John Davis v. United States Department of Justice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because plaintiff could not establish which portions of the tapes had been played in court, plaintiff failed to meet his burden
• holding that “even if a particular privacy interest is minor, nondisclosure remains justified where ... the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent
• holding that documents could be withheld unless the plaintiff clearly showed that they were in the public domain
• concluding that, absent plaintiff’s objection or a showing of public availability, Title III intercepts properly were withheld under Exemption 3
• holding that under the public domain doctrine, “the requester [must] point to “specific” information identical to that being withheld.”
• holding that “even if a particular privacy interest is minor, nondisclosure remains justified where ... the public interest in disclosure is virtually nonexistent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).