CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5149); BRADLEY COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5150); BLOUNT COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5151); BEDFORD COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5152); COFFEE COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5153); ROANE COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5154); FRANKLIN COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5155); GILES COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5156); CHEATHAM COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5157); KNOX COUNTY EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT (16-5158),
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS LLC, dba AT&T Tennessee,
Defendant-Appellee
   Nos. 16-5149/5150/5151/5152/5153/5154/5155/5156/5157/5158
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
Nos. 1:11-cv-00330; 1:12-cv-00003; 1:12-cv-00056; 1:12-cv-00131;
1:12-cv-00138; 1:12-cv-00139; 1:12-cv-00149; 1:12-cv-00166;
1:12-cv-00176; 1:12-cv-00186—Curtis L. Collier, District Judge.
Argued: September 14, 2016
Decided and Filed: March 24, 2017
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. In this diversity action, the plaintiff municipal corporations operate the local “emergency communications” or “911” programs in their respective counties; specifically, the call centers that receive and route the 911 emergency calls to the proper emergency responders (e.g., police, fire, ambulance). They allege that the defendant telephone company—to reduce costs, offer lower prices, and obtain more customers— engaged in a covert practice of omitting fees mandated by Tennessee statute, and they seek compensation under that statute. They also allege that, while concealing this practice, the telephone company violated the Tennessee False Claims Act. The defendant telephone company moved to dismiss the first claim, arguing that the statute contained no implied private right of action. The district court agreed. The telephone company then moved for summary judgment on the second claim, arguing that its statements were not knowingly false. The district court agreed again, ending the action. When the plaintiffs appealed, we consolidated their appeals and, finding that the district court erred in both the dismissal and the summary judgment, we REVERSE both judgments and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DODA LUCAJ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 16-1381
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.
No. 4:14-cv-12635—Terrence George Berg, District Judge.
Argued: January 27, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 24, 2017
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. The Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) “implements a general philosophy of full agency disclosure of government records,” Detroit Free Press Inc. v. DOJ, 829 F.3d 478, 480 (6th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted), subject to certain exemptions. At issue in this case is the exemption from disclosure for “matters that are . . . inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) (2012). The Defendants-Appellees, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), argue that “inter-agency or intra-agency” includes agencies of other countries. Their entreaty, which could be easily granted by an Act of Congress, cannot so easily be granted by us. We must follow the plain language of § 552(b)(5), which, as we discuss below, is limited to memorandums or letters between authorities of the Government of the United States. Therefore, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court, which granted summary judgment to the Government, and we REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.