Cuban v. Securities & Exchange Commission

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the agency’s declarations must provide “more than conclusory assertions and blanket affirmations ,.. from which the Court can assess whether the attorney-client privilege was properly asserted”
• requiring only that agency address “whether those communications were circulated no further than among those members of the organization who are authorized to speak or act for the organization in relation to the subject matter of the communication”
• “There is a compelling public interest in knowing whether the defendant [agency] conducts investigations free of misconduct by its employees and how alleged transgressions by its employees are addressed.”
• “[R]ecords 9 and 6-18 may be withheld under Exemption 7(A) during the pendency of the ongoing investigation; however, given the passage of time ... the defendant should be prepared to establish ... whether the investigation is still ongoing”
• “[S]taff names and contact information may fall within [FOIA] Exemptions . . . and thus are shielded from disclosure” when “‘the material relates to . . . matters of no genuine public interest.’” (emphasis added
• “[T]his exemption is not meant to be a ‘blanket exemption’ for any files or records that are relevant to an investigation—their disclosure must be reasonably expected to interfere in a ‘palpable, particular way’ with the investigation.” (quoting North, 881 F.2d at 1100)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).