Cooper Cameron Corp. v. United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]here is a cognizable public interst in monitoring agencies’ enforcement of the law . . . .”
• “[a] district court should not grant summary judgment based on a [government agency’s] ‘eonclusory and generalized assertion,’ even if the FOIA requester has not controverted that assertion ”
• “[A]lthough we suspect that Cooper seeks the deponent’s statements to impeach testimony in the tort suit, our suspicion counts neither in favor of nor against Cooper’s FOIA request.”
• “Thus, in a FOIA case, a court ‘generally will grant an agency’s motion for summary judgment only if the agency identifies the documents at issue and explains why they fall under exemptions.’”
• generalized statements are insufficient to carry the agency’s burden of proof
• In order to show that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes, “OSHA need only show that it actually assembled the requested records for a law-enforcement purpose, that is, in a focused inquiry on specific violations of the law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).