Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice
421 U.S. App. D.C. 200
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- Judicial Watch requested DOJ records (Oct 1, 2012–Mar 20, 2013) concerning settlement communications in the House Committee’s case against AG Holder over the ATF "Fast and Furious" operation.
- DOJ located eight responsive documents (32 pages) and refused to disclose them, citing court-imposed non-disclosure.
- The underlying House Committee litigation before Judge Amy Berman Jackson involved settlement/mediation discussions; at a status conference she said, “I don’t know what you said. I don’t want to know.”
- DOJ relied on Judge Jackson’s remark (and District of Columbia Local Civil Rule 84.9) to refuse release under FOIA; administrative appeal affirmed.
- Judicial Watch sued under FOIA; the district court granted summary judgment for DOJ, finding a court-imposed restriction and alternatively invoking Local Rule 84.9.
- The D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded so DOJ can seek clarification from Judge Jackson about the intended scope/effect of her purported sealing order; the court left the Local Rule 84.9 issue unresolved pending that clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Jackson’s statement/remarks created a court-imposed prohibition barring DOJ disclosure under FOIA | Judicial Watch: No enforceable sealing order exists; DOJ may disclose. | DOJ: Judge Jackson’s remark and referral to mediation show an intended confidentiality bar that prohibits disclosure. | The D.C. Circuit: The remark is ambiguous and DOJ failed to prove the order bars disclosure; remand to allow DOJ to seek clarification from Judge Jackson. |
| Whether Local Civil Rule 84.9 bars disclosure of the communications | Judicial Watch: Rule 84.9 applies only to formal court mediation; it does not cover pre-referral communications, so FOIA disclosure may be permitted. | DOJ: Rule 84.9 prohibits disclosure of written/oral communications made in connection with mediation and thus bars release. | The D.C. Circuit: Declined to decide now; noted potential interpretive conflict between the rule’s text and its application and reserved resolution pending clarification from the issuing court. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the United States, 445 U.S. 375 (agency cannot be required to disclose materials if a court order bars release)
- Morgan v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 923 F.2d 195 (ambiguous sealing orders require clarification from the issuing court)
- Sussman v. United States Marshals Service, 494 F.3d 1106 (de novo review of FOIA summary judgment)
- Awan v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 46 F. Supp. 3d 90 (district court denied FOIA request after issuing court confirmed a document was sealed)
- Texas v. United States, 798 F.3d 1108 (deference to district courts’ interpretations of their own local rules)