You are here

FOIA Cases

RSS
October 3, 2012
FIA-12-0050 - In the Matter of Cause of Action

On October 4, 2012, The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) granted an Appeal filed by Cause of Action (COA) under the FOIA of a final determination issued by the Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO).  COA’s request sought “[A]ll documents referring or relating to requests, including the requests themselves, by U.S.

October 1, 2012
FIA-12-0049 - In the Matter of William B. Ray

On October 1, 2012, OHA denied an Appeal filed by William B. Ray under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.  Mr. Ray was appealing from a determination issued by the DOE’s Oak Ridge Office (ORO), in which it withheld a document requested by Mr.

September 27, 2012
FIA-12-0054 - In the Matter of California-Arizona-Nevada District Organization Contract Compliance

On September 14, 2012, California-Arizona-Nevada District Organization Contract Compliance (CANDO) filed an appeal from a final determination issued by the Loan Guarantee Program Office (LGPO) of the Department of Energy (DOE). In this determination, LGPO responded to a request for information (Request) filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. Pursuant to the Request, LGPO released four documents.

September 7, 2012
FIA-12-0046 - In the Matter of Larry W. Long

The Appellant requested copies of the Benefit Value Studies (Ben-Val Study) for URS/CH2M Oak Ridge LLC (UCOR) and Bechtel Jacobs Company, LLC, “Mercer or AON/Hewitt Studies” and similar information from DOE. Oak Ridge forwarded the request for the Mercer or AON/Hewitt Studies to DOE Headquarters.

September 7, 2012
FIA-12-0010 - In the Matter of Hughes Socol Piers Resnick DYM, Ltd.

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick DYM, Ltd. (Hughes Socol) appealed a determination issued to it on February 15, 2012, by the Chicago Office of the Department of Energy (DOE). The Chicago Office had responded to a request that Hughes Socol had filed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as implemented by the DOE in 10 C.F.R. Part 1004. The Chicago Office had identified eight responsive documents, but it withheld them under FOIA Exemption 4. This appeal, if granted, would require the Chicago Office to release the withheld information to Hughes Socol.

August 27, 2012
FIA-12-0045 - In the Matter of National Security Archive

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision denying an appeal (Appeal) from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) determination issued by the Department of Energy’s Richland Operations Office (ROO). The National Security Archive, the Appellant, requested copies of a specific report dealing with a methodology for the production of plutonium from Department’s Office of Information Resources (OIR).

August 22, 2012
FIA-12-0044 - In the Matter of Cynthia Brown

Cynthia Brown filed an Appeal regarding a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. In March 2012, Ms. Brown filed a request for records regarding her late mother. In a July 2012 determination, the DOE’s Office of Health, Safety and Security (HSS) issued a determination in response to Ms. Brown’s request.

August 22, 2012
FIA-12-0040 - In the Matter of Idaho Conservation League

The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) issued a decision granting in part an appeal from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) determination issued by the Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).

August 17, 2012
FIA-12-0044 - In the Matter of Cynthia Brown

Cynthia Brown filed an Appeal regarding a request filed under the Freedom of Information Act. In March 2012, Ms. Brown filed a request for records regarding her late mother.

August 16, 2012
FIA-12-0040 - In the Matter of: Idaho Conservation League

The Idaho Conservation League (Appellant) submitted a FOIA request to BPA seeking the Project file for the Albeni Falls Dam Flexible Winter Operations Environmental Assessment. In a Determination Letter, BPA issued a response to the Appellant’s FOIA request, releasing 17 documents in their entirety, releasing one partially redacted document, withholding two documents as non-responsive, withholding 25 documents in their entirety under Exemptions 5 and 6 and providing a list of the electronic file names of the 25 documents which were withheld in full.