Here is the order in Kovalevich v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D.D.C.):
Here are the materials in New York Times v. Dept. of Health and Human Services (S.D. N.Y.):
This Freedom of Information Act suit was brought by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and a reporter seeking to force the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) to release a report that it commissioned from a private consultant to investigate numerous acts of rape and sexual abuse committed by Stanley Patrick Weber, a former IHS pediatrician, against Native American children. IHS has taken the position that the report is protected from disclosure by a statute that affords confidentiality to reports on the “quality of medical care” — a position we reject. We also find that the report is not protected under the litigation privilege exemption of the Freedom of Information Act and thus order that it be produced.
Materials in St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
Prior post here.
Although the FOIA favors the disclosure of government records for the good of the public, the DOJ has met its burden to show the OPR, OTJ, and EOUSA’s refusals to confirm or
deny the existence of the records the Tribe is seeking are justified under Exemptions 6 and 7(C).
Here is “Lawsuit Seeks Background on DOJ ‘Apology’ in Supreme Court Indian Cases.”
If you don’t have a NLJ subscription, google the title through google news.
Here is the complaint in California Indian Law Association v. Dept. of Justice (D. D.C.):
On April 8, 2011, at the 36th Annual Indian Law Conference of the Federal Bar Association, in New Mexico, a video recording was presented to all attendees consisting of a speech by Neal Katyal in his capacity as the Acting Solicitor General of the United States (“ASG”) (hereinafter, “Katyal Speech”). The Katyal Speech involved an apology or confession of error for misrepresentations by the OSG to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913), and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955), and background regarding United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011), and United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011), which were both then pending before the Supreme Court.
For a limited time you can download the video of the presentation here.
Here is the complaint in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
For over two years, Plaintiff Forest County Potawatomi Community (the “Community”) has attempted to obtain records from Defendants, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §552 et seq., related to the Secretary of the Interior’s reconsideration of the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“Menominee’s”) request to acquire land in Kenosha, Wisconsin, into trust for gaming purposes under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), 25 U.S.C. §465, and a request for a Secretarial Determination under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §2719(b)(1)(A) (the “Kenosha Casino Application”). The Community sought the information as part of its effort to meaningfully consult with and provide comments to the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs (the “Assistant Secretary”) before he made critical decisions on the Kenosha Casino Application. Defendants have improperly withheld the requested records and have repeatedly violated their clear statutory obligations under FOIA. The Community seeks, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that Defendants are in violation of FOIA for improperly withholding records and engaging in a pattern and practice of violating FOIA, a finding that the Department of the Interior (“DOI”) personnel acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of law in withholding records, and an order requiring Defendants to immediately and fully comply with the FOIA requests set forth herein.