970 F.3d 357
D.C. Cir.2020Background
- Judicial Watch sought State Department records of "talking points" provided to Ambassador Susan Rice about the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi attack; suit filed July 21, 2014.
- After discovery and public revelations about Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, the district court authorized extensive discovery and limited depositions, including of former Secretary Clinton (intervenor) and her former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills (nonparty).
- The district court limited Clinton’s deposition to her reasons for using a private server, her understanding of State’s records obligations, and both petitioners’ knowledge of any emails/documents/texts about Benghazi.
- Clinton and Mills petitioned the D.C. Circuit for a writ of mandamus to prevent the depositions.
- The D.C. Circuit held Clinton satisfied the three Cheney mandamus prongs and granted mandamus as to her; Mills failed the first Cheney prong (has adequate alternative remedy) so her petition was denied and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of mandamus to block deposition of an intervening party (Clinton) | Clinton must be allowed immediate review because contempt route is inadequate for a party-intervenor | District court discovery orders are normally reviewable after contempt/appeal; mandamus is extraordinary | Mandamus available for Clinton: contempt-then-appeal route is inadequate for party-intervenor because civil contempt may be nonappealable; Cheney prong 1 satisfied |
| Availability of mandamus for nonparty (Mills) | Mills argued same relief needed due to aligned interests with Clinton | Judicial Watch: nonparty can appeal contempt adjudication, so other adequate means exist | Mandamus denied for Mills: nonparty may pursue contempt and immediate appeal, so prong 1 fails; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether district court clearly abused discretion by ordering depositions (Rule 26 relevance/proportionality) | Judicial Watch claimed depositions were necessary to test bad-faith search and locate additional records | Petitioners argued topics were irrelevant to FOIA adequacy inquiry and disproportionate | Court held district court clearly abused discretion: depositions probe irrelevant state-of-mind and are not proportional to FOIA search adequacy analysis |
| Whether district court misapplied FOIA search standards and ignored controlling precedent (e.g., Pompeo) | Judicial Watch relied on existence of newly disclosed nonresponsive emails and suspicion of "mishandling" to justify further discovery | Petitioners argued FOIA requires only a reasonable search; Federal Records Act remedies differ; Pompeo shows State exhausted reasonable efforts to recover Clinton emails | Court held district court misapplied FOIA law by conducting a Federal Records Act–style foraging inquiry, failing to assess adequacy of methods, and not addressing Pompeo; third Cheney prong satisfied — mandamus appropriate for Clinton |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (three-part mandamus standard)
- In re Sealed Case No. 98-3077, 151 F.3d 1059 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (limits of contempt-then-appeal remedy for parties)
- In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (mandamus appropriate to forestall future error in discovery practice)
- AF Holdings, LLC v. Does 1-1058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (Rule 26 constraints on discovery)
- SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (district court discretion in FOIA discovery)
- Ground Saucer Watch, Inc. v. CIA, 692 F.2d 770 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (bad-faith allegations must be more than speculation to compel discovery)
- Goland v. CIA, 607 F.2d 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (summary judgment based on agency affidavits when bad-faith showing insufficient)
- Weisberg v. Dep’t of Justice, 745 F.2d 1476 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (standard: search reasonably calculated to uncover relevant documents)
- Nation Magazine v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (adequacy measured by methods used, not fruits of search)
- Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (failure to find specific document does not alone render search inadequate)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Pompeo, [citation="744 F. App'x 3"] (D.C. Cir. 2018) (affirming that State took every reasonable action to retrieve remaining Clinton emails)