Freedom Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State, Civil Action No. 2014-1832

Freedom Watch filed a FOIA request (May 21, 2013) seeking documents about State Department waivers issued under CISADA and Executive Order 13553. Treasury was later dismissed from the suit.
State searched multiple record systems and located no responsive records; Freedom Watch sued, challenging the adequacy of the search. The court granted summary judgment to State in Freedom Watch I, 77 F. Supp. 3d 177 (D.D.C. 2015).
While the case was on appeal, news revealed that former Secretary Clinton used a personal email/server. The D.C. Circuit remanded for the district court to oversee searches of Clinton’s emails for responsive records.
The district court ordered searches of Clinton-related emails (≈30,000 emails / 52,455 pages); State reported no responsive records and the court again granted summary judgment to State (Freedom Watch II).
After that judgment, the FBI provided State additional recovered emails (discs with ≈14,900 emails). Freedom Watch moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) and (3) for relief from judgment based on these newly produced emails and alleged misconduct.
The court reviewed whether the FBI-provided emails qualified as newly discovered evidence or whether State engaged in fraud/misrepresentation in its searches, and denied the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether newly recovered emails are "newly discovered evidence" warranting relief under Rule 60(b)(2)	The FBI-recovered emails constitute newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome because they were not searched earlier	State had conducted adequate, repeated searches (including full-text searches using the same terms on the FBI materials) and found no responsive records, so the new emails would not have changed the outcome	Denied: searches of the FBI-provided materials located no responsive records; thus the new emails would not have changed the result, so no 60(b)(2) relief
Whether State engaged in fraud/misrepresentation in its searches to permit relief under Rule 60(b)(3)	Alleged that affidavits and search representations merit discovery and depositions to probe possible misconduct	State provided affidavits describing search methodology and there is no evidence it possessed the FBI emails at the time of earlier searches; discovery is generally inappropriate in FOIA and plaintiff offered no clear-and-convincing proof of fraud	Denied: plaintiff produced no evidence of fraud or misconduct, and no basis for discovery; 60(b)(3) relief denied

Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 555 F. Supp. 2d 61 (D.D.C. 2008) (standards for Rule 60(b)(2) newly discovered evidence)
United States v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 247 F.3d 370 (2d Cir. 2001) (elements for newly discovered evidence relief)
Epps v. Howes, 573 F. Supp. 2d 180 (D.D.C. 2008) (requiring that new evidence would probably have changed the outcome)
Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 62 F.3d 1469 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (clear-and-convincing standard for fraud under Rule 60(b)(3))
Green v. American Fed. of Labor & Congress of Indus. Orgs., 811 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D.D.C. 2011) (standard for 60(b)(3) fraud relief requiring prevention of full and fair presentation)
Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (declining discovery where plaintiffs failed to raise substantial questions about affidavits and search good faith)
Government Accountability Project v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 852 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2012) (discovery generally inappropriate in FOIA cases)
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 77 F. Supp. 3d 177 (D.D.C. 2015) (prior ruling holding State’s initial searches adequate)