Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State
Civil Action No. 2015-0689
| D.D.C. | Sep 30, 2017Background
- Judicial Watch submitted three FOIA requests in March 2015 seeking State Department records related to Hillary Clinton’s use of a non-"state.gov" email address and the clintonemail.com server; State missed the statutory response deadline and Judicial Watch sued.
- The State Department searched and ultimately identified six responsive documents: produced five with redactions and withheld one in full — a 16‑page Report of Investigation (ROI) prepared by Diplomatic Security (DS) regarding Bryan Pagliano arising from a security‑clearance/background investigation.
- After supplemental material was provided by the FBI and processed by State, two additional documents were released, including an email chain between Secretary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus; Judicial Watch challenged certain redactions and the withholding of the ROI.
- The parties cross‑moved for summary judgment; the Court reviewed agency declarations and the records (partially) and considered Exemptions 5, 6, 7(C), and 7(E), plus segregability and adequacy of search arguments.
- The Court upheld State’s full withholding of the Pagliano ROI under Exemptions 7(C) and 7(E) and its segregability showing; it also upheld Exemption 5 redactions of portions of the Clinton–Petraeus email but found the Exemption 6 redactions of two third‑party names indeterminate on the present record and ordered limited in camera review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pagliano ROI was "compiled for law enforcement purposes" under Exemption 7 | ROI is routine administrative background check, not law enforcement | ROI was prepared by Diplomatic Security as part of a Single Scope Background Investigation (SSBI) and relates to security and law enforcement duties | Held: Compiled for law enforcement purposes (Exemption 7 met) |
| Whether disclosure of ROI would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy (Exemption 7(C)) | Public interest in transparency about Clinton email matters outweighs privacy; ROI may shed light on State's conduct | ROI contains intensely personal, privacy‑sensitive material from a security investigation; public interest asserted is speculative and not tied to agency conduct | Held: Withholding justified under Exemption 7(C) after balancing privacy vs public interest |
| Whether ROI disclosure would reveal law‑enforcement techniques (Exemption 7(E)) | Agency has not shown release would reveal techniques or risk circumvention | ROI reveals DS methods, verification techniques, cooperation with other bodies; disclosure risks circumvention | Held: Withholding justified under Exemption 7(E) (low bar met) |
| Whether State properly segregated non‑exempt material from the ROI | Some factual portions could be released; requests Court do in camera review | Agency conducted line‑by‑line review and says exempt material is inextricably intertwined with analysis | Held: Agency met segregability burden; no in camera review required for ROI |
| Whether redactions in Clinton–Petraeus email are proper under Exemption 5 (deliberative process) | Emails are personal/friendly, not deliberative policy communications | Emails concern personnel recommendations and diplomatic suggestions by senior officials — predecisional and deliberative | Held: Exemption 5 properly invoked for post‑appointment communications; redactions upheld |
| Whether redactions of third‑party names in the email are proper under Exemption 6 (privacy) | Identifying third parties discussed does not constitute an unwarranted privacy invasion | Disclosure could subject individuals to harassment; little public interest shown in names now | Held: On present record, the balance is unclear; Court ordered supplemental declaration and in camera review of the unredacted emails to resolve Exemption 6 claims |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (Agency disclosure supports democratic accountability)
- Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 489 U.S. 749 (FOIA public‑interest inquiry focuses on shedding light on agency conduct)
- Mittleman v. Office of Personnel Management, 76 F.3d 1240 (background investigations are compiled for law‑enforcement purposes)
- Morley v. Central Intelligence Agency, 508 F.3d 1108 (background investigations inherently relate to law enforcement)
- Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (Exemption 7(E) requires logical demonstration that disclosure might risk circumvention)
- PEER v. U.S. Section, Int'l Boundary & Water Comm'n, 740 F.3d 195 (discusses scope of Exemption 7 and the "risk of circumvention" clause)
- ACLU v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 655 F.3d 1 (balancing public interest against privacy under Exemption 7(C))