jw v. state discovery approved 01363

8/17/2019 JW v. State Discovery Approved 01363

1/16

U.S. District

Court

District of Columbia

Notice of lectronic Filing

The following transaction was entered on 5/4/2016 at

:

10 PM and filed

on

5/4/2016

Case

Name

JUDICIAL WATCH INC. v. DEPARTMENT

OF

STATE

Case

Number

:

3-cv-01363-EGS

Filer

Document

Number 73

Docket Text

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding the factual and legal

basis for

narrowly

tailored discovery

as

agreed

to by

the parties. Signed by

Judge

mmet G.

Sullivan on May 4, 2016. lcegs4)


2/16

Case 1:13 cv 01363 EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1

of 5

JUDICIAL WATCH

v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA

P l a i n t i f f ,

Civ i l Act ion No. 13-1363

U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Defendant .

MEMORANDUM AND

ORDER

I Background

This case pre sen t s a nar row

l ega l

ques t ion : d id the United

S t a t e s

Department o f

S t a t e

( S ta te Depar tment ) , in

good

f a i t h ,

conduct

a

search

r easonab ly

ca l cu l a t ed

to uncover a l l r e l evan t

documents

in re sponse

to

P l a i n t i f f J u d i c i a l Watch ' s

( Jud i c i a l

Watch )

Freedom

o f

In fo rmat ion

Act

( FOIA )

reques t? As the

Court

ru l ed dur ing the

February 23,

2016

hear ing on J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s

Motion

fo r Discovery under

Rule

56(d) , ques t ions

surrounding

the crea t i on ,

purpose

and

use

of the

c l in tonemai l . com

se rve r must

be exp lo red

th rough l i m i t e d

d iscovery befo re the Court can dec ide , as a m at t e r o f law,

whether the

Government

has conducted an

adequate

search in

re sponse to J u d i c i a l Watch ' s

FOIA

r eques t . ee Fed. R.

Civ.

P.

56(d) ;

Hr 'g T r . , Docket No. 59 a t 78:

9-25.

1


3/16


of 5

A. The FOIA r eq u es t a t i s sue .

The

FOIA

r eq u es t

a t i s sue focuses

on

employment

records

o f Ms.

Huma Abedin, one o f

former

Secre t a ry o f St a t e

H i l l a ry C l i n to n ' s

~ S e c r e t a r y Cl i n t on o r

~ M r s

Cl in ton )

c l o s e s t

ad v i so r s .

Designated as a

spec ia l

government employee, Ms. Abedin was

al lowed to

engage in p r i v a t e s e c t o r

work

whi le

a l so working

a t

the St a t e Department . P l . ' s Mot. Discovery , Docket No.

48

a t 15.

S p e c i f i c a l l y ,

Ms.

Abedin

served as a co n su l t an t t o Teneo

Holdings

and the

Cl in ton Foundat ion .

Id

Teneo i s

l ed by a l ong-

t ime adv isor to

former

Pres id en t

B i l l

Clin ton . Id

On

November 10, 2013,

J u d i c i a l

Watch f i l e d t h i s l aw su i t

seeking

the

produc t ion

of the

fo l lowing documents:

•

Any

and a l l SF-50 ( n o t i f i c a t i o n o f personne l ac t ion) forms

fo r Ms. Huma Abedin;

• Any and a l l co n t r ac t s ( inc lud ing ,

but

not l i mi t ed t o ,

pe r sona l

s e rv i ce co n t r ac t s ) between the Department of St a t e

and Ms. Huma Abedin; and

• Any and a l l

records

regard ing , concern ing o r r e l a t e d

to

the

au t h o r i za t i o n fo r

Ms. Huma Abedin

to

represen t ind iv idua l

c l i e n t s

and/or o the rwise engage in o u t s id e employment whi le

employed by

and/or

engaged in a co n t r ac t u a l r e l a t i o n s h i p

wi th Sta t e .

