Publications
Request for records related to lost or stolen firearms. MPD’s denial was remanded because the records could be disclosed with reasonable redactions to protect personal privacy interests.
Request for records related to a racial discrimination case against UDC. The appeal was based solely on UDC’s FOIA fees related to FOIA Appeal 2017-137. UDC’s fee schedule was affirmed because it provided an estimate that did not include costs for software upgrades.
Request for records related to a line item summary of a contract. DGS’s response was affirmed on the basis that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records and was not obligated to created new records in response to a FOIA request.
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 sufficient…
Request for records related to an employee. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCRA responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.
Request for records related to the investigation of an alleged sexual assault. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because MPD responded to the request after the appeal was submitted follow the conclusion of enforcement proceedings.
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 former employee. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because DCRA responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.
Request for records related to audio records of EMS communications. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because FEMS responded to the request after the appeal was submitted.
Request for records related to medical marijuana dispensary applications. On appeal DOH reconsider its initial denial and disclosed responsive records with redactions to protect personal privacy. DOH’s redactions were affirmed.