Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

13 Citing cases

  1. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

    Civil Action No. 16-765 (RDM) (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    The parties, then, cross-moved for summary judgment, and, in the second chapter, the Court concluded that the agencies had conducted adequate searches, upheld most of the agencies' withholdings, but determined that it needed additional information to decide whether DOD had lawfully redacted information from two pages of the 121-page document pursuant to FOIA Exemption 7(D) and Privacy Act Exemption (k)(5). See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F. Supp. 3d 204, 210-18 (D.D.C. 2018) ("Lamb II"). In chapter three, which is now before the Court, the MCC and the State Department once again move for summary judgment, Dkt. 75, and Lamb opposes that motion and cross-moves for summary judgment, Dkt. 77. For the reasons explained below, the Court will DENY both motions without prejudice.

  2. Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp.

    498 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.D.C. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    Much of the background of this case is described in the Court's trilogy of opinions in Plaintiff's prior lawsuit seeking records related to his termination. SeeLamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 228 F. Supp. 3d 28, 33–35 (D.D.C. 2017) (" Lamb I "); Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , 334 F. Supp. 3d 204, 209–210 (D.D.C. 2018) (" Lamb II "); Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp. , Civil Action No. 16-765 (RDM), 2019 WL 4141868, at *1–2 (D.D.C. Aug. 30, 2019) (" Lamb III ").

  3. Am. First Legal Found. v. Fed. Bureau Of Investigation

    Civil Action 23-2172 (BAH) (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2024)

    The FBI's declaration provides “the type of ‘necessary details . . . about the scope or methods of the search[] conducted,'” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 212 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Border Patrol, 623 F.Supp.2d 83, 9192 (D.D.C. 2009)), and describes a protocol that was reasonably calibrated “to uncover all relevant documents,” Elliot v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 596 F.3d 842, 851 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1233, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). That is all FOIA requires of defendants to carry their burden.

  4. Leopold v. Dep't of Def.

    Civil Action 14-30 (RDM) (D.D.C. Sep. 27, 2024)

    “But where ‘a review of the record raises substantial doubt, particularly in view of well[-]defined requests and positive indications of overlooked materials, summary judgment is inappropriate.'” Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 211 (D.D.C. 2018) (quoting Valencia-Lucena, 180 F.3d at 326).

  5. Burnett v. CNO Fin. Grp.

    1:18-cv-00200-JPH-KMB (S.D. Ind. May. 28, 2024)

    Courts have further found that it is appropriate in certain circumstances to keep the identity or personal information about law enforcement officials out of the public record, particularly when a countervailing public interest in disclosure has not been identified. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (under the Freedom of Information Act, "government investigators and employees 'have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives'") (quoting Lesar v. United States Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

  6. Burnett v. CNO Fin. Grp.

    1:18-cv-00200-JPH-KMB (S.D. Ind. May. 28, 2024)

    Courts have further found that it is appropriate in certain circumstances to keep the identity or personal information about law enforcement officials out of the public record, particularly when a countervailing public interest in disclosure has not been identified. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (under the Freedom of Information Act, "government investigators and employees 'have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives'") (quoting Lesar v. United States Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

  7. Kilmer v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot.

    Civil Action 17-1566 (CKK) (D.D.C. Nov. 15, 2023)

    Suzuki Decl., ECF No. 19-1, ¶¶ 45-47. It is well settled that law enforcement personnel and government employees have a substantial interest in anonymity. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (RDM) (noting that “government investigators and employees ‘have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either of their official or private lives'”) (quoting Lesar v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)). Plaintiff only challenges CBP's decision to disclose information involving Senior Executive Service (“SES”) employees, but not other CBP employees.

  8. Xirum v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't (ICE)

    1:22-cv-00801-TWP-KMB (S.D. Ind. May. 15, 2023)

    Courts have further found that it is appropriate in certain circumstances to keep the identity or personal information about law enforcement officials out of the public record, particularly when a countervailing public interest in disclosure has not been identified. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (under the Freedom of Information Act, "government investigators and employees 'have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives'" (quoting Lesar v. United States Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).

  9. Anand v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

    Civil Action 21-1635 (CKK) (D.D.C. Mar. 27, 2023)

    It is well settled that law enforcement personnel and government employees have a substantial interest in anonymity. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (RDM) (discussing Exemption 7(C) and noting that “government investigators and employees ‘have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives' ”) (quoting Lesar v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Adionser v. Dep't of Justice, 811 F.Supp.2d 284, 299 (D.D.C. 2011) (RJL). Accordingly, where Plaintiff again does not present any argument as to why this withheld information would advance any public interest, and considering this significant privacy interest, the Court finds that OIG properly withheld the names of these agents under Exemption 7(C)

  10. Sabra v. United States Customs & Border Prot.

    Civil Action 20-681 (CKK) (D.D.C. Jan. 31, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    As for the information of government employees, it is well settled that law enforcement personnel have a substantial interest in anonymity. See Lamb v. Millennium Challenge Corp., 334 F.Supp.3d 204, 216-17 (D.D.C. 2018) (RDM) (discussing Exemption 7(C) and noting that “government investigators and employees ‘have a legitimate interest in preserving the secrecy of matters that conceivably could subject them to annoyance or harassment in either their official or private lives'”) (quoting Lesar v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 636 F.2d 472, 487 (D.C. Cir. 1980)); see also Adionser v. Dep't of Justice, 811 F.Supp.2d 284, 299 (D.D.C. 2011) (RJL). Next, as a general matter, the identification of a third party individual “in a law enforcement file will engender comment and speculation and carries a stigmatizing connotation.” Branch v. FBI, 658 F.Supp. 204, 209 (D.D.C. 1987) (Richey, J.).