Shurtleff v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the EPA Administrator and White House employees had a privacy interest in preventing the disclosure of their work email addresses
• stating that government employees have “a significant personal interest in preventing the burden of unsolicited emails and harassment”
• finding EPA employees had substantial privacy interest in their official email addresses
• “If the sample is well-chosen, a court can, with some confidence, extrapolate its conclusions . . . to a larger group of withheld materials.”
• \[A]n agency may direct a FOIA requester to materials that have been previously published or made available by the agency instead of producing them again.\
• “[O]bjections which merely rehash an argument presented to and considered by the magistrate judge are not ‘properly objected to’ and are therefore not entitled to de novo review.” (quoting Morgan v. Astrue, No. 08-2133, 2009 WL 3541001, at (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2009)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).