G. Michael Harvey

This case involves a parent filing suit on behalf of her son, a student with disabilities in D.C. public schools, seeking review of an administrative hearing officer's decision under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The hearing officer had found three IDEA violations by the District but denied most requested relief, including extended school year services, and awarded only a portion of the compensatory education hours sought. The magistrate judge recommends granting in part and denying in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment and remanding the matter to the hearing officer. The core reasoning is that the hearing officer did not adequately explain the denial of extended school year services or the specific calculation of compensatory education awarded, requiring further individualized analysis tied to the record.

civil rights

In this case, a former DC Public Schools physical education teacher sued the District of Columbia, alleging that after she suffered a concussion and requested medical and FMLA leave, the District failed to accommodate her disability, disclosed confidential medical information, retaliated against her with a negative performance evaluation and job elimination, and committed the torts of negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District moved to dismiss the statutory claims for failure to state a claim and for partial summary judgment on the ADA and common-law claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing the tort claims to the extent they sought unliquidated damages but allowing the ADA failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims, the parallel Rehabilitation Act claims, the FMLA retaliation claim, and the tort claims seeking declaratory relief and lost benefits to proceed, on the ground that the pro se plaintiff's allegations, liberally construed, sufficiently stated viable causes of action.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

In this case, Kimberly Earle sued the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission alleging that her termination was retaliatory and discriminatory on the basis of gender, religion, and age in violation of Title VII and the ADEA. The SEC moved to exclude portions of testimony from Earle's retained expert, Ira W. Kitmacher, under Rule 702 and Daubert. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, excluding opinions that amounted to legal conclusions about regulatory compliance, discrimination, or retaliation but allowing other testimony that did not improperly apply the law to the facts.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

Kimberly Earle sued the Chairman of the SEC, alleging that her termination constituted retaliation for protected activity as well as gender and religious discrimination under Title VII and age discrimination under the ADEA. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The magistrate judge recommended granting the SEC's motion and denying Earle's, concluding that she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact showing the agency's non-discriminatory reasons were pretextual. The alleged reorganization plan to capture salaries was deemed unfair but not a violation of Title VII or the ADEA, while retaliation claims failed on timing grounds and because key decisionmakers lacked notice of her protected activity.

labor & employmentcivil rightsbusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Felecia B. sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Administration's denial of her application for Disability Insurance Benefits, arguing that the ALJ failed to properly evaluate medical opinion evidence when determining she was not disabled. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the plaintiff's motion for reversal and granted the Commissioner's motion for affirmance of the ALJ's decision. The court held that the ALJ properly weighed conflicting record evidence, including medical opinions and objective findings, in assessing the plaintiff's residual functional capacity, and that the court may not reweigh that evidence on appeal.

federal powerhealthcare

This case is a False Claims Act qui tam action in which former Medtronic sales representatives allege that the company caused physicians to submit false Medicare claims for implantation of its InterStim sacral nerve stimulator device by having Medtronic representatives assess and document symptom improvement without using the required patient voiding diaries. The opinion resolves the relators' motion for curative measures and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) for spoliation of electronically stored information. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that Medtronic was not required to take more than reasonable steps to preserve ESI during a complex data-migration process but that untimely imposition of litigation holds caused additional loss of relevant records for which some prejudice was shown. As a remedy, the parties may present evidence and argument to the factfinder concerning the loss attributable to the untimely holds, and the court directed the parties to address costs and fees.

procedurehealthcarebusiness & regulatory

This consolidated FOIA case arose from requests by Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation, CNN, and other press outlets for audio recordings of former President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Hur, which DOJ withheld under exemptions including executive privilege. After the 2024 presidential election and change in administration, DOJ released the recordings publicly in May 2025. The Heritage Foundation then sought attorney's fees under the catalyst theory, claiming its lawsuit caused the release, and moved to strike a supporting DOJ declaration by attorney Jonathan Breyan along with permission for discovery into causation. The court denied the motion in full, holding that the declaration was adequate, the procedural challenges lacked merit, and the requested discovery into high-level DOJ officials was unnecessary and inappropriate for the collateral fees dispute.

federal powerprocedure

In this consolidated FOIA case, Judicial Watch, the Heritage Foundation, and various press outlets sought disclosure of audio recordings from Special Counsel Robert Hur's interview with President Biden concerning the handling of classified documents. The Department of Justice withheld the recordings under multiple FOIA exemptions, including a claim of executive privilege, but released them publicly in May 2025 after the change in presidential administration. The plaintiffs then moved for attorney's fees under the catalyst theory, arguing their litigation caused the release. The magistrate judge recommended denying the fee petitions, concluding that the Press Coalition was neither eligible nor entitled to fees, while the Heritage Foundation was eligible but not entitled because the government could not release the materials while subject to executive privilege and the requested fees were not compensable.

procedurefederal power

In Alnaddaf v. Rubio, a U.S. citizen filed a Form I-130 petition for an immigrant visa on behalf of an Iranian national applicant. After the applicant's visa interview at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan, Armenia, the application was refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and placed in administrative processing, where it remained. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of State and other officials under the Mandamus Act and Administrative Procedure Act, seeking an order to compel prompt completion of the processing and adjudication. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to identify any clear, nondiscretionary duty requiring further action beyond the consular officer's issuance or refusal of the visa, which had already occurred.

immigration

In this case, the plaintiff ICAN, a nonprofit organization, sued the FDA and HHS under FOIA to obtain communications related to agency guidance on COVID-19 vaccine development following a 2020 request. The government moved to stay the proceedings for approximately 18 months, citing exceptional circumstances from massive document production orders in separate litigation requiring over nine million pages by late 2026, along with evidence of due diligence through prioritized tracking and increased staffing. The court granted the stay, relying on D.C. Circuit precedent that permits extensions of FOIA deadlines when agencies demonstrate both exceptional circumstances from overwhelming request volumes and due diligence in processing. It rejected arguments that courts lack authority to issue such stays and adopted a timeline consistent with similar cases in the district.

procedurehealthcare

Nicolyn Plummer sued Gallaudet University after her early termination from a lecturer position, bringing claims for due process violations, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and defamation. The court recommended dismissing the due process claim because Gallaudet is a private university and not a state actor subject to federal constitutional requirements. It further recommended dismissing the emotional distress, negligence, and defamation claims for failing to state plausible claims under Rule 12(b)(6), while allowing the breach of contract claim to proceed based on allegations that the university did not follow procedural protections in the Faculty Handbook. The court determined that exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims was appropriate given the case's posture and the parties' agreement.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Angela P. challenged the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her applications for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income, arguing that the Administrative Law Judge erred in assessing her mental impairments, evaluating medical opinions, and incorporating limitations into her residual functional capacity determination for light work. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the record and found that the ALJ's decisions were supported by substantial evidence on most issues, including the evaluation of symptoms and certain functional limitations, but agreed that the ALJ failed to adequately account for the plaintiff's moderate limitations in concentration, persistence, and pace when formulating the RFC. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's motion for reversal in part by remanding the case to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings to properly address that specific limitation, while denying the Commissioner's motion for affirmance. The ruling is based on the requirements of the Social Security Act and related regulations governing the five-step disability evaluation process.

healthcareprocedure

The case concerned whether construction of a condominium on an adjacent property owned by defendant Murdock Street LLC caused damage to plaintiff Charles Matiella's townhouses, with claims brought for negligence and trespass against the property owner, general contractors EWORA and IFG, and subcontractors City Concrete and Luis Construction. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to all defendants and dismissed the claims. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not identified evidence of any tortious conduct occurring within the statute of limitations, rejecting the argument that a continuous tort theory allowed recovery for earlier conduct. The decision rested on the absence of timely actionable conduct and the inapplicability of precedents cited for continuing harm in construction contexts.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Charles Matiella sued neighboring property owners and contractors, including IFG Group, LLC and EWORA, LLC, alleging that construction activities damaged his residences and rendered them uninhabitable. The IFG defendants asserted counterclaims for breach of contract based on an alleged agreement not to sue, unjust enrichment from services and payments provided, and tortious interference with prospective business opportunities arising from a stop-work order issued by DCRA. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on the breach of contract and tortious interference counterclaims but denied it on the unjust enrichment claim. On the granted claims, the court found insufficient evidence of an enforceable agreement or a cognizable business expectancy and damages attributable to the IFG defendants. The unjust enrichment claim was allowed to proceed to trial.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

