Thomas v. Springer

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that how the agency lists an email chain in its Vaughn index is indicative of how it originally defined the record
• granting in part and denying in part defendants’ and plaintiffs’ partial cross-motions for summary judgment
• rejecting a view of the deliberative process that would allow agencies to “shield from review thousands of agency records because a years-long rule-making was underway”
• finding draft talking points that “contain[ed] redline edits and comment bubbles and was later turned into a version of the agency’s final position” exempt (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “The agency’s burden is to establish that documents do not constitute the working law.” (cleaned up)
• “courts must ‘be careful to ensure that the term agency records . . . not be manipulated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).