Washington, DC
Publications
Request for investigatory records of communications between a homicide victim and Wikileaks. MPD’s decision was affirmed, because release of any responsive investigatory records would interfere with an enforcement proceeding.
Request for grant agreement. DMPED’s decision was affirmed because the redacted information involved commercial information, the release of which could cause substantial harm.
Request to answer a question. Appeal dismissed, as EOM was not obligated to answer questions, and because requests must reasonably describe a record.
Request for payment standards information regarding an MLS advertisement. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from DCRA and DCRA provided requester with a response.
Request for emails with a set of search terms. Appeal remanded to DOEE, because the agency had no adequately shown redacted emails were protected by the deliberative process privilege.
Request for application and hiring materials. Appeal was dismissed after MPD provided additional documents; MPD was not obligated to create additional records.
Request to answer a question. Appeal dismissed, as DCHA was not obligated to answer questions, and because requests must reasonably describe a record.
Request for records relating to three investigations. OHR’s decision was affirmed, because OHR provided responsive documents.
Request for records related to two addresses. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from DCRA and DCRA provided requester with a response.
Request for records relating to Hearst Park. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from DDOT and DDOT provided requester with a response.
Pages