Compl. ,

Docket

No. 1 . J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s

r eq u es t

covered

the

t ime

per iod

o f January

2010

to May

21,

2013. Id

B. Procedura l h i s to r y .

The St a t e Department acknowledged r e c e i p t o f J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s

FOIA r eq u es t by

l e t t e r

on June 5, 2013, but

d i d

not


4/16


of 5

subs t an t ive ly

respond u n t i l a f t e r t h i s l awsu i t was f i l ed . Compl.

6-8. In response

to t h i s

l awsu i t , the

S t a t e Department

searched the records of the Bureau o f Human Resources the

Off ice

of the Execut ive S ec r e t a r i a t , the

Off ice

of the

Legal

Advisor

and the Cen t ra l

Foreign

Pol icy Records . D e f . s Mot.

Summ

J . , Docket

47 a t

3-4.

The Sta te

Department

produced e igh t

non-exempt records to

J u d i c i a l

Watch. Id The p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t ed

t o d i smi s sa l o f t h i s

case

on March 14 2014. Docket No. 12.

In June

2015

fo l lowing the reve la t ion by the New York Times

of the


se rve r , the

p a r t i e s

agreed

t h a t

the case

should

be

r e -opened .

ee P l . s Mot. Discovery Docket No. 48 a t

2;

see a l so June 19 2015 Minute Order .

Pursuant

to

a

Court

order , the Sta te Department

co l l ec t ed

and searched f ed e ra l

records t h a t were v o l u n t a r i l y produced by Mrs. Clin ton , Ms.

Abedin

and

Ms.

Cheryl

Mil l s .

D e f . s

Mot.

Summ

J . ,

Docket

47

a t

10.

The S t a t e

Department a l so searched

the four o f f i c e s

l i s t e d

above fo r a second t ime. Id

For

the f i r s t t ime, however the

Off ice

of the Under Sec re ta ry fo r Management was a l so

sea rched .

Id

Search

terms agreed

upon

by the

p a r t i e s

were

used to

complete t h ese s ea rch es ,

which re su l t ed in a

r o l l i n g produc t ion

o f

48 pages on September 18 2015; 15 pages on October 13 2015;

r e - r e l e a s e o f th r ee documents on

November 12

2015; and r e

r e l e a s e o f

two

documents in fu l l and r e - r e l e a s e in p a r t of one

document p rev io u s ly wi thhe ld

on

November 13 2015.

Id a t

10

and

3


5/16


of 5

13. The S t a t e Department wi thheld two

Off ice

o f

Government

Eth ics

Form

540s under

FOIA

exemption 3. Id

On

November 13,

2015, the S t a t e Department f i l e d a Motion fo r

Summary

Judgment. ee Docket No.

47.

J u d i c i a l Watch responded

wi th

a Motion

fo r Discovery

under Rule 56(d) ,

arguing t h a t

l i m i t e d d iscovery

i s necessary befo re

it

can

respond

to

the

S t a t e Depar tment s c la im

t h a t

it conducted an

adequate

search .

P l . s

Mot. Discovery , Docket No. 48. The p a r t i e s b r i e f i n g on

J u d i c i a l

Watch s

Motion

fo r Discovery

was f i n a l i z e d by the end

o f January

2016,

and on February 23,

2016,

the Court heard ora l

argument on the motion. ee Hr g T r . , Docket No.

59.

The Court

gran ted P l a i n t i f f s

Motion

fo r Discovery in open cour t

and

d i r e c t e d the

p a r t i e s

to submit nar rowly t a i l o r e d d iscovery

proposa l s fo r the Cou r t s cons ide ra t ion . Id On March

16,

2016,

the

S t a t e

Depar tment s

Motion

fo r

Summary

Judgment

was

denied

wi thou t

pre jud ice

in l i g h t of the

Cou r t s cons ide ra t ion

of the

p a r t i e s d i s co v e ry p ro p o s a l s . ee March 16,

2016

Minute Order .

