Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Department of State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the request was not reasonably described because it sought “all” records that “refer or relate to” certain topics
• holding that the request was overbroad because it “asked for ‘all’ records that ‘relate to’ each subject area”
• concluding that request for “all communications” between the Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury lacked necessary specificity because it lacked subject matter and temporal limitations
• holding that a request for “all” documents that “refer or relate to [sixty-three categories of records] in any way” was fatally overbroad and noting that the plaintiff “refused to discuss narrowing its requests”
• holding request for “ ‘all’ records that ‘relate to’ each subject area” “overbroad since life, like law, is ‘a seamless web,’ and all documents ‘relate’ to all others in some remote fashion”
• explaining that requests for records relating to the dissolution of sanctions against Iran, China, Venezuela, and Russia were overly broad, as they “would not even require actual dissolution of sanctions” for a record to be potentially responsive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).