green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
46.5 score
G Cite
cited 37× by 37 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.
at p. 794
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 14× by 14 distinct cases, 2008–2019 ·
…information need not actually be 'rules and practices' to qualify under exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter 'related' to rules and practices is also exempt.
at p. 795
⚠ not in text
cited 6× by 6 distinct cases, last quoted 2010 ·
…information need not actually be 'rules and practices' to qualify under exemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter 'related' to rules and practices is also exempt.
at p. 795
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Barnard v. Department of Homeland Security
the public interest is grounded in a nexus between the information sought and the central purposes of foia
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abraham & Rose, P.L.C. v. United States
(8×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
as bureaucracy is nothing if not a creature of habit____
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Shapiro v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
while case summaries are not 'rules and practices' themselves (as the honor code itself would be), they do manifest and implement the rules and practices of the academy relating to the conduct of cadets.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yinerson, LLC v. Farmers Rice Milling Company, LLC
Geiserman, 898 F.2d at 793.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lemings v. Taylor
Second, Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence—consisting exclusively of expert testimony and reports obtained from Ms. Martina and Dr. Rice—has now been excluded from trial, and therefore cannot be used “to oppose summary judgement.” Geiserman, 898 F.2d at 793.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pronin v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
To be sure, “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice
Comm’n, 744 F.Supp.2d 60, 74 (D.D.C.2010) (“[S]taff names and contact information 'may fall within [FOIA] Exemptions ... and thus are shielded from disclosure” when “‘the material relates to ... matters of no genuine public interest.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990))); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d at 152 (holding that agency properly invoked Exemption 6 in refusing to release the names of certain agency personnel).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice
Moreover, it is clear that, in some circumstances, staff names may be properly withheld, particularly if there is no genuine public interest in such information or if the information’s release will endanger a staff member’s safety. 45 See Cuban v. SEC, 744 F. Supp. 2d 60, 74 (D.D.C. 2010) (“[S]taff names and contact information may fall within [FOIA] Exemptions . . . and thus are shielded from disclosure” when “‘the material relates to . . . matters of no genuine public interest.’” (emphasis added) (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clemente v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Under the then-current law of this circuit, information was covered by Exemption 2 if it was “used for predominantly internal purposes,” Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051, 1073 (D.C.Cir.1981) (en banc), and either its “disclosure [might] risk circumvention of agency regulation” or it “relate^] to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest,” Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vazquez v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure [of the information] may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vazquez v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Second, the agency must show either that "disclosure [of the information] may risk circumvention of agency regulation," or that "the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest." Schwaner v. Dep 't of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Under this reasoning, this Circuit has allowed an agency to redact the symbols on Federal Bureau of Investigation documents, information which, if released, would shed light on the FBI’s practice of using symbols to communicate about secret informants, Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795-96 (D.C.Cir.1990), as well as “routing instructions” appearing on FBI documents that would reveal the agency’s internal routing and distribution practices. *12 Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Smith, 721 F.2d 828, 829 (D.C.Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. the United States Deptment of Homeland Security
Under this reasoning, this Circuit has allowed an agency to redact the symbols on Federal Bureau of Investigation documents, information which, if released, would shed light on the FBI’s practice of using symbols to communicate about secret informants, Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795-96 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skinner v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [Exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Skinner v. United States Department of Justice Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clemente v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d at 794 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clemente v. Federal Bureau of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuban v. Securities & Exchange Commission
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Union v. U.S. Customs Serv., 802 F.2d 525, 528 (D.C.Cir. 1986); and second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest,” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuban v. Securities and Exchange Commission
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 1986); and second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest,” Schwaner v. Dep't of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security
It applies if the information in question meets two criteria: First, the information must be “used for predomi *106 nantly internal purposes,” Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051, 1073 (D.C.Cir.1981); see Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. Customs Serv., 802 F.2d 525, 528 (D.C.Cir. 1986); and second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest,” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Ci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security
Cir. 1986); and second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest,” Schwaner v. Dep't of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holt v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holt v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [Exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990). *40 Exemption 2 applies if the information that is sought meets two criteria.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Counsel Bureau v. United States Department of Defense