In this case, plaintiff Charles Matiella sued Murdock Street LLC and related contractors including EWORA, LLC, IFG Group, LLC, City Concrete Corp., and Luis Construction, Inc., alleging that negligent excavation and construction on an adjacent property caused vibrations that damaged his structures and rendered them uninhabitable, supporting claims of negligence and trespass. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Luis Construction's work without a D.C. general contractor license constituted negligence per se, that res ipsa loquitur established negligence as a matter of law, that undisputed facts proved trespass via vibrations from excavation and rebar insertion, and that the other defendants were vicariously liable. The court denied the motion, holding that D.C. regulations exempt subcontractors like Luis Construction from the licensing requirement, that plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur and trespass arguments relied on conclusory statements without supporting undisputed facts or expert evidence on causation, and that vicarious liability claims therefore also failed. The ruling adhered to prior decisions rejecting similar arguments and noted that summary judgment requires specific evidence rather than recitals of legal elements.

torts & liabilitypropertyprocedure

This case involves a negligence claim brought by Nancy Norton against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act after she tripped on unsecured wires while working at the 2019 White House Easter Egg Roll, resulting in injuries that prevented her from working. The government moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity, for summary judgment on the grounds that it lacked constructive notice of the hazard, and to limit damages to $1 million. The court held that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the action, that summary judgment is not warranted on the liability issue because factual disputes exist regarding notice, and that the plaintiff's damages are capped at $1 million as she failed to justify exceeding the amount claimed in her administrative filing under 28 U.S.C. § 2675(b).

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

In United States v. Young, the defendant, convicted of four misdemeanors for her participation in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and subsequently pardoned, filed post-conviction motions including a Rule 33 motion to vacate her conviction or grant a new trial based on alleged dishonesty by one juror during voir dire, a request to unseal the jury foreperson's name or an unredacted verdict form, a motion for leave to file a bar complaint against that juror, and a motion to unseal certain government filings regarding trial evidence. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Rule 33 motion and the unsealing request for the juror's name, granted the motion for leave to file a bar complaint, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to unseal the government documents. The court reasoned that the defendant failed to meet the standards for relief under Rule 33 due to insufficient evidence of juror misconduct affecting the verdict, that juror privacy interests outweighed disclosure of the foreperson's identity, and that the Hubbard factors supported limited redaction of the documents because the sealed information had not influenced the court's prior evidentiary rulings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involves a FOIA lawsuit by Informed Consent Action Network against the CDC and HHS seeking records on the agency's decisions regarding Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR) analyses of vaccine adverse event data in the VAERS system, including any communications about not conducting such analyses in favor of Empirical Bayesian methods. The CDC withheld responsive documents under FOIA Exemption 5, asserting the deliberative process privilege. The court denied both parties' cross-motions for summary judgment without prejudice, holding that the agency had not met its burden to justify the withholdings because its declarations failed to engage with relevant case law or address the plaintiff's specific arguments. The plaintiff's absolutist positions also did not establish that all material must be disclosed. The parties were ordered to meet and confer on narrowing disputes and proposing a schedule for further proceedings.

procedurefederal powerhealthcare

In Chambers v. O'Malley, plaintiff Demetria C. sued the Acting Commissioner of Social Security to reverse the denial of her applications for Supplemental Security Income and Disability Insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The plaintiff argued that the Administrative Law Judge had erred in assessing her residual functional capacity by not properly accounting for limitations in concentration, persistence, or pace, failing to logically connect the assessment to the evidence, and not addressing her inability to leave home due to anxiety. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, concluding that the first two challenges lacked merit and any error regarding the third was harmless because the overall determination was supported by substantial evidence.

procedurefederal power

In this employment discrimination case, plaintiff Eva Jackson, a Medical Administrative Specialist at a VA medical center, alleged that sexual harassment by a coworker created a hostile work environment under Title VII and that the agency failed to promptly investigate or discipline the harasser. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the alleged conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment and that the agency responded promptly and effectively. The court granted summary judgment, finding on the undisputed facts that the harassment did not meet the legal threshold for a hostile work environment claim and that the agency's actions—including immediate no-contact measures and an investigation initiated within weeks despite some external delays—were prompt and appropriate under the circumstances.

labor & employmentcivil rights