval Operations because the records belonged solely to the White House. An unopposed motion for enlargement was filed by the Government. On January 19, 1996, the parties mutually stipulated for dismissal and the case was dismissed.

Terry Gooden v. National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), C.A. No. 1-95-CV-20079-JE, U.S.D.C.N.D. GA. A petition for writ of mandamus was filed by the plaintiff alleging that NPRC had refused to release his medical records because they had been "red-flagged" for release only to a general officer. The plaintiff claimed that, while in basic training, his jaw was broken and his right ear drum was damaged as the result of a blow to the back of his head by a Staff Sergeant. On January 24, 1995, the Government moved to dismiss for failure by the plaintiff to serve the proper parties and the case was dismissed on April 25, 1996.

John S. Graham v. Department of Defense, C.A. No. MJG-96-1111, U.S.D.C. MD. This FOIA lawsuit contested the denial of certain NCIS records. The Government answered the plaintiff's complaint on May 10, 1996. A decision was made to release the withheld information. The Government answered interrogatories and produced documents on August 5, 1996. On August 19, 1996, the Government filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff then answered with a cross motion for summary judgment. On September 23, 1996, the Government filed the reply to the plaintiff's opposition to the Government's motion and also filed opposition to the plaintiff's cross motion. On November 13, 1996, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees, but granted his request for costs.

Linda Hunt v. United States Marine Corps (USMC), C.A. No. 1:94CV02317, U.S.D.C. D.C. On March 3, 1994, the plaintiff, an investigative reporter, filed a FOIA request with the USMC seeking four categories of records pertaining to Oliver North. On August 2, 1994, the plaintiff was advised that, while some of the requested information was being released, other responsive information was being withheld pursuant to exemptions (b)(5) and (b)(6) of the FOIA. On September 15, 1995, the plaintiff appealed the August 2, 1994, initial determination and requested an itemized list of the documents being withheld. A temporary restraining order was filed by the plaintiff on October 26, 1994. The Government filed a motion for summary judgment to which the plaintiff filed her opposition. The plaintiff filed a cross motion for summary judgment on August 28, 1995. On August 7, 1996, the court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross motion.

Robert L. Stockmeir v. Secretary of the Navy, C.A. No. CN-N-94-239-HDM, U.S.D.C. NV. The plaintiff was investigated and later charged with child sexual abuse. On October 2, 1990, during the plaintiff's sentencing hearing, the investigating NCIS agent testified as to the character of the plaintiff based on the findings of his investigation. As a result, the plaintiff received the maximum sentence. On November 9, 1992, the plaintiff filed a FOIA request for a copy of the NCIS investigation. By letter of September 2, 1995, NCIS provided the plaintiff a copy of the releasable portions of the responsive NCIS report and denied those portions determined to be exempt from disclosure, citing to the (b)(7) exemption provisions of the FOIA. On October 18, 1993, the plaintiff appealed NCIS's initial determination. The plaintiff's appeal was denied on March 11, 1994. In this lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged that he was denied due process and filed for a default judgment. Several motions/cross motions were filed by both the Government and the plaintiff. On May 24, 1996, the court granted the Government's motion for summary judgment. On that same date, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the 9th Circuit. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the $105 filing fee by October 7, 1996, or the appeal would be dismissed. The plaintiff failed to pay the fees and the appeal was dismissed.

Sean M. Quinn v. United States Navy, C.A. No. 93-1766G(POR), U.S.D.C.S.D. CA. On October 8, 1993, the plaintiff requested a copy of his electro-encephalogram (EEG) recorded during his medical evaluation at Balboa Naval Hospital (San Diego) in 1990 and page 2 of his rebuttal to the Medical Board Report. Plaintiff directed his request to the Bureau of Naval Personnel and to the National Personnel Records Center. After a diligent search, both agencies were unable to locate responsive records and issued "no records" determinations. The plaintiff did not file an appeal, but instead filed a complaint with the court. In the meantime, the requested information was located at Balboa Naval Hospital and was released to the plaintiff. This case was dismissed with no prejudice to the Government on April 11, 1994. The plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration May 10, 1994, seeking additional information concerning disclosure accounting and filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Briefs were filed by both parties and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision in favor of the Government.

Vanessa M. Summerfield v. Sheila E. Widnall, C.A. No. 96CV-004J, U.S.D.C. WY, January 5, 1996. Plaintiff filed suit seeking, under the Privacy Act/Freedom of Information Act, the release of two documents, commonly known as the "rack and stack," from her Judge Advocate file. The documents were denied under the Privacy Act because they were not in a system of records retrieved by the Plaintiff's name or personal identifier. The documents were denied under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(5). Case settled. Air Force agreed to release redacted versions of the two documents at issue and pay attorney's fees.

