Casad v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

D.C. Circuit

Casad v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

96 F. App'x 724

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMay 26, 2004

DocketNo. 03-5183

StatusPublished

This text of 96 F. App'x 724 (Casad v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Casad v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 96 F. App'x 724 (D.C. Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed June 20, 2003, be affirmed. The notice of appeal addressed only the portion of the district court’s order which granted summary judgment on count I of the complaint. See Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 661 (D.C.Cir.2003) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment in FOIA case). Because the summary statements sought by appellant are predecisional and deliberative, they were properly withheld pursuant to Freedom of Information Act [725]*725(“FOIA”) exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). See Jordan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc); see also Casad v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 301 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.2002).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed June 20, 2003, be affirmed. The notice of appeal addressed only the portion of the district court’s order which granted summary judgment on count I of the complaint. See Schrecker v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 349 F.3d 657, 661 (D.C.Cir.2003) (de novo review of grant of summary judgment in FOIA case). Because the summary statements sought by appellant are predecisional and deliberative, they were properly withheld pursuant to Freedom of Information Act [725]*725(“FOIA”) exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege). See Jordan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 591 F.2d 753, 774 (D.C.Cir.1978) (en banc); see also Casad v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Services, 301 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir.2002).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/casad-v-us-department-of-health-human-services-cadc-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack