Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration
214 F. Supp. 3d 43
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Judicial Watch requested all draft indictments for Hillary Rodham Clinton from the National Archives (records of independent counsels Fiske/Starr), including drafts in Hickman Ewing attorney files.
- Archives located responsive boxes and withheld drafts in full, invoking FOIA Exemptions 3, 6, and 7(C) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) (grand jury secrecy).
- Judicial Watch administratively appealed and sued under FOIA; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Archives submitted detailed declarations (M. Murphy) describing drafts as reflecting grand juror witnesses, quoted grand jury testimony, subpoenaed records, and strategic prosecutorial deliberations; Archives compared drafts to publicly released final report and redacted evidence memorandum.
- Court treated records as if still within the creating agency's control (statutory transfer does not waive exemptions) and evaluated applicability of Rule 6(e), Exemption 3, and Exemption 7(C), plus segregability.
- Court held Archives met its burden: Rule 6(e)/Exemption 3 applies to the Archives; drafts would tend to reveal grand jury workings and identities; Mrs. Clinton retains privacy interests under Exemption 7(C); public interest did not overcome privacy; segregability analysis was adequate. Judgment for Archives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Rule 6(e) to Archives | Rule 6(e) doesn't bind Archives because Archives is not among listed Rule 6(e) persons | Independent counsel are "attorneys for the government" covered by Rule 6(e); custody transfer to Archivist carries statutory restrictions (44 U.S.C. §2108) so Rule 6(e) protections continue | Rule 6(e) applies to Archives via application to independent counsel and statutory transfer; Exemption 3 available |
| Whether drafts are "matters occurring before the grand jury" | Drafts are prosecutorial materials or publicly revealed in reports, not grand-jury core material; declarations are vague | Drafts compile and distill grand jury evidence, identify witnesses/subpoenas, quote testimony and reveal strategy; disclosure would reveal secret grand jury aspects | Drafts are grand jury material protected by Rule 6(e)/Exemption 3; declarations provided sufficient nexus |
| Whether drafts lost protection due to prior public disclosures | Final Report and Evidence Memorandum released grand-jury-derived material, so drafts' contents are effectively public | Archives compared documents and concluded drafts contained nonpublic grand jury material not released; prior disclosures were not identical or sufficiently specific | Plaintiff failed to identify specific public-domain material duplicative of withheld content; drafts retain Rule 6(e) protection |
| Exemption 7(C) balancing (privacy vs public interest) | Public interest in independent counsel's conduct and Clinton's public roles outweigh privacy (high public figure) | Clinton retains privacy interest in undischarged draft indictments (never charged); requested material reveals private investigatory details and would not illuminate agency conduct | Exemption 7(C) applies: Clinton has substantial privacy interest; public interest proffered does not outweigh that privacy; withheld under 7(C) |
| Segregability | Entire drafts withheld; Archives failed to perform adequate document-by-document segregability analysis and did not show non-segregable status | Archives conducted individual review, compared to public reports, provided indexing/chart and explained materials are inextricably intertwined with grand jury process | Segregability satisfied: agency provided detailed justification and showed non-segregability under Exemption 3/Rule 6(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (statutory purpose of FOIA is to inform citizens about what their government is up to)
- In re North, 16 F.3d 1234 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (independent counsel are "attorneys for the government" subject to Rule 6(e))
- Cause of Action v. National Archives & Records Admin., 753 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (transfer to Archives does not strip documents of agency FOIA status)
- Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives & Records Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (Rule 6(e) protection survives transfer; grand-jury materials may be withheld)
- Senate of Puerto Rico ex rel. Judiciary Comm. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (disclosure test: whether release would tend to reveal secret aspects of grand jury investigation)
- In re Sealed Case, 192 F.3d 995 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (distinguishing prosecutorial deliberation from core grand jury material)
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (privacy balancing under Exemption 7(C); agency declaration specificity requirements)
- American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 750 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (privacy interests remain where charges were never filed)