Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “plaintiff’s unsubstantiated suspicions . . . therefore, are insufficient to call into question the adequacy of [the agency’s] search and the truthfulness of its affidavit”
• finding that “plaintiff’s unsubstantiated suspicions . . . therefore, are insufficient to call into question the adequacy of [the agency’s] search and the truthfulness of its affidavit”
• finding search was adequate where agency forwarded request to appropriate offices with instructions to conduct searches for responsive documents
• stating that the “plaintiffs speculation” as to documents that were not released “is insufficient as a matter of law to defeat [the] defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the adequacy of the FOIA search”
• “Unit-specific descriptions are not required, at least where plaintiff has failed to raise some issue of fact necessitating rebuttal.”
• “The Court must presume . . . that the Executive Branch is aware of its duty ... to faithfully execute the law as enacted . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).