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure [of the material] may risk circumvention of agency regu *61 lation” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
International Counsel Bureau v. United States Department of Defense
Second, the agency must show either that "disclosure [of the material] may risk circumvention of agency regulation" or that "the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest." Schwaner v. Dep't of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1812 v. Broadcasting Board of Governors
“If the threshold test of predominant internality is met, an agency may withhold the material ‘by proving that either [1] disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation, or [2] the material relates to trivial administrative 21 matters of no genuine public interest.’” Id. (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Government Employees, Local 812 v. Broadcasting Board of Governors
“If the threshold test of predominant internality is met, an agency may withhold the material ‘by proving that either [1] disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation, or [2] the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.’ ” Id. (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morley v. United States Central Intelligence Agency
There are two types of information protected under this exemption: information for which “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” and information which “relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elliott v. United States Department of Agriculture
(2×)
Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (quoting Founding Church of Scientology of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Smith, 721 F.2d 828 , 830 n. 4 (D.C.Cir.1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lasko v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [Exemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sellers v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [Exemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sellers v. U.S. Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lasko v. United States Department of Justice
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that a matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clay v. United States Department of Justice
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Clay v. United States Department of Justice
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep't of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency
Motley, 508 F.3d at 1124 (quoting Schwaner v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Schiller v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 964 F.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C.Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency
Morley, 508 F.3d at 1124 (quoting Schwaner v. U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zavala v. Drug Enforcement Administration
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zavala v. Drug Enforcement Administration
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kurdyukov v. U.C. Coast Guard
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kurdyukov v. United States Coast Guard
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roth v. United States Department of Justice
“If the threshold test of predominant internality is met, an agency may withhold the material ‘by proving that either [1] disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation, or [2] the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.’ ” Id. (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.Cir.1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roth v. United States Department of Justice
“If the threshold test of predominant internality is met, an agency may withhold the material ‘by proving that either [1] disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation, or [2] the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.’” Id. (quoting Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Milner v. U.S. Dept of Navy
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Cir. 2007) (citing Schwaner v. Dep’t of Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kensington Research & Recovery v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development
Case law does not support such a narrow reading of § 552(b)(2) where “the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990) (citing Rose, 425 U.S. at 369 , 96 S.Ct. 1592 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bangoura v. United States Department of Army
Moreover, the withheld material— special agent sequence numbers — “need not be actual ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under Exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” See Kurdyukov, 578 F.Supp.2d at 124 (citing Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bangoura v. Jackman
Moreover, the withheld material–special agent sequence numbers–“need not be actual ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under Exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” See Kurdyukov, 578 F. Supp. 2d at 124 (citing Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Concepcion v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Concepcion v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
(2×)
The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. U.S. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 795 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
James Madison Project v. Central Intelligence Agency
Second, the agency must show either that “disclosure may risk circumvention of agency regulation,” or that “the material relates to trivial administrative matters of no genuine public interest.” Schwaner v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 898 F.2d 793, 794 (D.C.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The WASHINGTON POST COMPANY, Appellee,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Et Al., Appellants
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Et Al., Appellants
84-5604.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jan 9, 1990.
898 F.2d 793
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 25843
1990 WL 35899
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
ORDER
PER CURIAM.Upon consideration of appellants’ petition for rehearing and appellee’s response thereto, it is
ORDERED by the Court that the petition for rehearing be and hereby is granted; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that the judgment entered herein on February 5, 1988, be and hereby is vacated; and it is
FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that this case be and hereby is remanded to the District Court for reconsideration in light of Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 1468, 103 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989); and it is
FURTHER ORDERED by the Court that appellants’ motion for leave to file a reply to appellee’s response to the petition for rehearing be and hereby is dismissed as moot.