Publications
Request for medical records and correspondence sent to and from correctional facilities in the Midwest. OOG’s response was affirmed on the basis that OOG does not maintain records related to correctional facilities.
Request for records related to the 2002 theft of a Honda Civic. MPD requested proof of identity before it would release the records. MPD’s decision was affirmed on the basis of personal privacy interests in records compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Request for records about the requester and for records related to a notice of infraction. Appeal dismissed as prematurely filed, because requester had failed to reasonably describe a record to DDOT and DDOT had not denied his request.
Request for records related to “cash.” OCFO explained that all documents were provided to requester. Appeal dismissed as it was found that OCFO had not withheld records.
Request for all records related to a notice of infraction and all agency communications that contained the requester’s name. DMV’s search was determined to be adequate. The fee charged by DMV was determined to be proper. DMV’s decision was affirmed.
Request for employment records. On appeal, MPD released the records. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from MPD and MPD subsequently provided the requester with a response.
Request for videos used in court. MPD’s decision was affirmed on the basis of personal privacy interests in records compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Request for federal agency’s records. The matter was dismissed for a lack of jurisdiction.
Request for toxicology report, autopsy photos, and internal correspondence related to the investigation of a death. OCME’s decision was affirmed on the basis that release of the records would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Request for records related to the Trump Old Post Office LLC’s license application. ABRA’s initial production redacted portions of responsive records. ABRA’s decision was affirmed on the basis that disclosure of redacted information could cause substantial competitive harm.