Although

the

S t a t e

Department has not waived it s ob jec t ion to

d iscovery , the

p a r t i e s

were

ab le

to reach

an agreement

on the

r e l evan t scope of d i scovery . ee Docket No. 65. The Court

applauds the p a r t i e s coopera t ive e f fo r t s

and

approves t h e i r

j o i n t proposa l

fo r l i m i t e d d iscovery . The

purpose

o f t h i s

Memorandum and

Order

i s to exp la in in

more d e t a i l

the b a s i s fo r


6/16


of 5

the Cour t ' s February 28,

2016 d ec i s io n to g ran t

J u d i c i a l

Watch s

reques t fo r

d iscovery .

C. Key f a c t s r e l a t e d to

t he

c l in tonemai l .com se rve r .

C r i t i c a l f ac t s r e l a t e d to the c l in tonemai l . com s e rv e r

prec lude

a

l eg a l an a l y s i s ,

a t t h i s t ime , o f

whether

the St a t e

Department conducted an

adequate

sea rch

under

FOIA. F i r s t ,

the


s e rv e r

was es t ab l i s h ed

e i g h t

days p r io r to Mrs.

Cl in ton

be ing

sworn

in

as S e c r e t a r y

o f Sta t e . Hr 'g

Tr. 23:20

24:1 . Mrs.

Cl in ton used c l in tonemai l . com

emai l fo r

pe r sona l

and

p ro fe s s i o n a l purposes th roughout her t en u re


o f

Sta t e .

ee Cl in ton Dee l . , Docket No.

22.

o

s t a t e . g o v

emai l

o r

e l e c t ro n i c

device was ever i s sued to

Mrs.

Cl in ton

from the

St a t e

Department .

P l . ' s Mot.

Discovery ,

Docket No.

48

a t

12.

Ms. Abedin was ass igned

an

email

account

on the


s e rv e r

as

wel l

as

one

a t s t a t e . g o v .

Id

a t

11.

It i s unknown whether

any o t h e r S t a t e

Department

s t a f f

had an

emai l account on the c l in tonemai l . com s e rv e r . Hr 'g Tr. 22: 1-13.

However, emai l communicat ions from January

2009, j u s t

severa l

weeks a f t e r

Mrs.

Cl in ton

was sworn i n , conf i rm

t h a t

s en i o r S t a t e

Department

s t a f f

had knowledge

of the

c l in tonemai l . com s e rv e r .

ee Docket No. 52 a t

2-4;

see a l so Hr 'g Tr. 49: 12-16 (Mr.

Myers, counsel

fo r

the

St a t e Department : I t h in k

it s

undispu ted t h a t

former

S e c r e t a r y

Cl in ton

was using the e-mai l

account to

cor respond wi th some people who were i n s en i o r

5


7/16


of 5

p o s i t i o n s

a t the

St a t e Department ,

and

t h a t

they were

n e c e s s a r i l y

aware

of the

address

from which

she was

sending

e -

m a i l s . ) .

Notably , the

process by

which the

St a t e Department

took

possess ion o f Mrs.

Cl in ton

and Ms. Abedin ' s f ed e ra l records

from the


s e rv e r

was

th rough se l f - s e l e c t i o n by

Mrs. Clin ton , Ms.

Abedin,

Ms. Mil ls and t h e i r p r i v a t e

counse l .

Cl in ton Dee l . ; see a l so Docket No.

20 ( l e t t e r s

between St a t e

Department and

p r i v a t e counsel

fo r Mrs. Clin ton , Ms.

Abedin

and

Ms. Mil l s ) .

In

l a t e

January

2009,

t h e re was communicat ion among severa l

S t a t e Department s t a f f

about s e t t i n g up

a

computer

o f f network

so

t h a t then S e c r e t a r y Cl in ton

could

check her email a t

the

St a t e

Department .

ee January

24,

2009

emai l cha in , Docket No.

