Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State
Civil Action No. 2015-0688
| D.D.C. | Feb 2, 2017Background
- Judicial Watch filed a FOIA suit seeking State Department records (2009–Jan 31, 2013) about potential conflicts between Secretary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation; parties agreed on many productions but disputed 16 responsive documents.
- State’s IPS searched the Office of the Legal Adviser (esp. Office of Ethics and an internal content server), the Executive Secretariat, RIMS (retired records), and certain non-state.gov email collections; results: 6 produced in full, 5 partially, 5 withheld entirely.
- State withheld ten documents under Exemption 5 (deliberative process) and redacted private non-state.gov email addresses in three documents under Exemption 6 (privacy).
- Judicial Watch challenged adequacy of State’s search (particularly failure to search emails produced by Huma Abedin), argued some withheld materials were factual/segregable and that some deliberative-withheld materials involved non-State actors or pre-confirmation matters, and sought release of email addresses or domain information.
- Court held the search was reasonable in most respects but ordered State to search the records produced by Huma Abedin; ordered release of several third-party identities that were factual and segregable; upheld withholding of full private email addresses but ordered release of certain domain extensions where disclosure would not reveal full addresses; denied summary judgment on several Exemption 5 issues and allowed further briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of search | State failed to search all likely sources (esp. Huma Abedin emails, SMART, other advisers) and used inconsistent terms | IPS identified offices reasonably likely to have responsive records and used agreed/broader search terms; SMART not likely to contain relevant records | Search reasonable largely, but State must search the records turned over by Huma Abedin; summary judgment otherwise granted for adequacy |
| Applicability of Exemption 5 (deliberative process) to documents related to confirmation preparation | Documents relate to pre-confirmation outsiders or non-State actors and thus not protected; some contain segregable facts | Materials were predecisional/deliberative and could include outside consultants aiding State decision-making | Denied summary judgment on these withheld confirmation-related documents; parties may supplement record and rebrief whether Exemption 5 applies |
| Segregability of factual material | Identities of potential speech sponsors, foreign sponsor, and consulting client are factual and must be released | Disclosure of factual identities could chill candid deliberations and reveal deliberative process | Court ordered release of the specific identities (group for speech, two sponsors, foreign government sponsor, potential consulting client) as reasonably segregable factual material |
| Withholding of private non-state.gov email addresses (Exemption 6) | Public interest in tracking private-server use is high; release of addresses or domains is warranted | Release would invade third-party privacy and risk harassment; State has already disclosed some names/prefixes and some full addresses | Withheld full addresses upheld (privacy interest outweighs public interest); but ordered release of certain domain extensions where doing so would not permit reconstruction of full addresses |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (agency must show search reasonably calculated to uncover records)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (search adequacy standards)
- Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. & Budget, 598 F.3d 865 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (predecisional/deliberative analysis)
- Dudman Commc'ns Corp. v. Dep't of Air Force, 815 F.2d 1565 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (focus on effect of disclosure on deliberative process)
- Ryan v. Dep't of Justice, 617 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (outside consultants solicited by agency may be treated as intra-agency for Exemption 5)