Washington, DC
Publications
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.
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 records related to a filed complaint. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from OPC and OPC subsequently provided the requester with a response.
Request for records related to low income housing tax credits. Appeal was based on a lack of response from DHCD. DHCD did not offer an adequate explanation of the delay on appeal. The matter was remanded to DHCD to produce responsive documents.
Request for an investigative file related to a criminal investigation of an alleged sexual assault. MPD’s decision was affirmed on the basis of personal privacy interests in records compiled for law enforcement purposes.
Request for records related to a filed complaint. The appeal prompted MPD to conduct an initial search, in which a responsive document was located and provided. The appeal was dismissed as moot, because the appeal was based on a lack of response from MPD.
Request for video footage of an incident at Comet Ping Pong. MPD’s response was affirmed on the basis that disclosure would interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Request for records related to a named case file. MPD’s initial denial cited to an ongoing investigation. On appeal, MPD released records because the investigation had concluded. The matter was dismissed as moot.
Request for records related to police presence at an address on November 21, 2016. After determining MPD’s search was adequate, MPD’s response was affirmed on the basis that disclosure would interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Request for records related to an OIG investigation. OIG’s response was affirmed on the basis that disclosure would interfere with enforcement proceedings.
Pages