52. In August 2011 communicat ion d i f f i c u l t i e s exper ienced by

S e c r e t a r y

Cl in ton

prompted

d i scu s s io n

among St a t e

Department

s t a f f

about whether

i s s u i n g a St a t e

Department b lack b e r ry might

so lve the

problem.

P l . ' s Reply, Docket No. 51, Exhib i t C.

Stephen Mull , Execut ive

S e c r e t a r y

of the St a t e Department a t the

t ime, noted

t h a t if S e c r e t a r y Cl in ton used

a St a t e i s su ed

b lack b e r ry , her i d e n t i t y would

be

s e c r e t

but t h a t

the

s t a t e . g o v email

account

would

be

s u b j ec t

to

FOIA r e q u e s t s . Id

Ms. Abedin

responded let's d i scu s s

the

s t a t e blackberry ,

d o e s n ' t make a whole l o t o f

s en s e . Id


8/16

Case 1:13 cv 01363 EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 7 of

5

Fina l ly ,

and c r i t i c a l l y , the January

2016 Off ice

o f

In sp ec to r

General repor t ,

E v a l u a t i o n

of the Department of

S t a t e ' s FOIA Process fo r Requests Invo lv ing the

Off ice

of the

Sec re t a ry

( OIG

Repor t ) notes t h a t a l though dozens o f S t a t e

Department

s t a f f

communicated

wi th Mrs.

Cl in ton

through the


se rve r , the re

i s

no evidence

t h a t personne l

invo lved in

responding

to

FOIA

r eq u es t s

were

aware o f Mrs.

C l i n t o n ' s

c l in tonemai l . com email address . OIG Report a t 14-15 ,

a v a i l a b l e a t h t tp s : / / o ig . s t a t e . g o v / s y s t em/ f i l e s / e s p - 1 6 - 0 1 .p d f .

The OIG Repor t a l so notes

t h a t

a t l e a s t one S t a t e Department

lawyer r ep o r t ed

his o r

her b e l i e f t h a t

the

S t a t e Department was

not responding

to

FOIA

r eq u es t s adequa te ly because

Mrs.

C l i n t o n ' s

emai ls were excluded from FOIA sea rch es . Id. a t

15,

fn

64.

I I .

Dis c us s ion

A. The p u r p o s e

o f

FOIA.

FOIA

was

des igned

by Congress to

p i e r c e the

v e i l

of

admin i s t r a t ive sec recy and

to open agency

ac t ion

to

the l i g h t o f

publ ic

s c r u t i n y . Mor l e y

v.

C . I . A .

508

F.3d

1108,

1114 (D.C.

Ci r .

2007) ( in t e rna l

c i t a t i o n s o mi t t ed ) .

FOIA r equ i r e s

f ed e ra l

agencies to

d i sc lose a l l

reques ted agency records , u n l e s s one

o f

nine

s t a t u t o r y exemptions a p p l i e s . U.S.C. § 552(a)

and

(b) .

Because d i s c l o s u r e

r a t h e r

than sec recy i s

the

dominate

o b j e c t i v e of the Act , the

s t a t u t o r y exemptions a re

na r rowly

7


9/16


of 5

cons t rued . See McKneely

v.

Uni ted S ta t es

Dept . o f

Jus t i ce ,

2015

W 5675515

a t *2

(D.D.C.

2015) ( in t e rna l

c i t a t i o n s

o mi t t ed ) .

B. Standard fo r an adequate

search

under FOIA.

A r ecu r r i n g ques t ion in FOIA cases i s whether the

agency

conducted

a

sea rch reasonab ly

ca l cu l a t ed

to

uncover a l l r e l ev an t

documents . Asarco

Inc.

v .

U.S. Environmental Pro tec t ion

Agency

2009

W 1138830 a t * l (D.D.C. 2009). The defending agency must

show beyond

mat e r i a l doubt

t h a t t conducted

a

reasonab le

search .

Weisberg v .

U.S. Dep t

o f

Jus t i ce ,

705 F.2d

1344, 1351

(D.C.

