Washington, DC
Publications
Appeal based solely on redactions DOC made following the remand of FOIA Appeal 2017-86. DOC’s redactions were affirmed in part for information protected by the deliberative process privilege. DOC’s redactions were remanded in part because the redacted information did not involve a...
Request for all records between two agencies related to the requester. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DOES provided additional records after the appeal was filed.
Request for records related to a neighborhood cat program. DOH’s denial was remanded, because the records could be disclosed with reasonable redactions to protect personal privacy interests.
Request for records related to the Hearst Park & Pool Project. OCFO’s denial claiming the request was overly burdensome was remanded to conduct a search and disclose nonexempt responsive documents on a rolling basis.
Request for records related to a debt on a credit report. EOM’s response was affirmed on the basis that it conducted an adequate search and no responsive records were found. EOM noted the agency that would likely maintain responsive records.
Request for records related to the Hearst Park & Pool Project. The requester provided evidence that DGS’s response was missing information. DGS’s response was remanded to conduct another search and disclose nonexempt responsive documents on a rolling basis.
Request for records related to a criminal investigation. MPD’s denial was affirmed because disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Request for records related to a former employee. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCRA responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.
Request for records related to Democratic National Committee and the Profiling Project. The appeal was based on ODMPSJ failure to response to the request and ODMPSJ did not respond to the appeal. As a result, the request was remanded to ODMPSJ.
Request for records related to government contracts. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCHR responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.
Pages
