Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of State
235 F. Supp. 3d 310
D.D.C.2017Background
- Judicial Watch submitted FOIA request F-2015-05048 seeking records about the State Department’s production of roughly 55,000 Hillary Clinton emails and communications about non-state.gov email use (the requests sought communications about the emails, not the emails themselves).
- The State Department produced 87 documents but withheld 153 in whole or in part under various FOIA exemptions; the parties limited dispute to 30 documents withheld under Exemption 5.
- Judicial Watch sued to compel disclosure and the parties cross-moved for partial summary judgment; the Court ordered in camera review of the 30 contested records.
- Exemption 5 shields intra-agency deliberative materials (deliberative-process privilege); Judicial Watch conceded Exemption 5 generally applied but invoked the narrow government-misconduct exception to overcome the privilege.
- The Court reviewed the 30 documents in camera (draft letter to NARA, internal edits/emails, draft public materials, and draft congressional talking points) and found them to be routine deliberative communications about policy, logistics, and record management.
- The Court concluded Judicial Watch failed to show the withheld material would shed light on government misconduct or Department complicity in Clinton’s private-server use, so Exemption 5 withholding was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deliberative-process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5 permissibly covers the 30 withheld records | Judicial Watch conceded privilege generally applies but argued the government-misconduct exception should override it for these records | State argued withheld material is deliberative, non-final, and routine internal communications not reflecting wrongdoing | Court: Withholding proper under Exemption 5; records are deliberative and do not reveal misconduct |
| Whether the government-misconduct exception to Exemption 5 applies so that withheld material must be disclosed | JW argued records would show Department complicity or efforts to create misinformation to minimize public perception | State argued records contain only routine policy discussion, edits, and logistical coordination, and plaintiff provided no adequate basis to believe they reflect misconduct | Court: Exception not met—plaintiff failed to show the records would shed light on government wrongdoing |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (agency bears FOIA burden)
- Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352 (FOIA purpose: public scrutiny)
- NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (Exemption 5 covers civil discovery privileges/deliberative-process privilege)
- Department of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164 (strong presumption of disclosure under FOIA)
- Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724 (agency affidavits may support summary judgment in FOIA)
- SafeCard Services, Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (presumption of agency good faith for affidavits)
- In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729 (government-misconduct exception in deliberative privilege context)
- ICM Registry, LLC v. Department of Commerce, 538 F. Supp. 2d 130 (application of government-misconduct exception under FOIA)
- John Doe Agency v. John Doe Corp., 493 U.S. 146 (FOIA’s purpose to ensure informed citizenry)