Ci r .

1983) .

The

adequacy

o f

an

agency ' s

sea rch

fo r

re spons ive records i s

measured by t h e

reasonab leness

of the

e f f o r t in l i g h t of the s p ec i f i c r e q u e s t . McKinley

v .

FCIC 807

F. Supp. 2d

1 ,

(D.D.C. 2001) (quo t ing Larson v.

Dep t

o f

S ta te ,

565

F.3d . 857, 869

(D.C.

Ci r . 2009). An

agency

i s not

r eq u i red to

sea rch every record

sys tem.

See Meeropol

v .

Messe

790 F.2d 942, 952-53 (D.C. Ci r .

1986)

(not ing

a

sea rch i s

not

presumed unreasonable

s imply

because t

f a i l s

to produce

a l l

r e l ev an t mate r i a l ) ; see a lso Perry

v .

Block 684

F.2d

121,

128

(D.C.

Ci r . 1982) (ho ld ing

an agency

need not demons t r a te

t h a t

a l l

re spons ive

documents were found and

t h a t

no o t h e r r e l ev an t

documents could p o s s i b l y

e x i s t ) .

C. Standard fo r discovery in

a

FOIA

case.

Discovery

i s r a r e i n FOIA cases .

Thomas

v.

FDA

587 F.

Supp.

2d 114, 115 (D.D.C.

2008)

(Huvel le , J .

(not ing

t h a t

8


10/16


of 5

~ d i s o v e r y i s an ex t r ao rd i n a ry procedure in a

FOIA

ac t ion ) .

Discovery

should

be p ermi t t ed ,

however, when

a

p l a i n t i f f r a i s e s

a

s u f f i c i e n t que s t i on

as to

t he

agency ' s good f a i t h in

pr oc e ss i ng

documents

in

response

to a FOIA r eq u es t . See

e .g .

C i t i z ens

for

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y

Eth ic s in

Washington v. De p t o f

J u s t i c e , 05-cv-2078,

2006 W 1518964 (D.D.C.

June 1 ,

2006)

(Su l l ivan , J . ) (permi t t ing d i sc ove r y

in

a FOIA ac t io n where t he

government

engaged in

extreme d e lay ) ; see also Landmark Legal

Foundat ion

v. E.P.A. , 959 F.

Supp.

2d 175 (2013) (o rde r ing

d i sc ove r y

in

a FOIA a c t i o n on t he que s t i on o f

whether s en i o r

a d m i n i s t r a t o r s used pe r sona l

emai ls fo r o f f i c i a l

bus i ne s s and

whether t he EPA excluded

key o f f i c i a l s

from t h e i r

i n i t i a l

sea rch ) ; Landmark Legal Foundat ion v. E.P.A. , 82

F.

Supp.

3d

211, 220 (D.D.C.

2015)

(no t ing t h a t

t he

behav ior

of the

EPA

fo l lowing

Landmarks

August

2012

FOIA

r eq u es t

r a i s ed

a

r e a sona b l e

su sp ic io n

o f

wrongdoing, e n t i t l i n g Landmark

d i sc ove r y on t he p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t

EPA may

have p u rp o se fu l ly

a t tempted to s k i r t d i s c l o s u re

under

[] FOIA. ) .

D.

J u d i c i a l

Watch

has r a i s e d s u f f i c i e n t ques t ions as to

whether the

S ta t e

Department processed ts November

2013

FOIA reques t in

good

f a i t h .

Rely ing on t he f ac t s d i sc usse d above,

J u d i c i a l

Watch

r a i s e s

s i g n i f i c a n t

que s t i ons

in ts

Motion

fo r Discovery about whether

t he

St a t e Depar tment processed

documents

in good f a i t h in

9


11/16

Case 1:13 cv 01363 EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page

1

of 15

response

to

J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s FOIA r eq u es t .

J u d i c i a l

Watch i s

t h e re fo re e n t i t l e d to

l i mi t ed

d i sc ove r y .

