Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives & Records Administration
876 F.3d 346
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1994 an Independent Counsel investigated alleged wrongdoing by President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton; no grand jury indictment or conviction of Hillary Clinton resulted and the Independent Counsel’s Final Report concluded insufficient evidence for prosecution.
- Judicial Watch requested under FOIA "all versions of indictments against Hillary Rodham Clinton" from the National Archives, seeking a draft indictment referenced in public media but not released.
- The National Archives withheld the documents invoking FOIA Exemption 7(C) (personal privacy in law-enforcement records), Exemption 3 and Rule 6(e) (grand jury secrecy), and argued that a draft indictment is tied to grand jury process and implicates strong privacy interests.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Archives, finding the exemptions applicable and that the Archives performed a proper segregability analysis.
- On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reviewed de novo whether the draft indictment must be disclosed, focusing on balancing Mrs. Clinton’s privacy interests against any public interest that would justify disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a draft indictment is exempt under FOIA Exemption 7(C) | Judicial Watch: public interest in disclosure of Independent Counsel materials outweighs privacy concerns | Archives: draft indictment contains unproven allegations and implicates strong privacy interests of an unindicted person | Held: Exemption 7(C) applies; privacy interest is significant and disclosure would be an unwarranted invasion |
| Whether public interest overcomes privacy ("exceptional interests") | Judicial Watch: public oversight of Independent Counsel and renewed interest in special-prosecutor scrutiny justify release | Archives: substantial related materials already public; any incremental public benefit is minimal | Held: No exceptional public interest shown; released materials (Final Report, staff summary, congressional reports) mitigate public-interest claims |
| Whether documents are tied to grand jury secrecy or Exemption 3/Rule 6(e) | Judicial Watch: requested items are indictments/drafts and could be reviewed/redacted | Archives: draft indictment is inextricably tied to grand-jury process; disclosure would violate secrecy rules/statute | Held: Archives’ position that draft is tied to grand-jury process supports nondisclosure under Rule 6(e)/Exemption 3 as asserted alongside 7(C) |
| Whether the Archives conducted a proper segregability analysis | Judicial Watch: Archives failed to show adequate segregability or that full withholding was necessary | Archives: described document types, identified exemptions, and explained why full withholding was appropriate for the requested categories | Held: Segregability was adequately addressed given the nature of the request for "all versions of indictments," so full withholding permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Fund for Constitutional Gov't v. Nat'l Archives & Recs. Serv., 656 F.2d 856 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (privacy of uncharged individuals requires exceptional public interest to overcome)
- Milner v. Dep't of Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011) (FOIA exemptions must be narrowly construed and agencies bear burden of justification)
- Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 777 F.3d 518 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (de novo review of FOIA summary judgment)
- Nat'l Archives & Recs. Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004) (balancing privacy interests against public interest under Exemption 7(C))
- Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 746 F.3d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (public officials retain privacy interests; context matters)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 750 F.3d 927 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (disclosure can undermine presumption of innocence where allegations unproven)
- Bloomgarden v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 874 F.3d 757 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (distinguishing charged matters from unissued drafts)
- Johnson v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 310 F.3d 771 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (agency must describe withheld records and explain nonsegregability)
- Juarez v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 518 F.3d 54 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (appropriate agency response depends on scope of FOIA request)
- Senate of the Commonwealth of P.R. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 823 F.2d 574 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (party asserting public interest must tie it to specific withheld information)