Piper v. Department of Justice

D.C. Circuit

Piper v. Department of Justice

222 F. App'x 1

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 06-5119

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 222 F. App'x 1 (Piper v. Department of Justice) 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

Piper v. Department of Justice, 222 F. App'x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was briefed and argued by counsel. It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinions filed April 12, 2006 and December 1, 2003. See Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2006); Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 294 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C.2003) (“Piper I"). The District Court correctly concluded that Appellees’ withholding and redacting of the disputed documents was reasonable under Exemptions 7(t!)-(E) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). The District Court also correctly concluded that Appellees’ search for documents in response to Appellant’s FOIA request was adequate, Piper I, 294 F.Supp.2d at 21-24, and that the allegation that documents were destroyed before Appellant’s FOIA request is immaterial as to whether the agencies have met their burden under FOIA; “FOIA does not impose a document retention requirement on government agencies,” id. at 22. Nothing in National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004), undermines the District Court’s analysis.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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 the resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. R. 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was briefed and argued by counsel. It is

Ordered and Adjudged that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum opinions filed April 12, 2006 and December 1, 2003. See Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2006); Piper v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 294 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C.2003) (“Piper I"). The District Court correctly concluded that Appellees’ withholding and redacting of the disputed documents was reasonable under Exemptions 7(t!)-(E) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7). The District Court also correctly concluded that Appellees’ search for documents in response to Appellant’s FOIA request was adequate, Piper I, 294 F.Supp.2d at 21-24, and that the allegation that documents were destroyed before Appellant’s FOIA request is immaterial as to whether the agencies have met their burden under FOIA; “FOIA does not impose a document retention requirement on government agencies,” id. at 22. Nothing in National Archives & Records Administration v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 124 S.Ct. 1570, 158 L.Ed.2d 319 (2004), undermines the District Court’s analysis.

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 the resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. R. 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 F. App'x 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piper-v-department-of-justice-cadc-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack