Alexander v. Director of the Department of Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that ”[a]n investigation need not be ongoing for the law enforcement privilege to apply”
• finding that meeting agendas that disclose only “broadly-defined issues discussed at . . . meetings” were not deliberative
• stating that “[a]n investigation need not be ongoing for the law-enforcement privilege to apply”
• Finding that defendants failed to “articulate a colorable interest” against disclosure of information regarding undercover officers where such information could be designated as “confidential” or “attorneys” eyes only” pursuant to a protective order
• denying disclosure of documents unobtainable from an alternative source, despite the existence of a protective order, in part because of their “severely limited relevance”
• upholding my determination that the City had failed to make threshold showing of harm from disclosure of numbers and ranks of officers deployed at different locations during the RNC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).