Myra R. Edwards v. Department of the Air Force, C.A. No. DKC-95-3115, U.S.D.C. MD, October 16, 1995. Plaintiff filed suit seeking Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) documents that showed that her AFBCMR application was untimely. No documents were originally released as it was clear Plaintiff was using FOIA to challenge the AFBCMR decision. In an abundance of caution, her original application and her husband's death certificate were released. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA claims and remanded the case back to the AFBCMR for further proceedings.

Phillip M. Duse v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al, C.A. No. 96-704-A, U.S.D.C. E.D. VA, May 21, 1996. Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking records relating to himself. The Air Force Office of Investigation partially denied release of records under exemptions (b)(2) and (7)(C). Upon joint motion for dismissal, the case was dismissed on October 23, 1996.

Intense Marketing, Inc. v. Department of the Air Force, C.A. No. CIV-96-1047-JP, U.S.D.C. NM, July 29, 1996. Reverse FOIA case relating to contract bid of Plaintiff. Released documents redacted to satisfaction of Plaintiff. Stipulation of Dismissal was entered into by the parties and an Order of Dismissal was filed on November 27, 1996.

Thelma C. Porter v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, C.A. No. 8:CV96-00376, U.S.D.C. NE, July 3, 1996. Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act alleging the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) failed to respond timely to a request for records. Case settled and on September 11, 1996, a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice was filed.

Thomas L. Rush v. Department of the Air Force, C.A. No. 5:96-CV-0629, U.S.D.C. N.D. OH, March 27, 1996. Plaintiff filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of his Air Force personnel records supplied free of charge. Fees were imposed on the basis that the record had been previously supplied to Plaintiff at no fee. Judgment entered and case dismissed on October 2, 1996.

Randy Baker v. National Archives et al, C.A. No. 96-0494 TPJ, U.S.D.C. D.C., March 14, 1996. Plaintiff is a repeat FOIA requester and has filed many suits under FOIA. The Air Force was one of many defendants in this case. Plaintiff requested a copy of all documents the Air Force has in the National Archives and Records Administration reading room in College Park, Maryland. The Air Force did not respond to plaintiff's FOIA request. Plaintiff withdrew his complaint and the case was dismissed without prejudice on March 20, 1996.

E. Mabry Rogers v. United States National Reconnaissance Office, et al, C.A. No. CV-94-B-2934, U.S.D.C.N.D. AL. Plaintiff filed suit for defendent's failure to release records concerning the design and construction of the Westfields building within the time allowed by law. Information was withheld pursuant to EO 12356(b)(1), (b)(3) 10 U.S.C. 425 (Intelligence Authorization Act of FY 1993), (b)(3) 50 U.S.C. 403-3(c)(5) (National Security Act of 1947) and (b)(6). Plaintiff withdrew suit on August 19, 1996.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Commerce, C.A. No. 95-2228, U.S.D.C. D.C., April 12, 1995. Complaint for injunctive relief for FOIA access to information in DOC documents concerning the foreign availability of encryption products. Unclassified Vaughn Index and Declaration provided to DOC on June 14, 1996. EPIC dropped the suit in June 1996 following review of the Vaughn and the Declaration.

Frank Kucernak v. FBI, NSA, & CIA, C.A. No. 93-0230, U.S.D.C. AZ, February 2, 1993. Complaint for injunctive relief for Privacy Act violation and FOIA access. NSA submitted draft declaration of Jon Goldsmith to AUSA on February 18, 1995 to support the motion for summary judgment. Waiting for AUSA to respond to NSA. Final declaration filed approximately February 25, 1996. Government's motion for summary judgment granted and judgment entered on behalf of NSA October 10, 1996.

John Louis Cappas v. NSA, C.A. No. L-95-1271, U.S.D.C. MD, April 25, 1995. Plaintiff sought relief for failure to respond to appeal within statutory time limits. Agency filed motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, summary judgment, on August 23, 1995. Motion granted April 29, 1996.

Terry L. Turnipseed v. Department of Defense, C.A. No. 95-1264-A, U.S.D.C.E.D. VA. Case filed on September 14, 1995, based on Agency's failure to respond to FOIA request within time limits. Court agreed to dismiss case and ordered Component to provide all non-exempt responsive documents within 60 days. Stipulated Order of Dismissal, March 21, 1996.

Phillip M. Duse v. Department of Defense, et al, C.A. No. 96-704-A, U.S.D.C.E.D. VA. Court case filed on May 21, 1996, based on Agency's failure to provide all records pertaining to Duse. Court agreed to dismiss case based upon joint motion by the parties. Order of Dismissal, October 23, 1996.