The St a t e Depar tment made two pr imary arguments in

o p p o s i t i o n to P l a i n t i f f ' s

Motion

fo r Discovery . F i r s t ,

t he

St a t e

Depar tment argued

t h a t it d i d

not

have posse s s i on and co n t ro l o f

the c l in tonemai l . com

s e rv e r ,

and

t h e re fo re

could

not

be found

to

have

improper ly

wi thhe ld

any

documents .

D e f . ' s Opp.

P l . ' s

Mot.

Discovery , Docket No. 49

a t

14

( c i t i n g

Repor te rs

ommittee

for

Freedom

o f

the

Press

v. Kiss inger 445

U.S.

136, 139 (1980)

( even i document reques ted

under

FOIA i s wrongfu l ly

in

t he

posse s s i on o f p a r t y

not

an ' ag en cy , ' t he agency

which

rece ived

the document does

not

' improp er ly wi thho ld ' t hose

mat e r i a l s by

its r e f u s a l to i n s t i t u t e

r e t r i e v a l

ac t i o n . ) .

Because

t he

St a t e Depar tment

d i d

not

possess

o r

co n t ro l

Mrs.

C l i n t o n ' s

s e rv e r

a t

t he

t ime

J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s

FOIA

r eq u es t

was

r e c e i ve d ,

the

St a t e Depar tment argued

it did

not wi thhold any r e l ev an t

documents .

D e f . ' s Opp.

P l . ' s Mot.

a t 14 ( P l a i n t i f f ' s concess ion

t h a t

t he


d i d

not possess

former S e c r e t a r y

C l i n t o n ' s emai ls a t

t he

t ime P l a i n t i f f submi t ted its

FOIA

r eq u es t , more

than t h r ee months

a f t e r she l e f t t he

St a t e

Department ,

should be d i sp o s i t i v e . ) .

The

Cour t

i s unpersuaded by

t he

St a t e

Depar tment ' s

r e l i a n c e

on

Kiss inger . The Kiss inger

Cour t

e x p l i c i t l y

d i d

not

address

whether

t he

wi thho ld ing

s t a nda r d

must be measured

from t he

10


12/16

Case 1:13 cv 01363 EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page of 15

t ime a

r eq u es t

i s rece ived under

c i r cums tances

where t i s

shown

t h a t

an agency

p u rp o se fu l ly rou ted a document out

o f

agency posse s s i on

in

or de r to ci rcumvent a FOIA

r e q u e s t .

Id

a t

167, fn

9.

Here,

J u d i c i a l

Watch

a l l eg es t h a t

t he

St a t e

Depar tment

and Mrs.

Cl i n t on sought to d e l ib e r a t e ly t hwar t

FOIA

th rough

t he

c rea t i o n

and use of c l in tonemai l . com. P l . ' s Mot.

Discovery , Docket

No.

48

a t

3.

This

a l l e g a t i o n

goes d i r e c t l y to

t he

type

o f

c i r cums tance

Kiss inger d i d

not

a dd r e s s .

Second,

t he

St a t e Depar tment argued t h a t

t

has done a l l

t i s o b l ig a t ed

to

do under FOIA

by

se a r c h i ng t he

documents

r e tu rn ed by

Mrs. Cl i n t on , Ms.

Abedin

and Ms.

Mi l l s . Hr 'g

Tr. 61-

62. In

suppor t o f

t h i s

argument , t he

St a t e

Depar tment r e l i e d on

Jud ic ia l

Watch v. John F. Kerry a

Federa l Records Act

( FRA )

case

where

t he Cour t

found

J u d i c i a l

Watch ' s

cla ims

moot in l i g h t

of t he

e f f o r t s

t he

St a t e

Depar tment

had

t aken

to

recover

f ed e ra l

records from Mrs. Cl in ton and o t h e r

government o f f i c i a l s .

See

Ci v i l Act ion

No. 15-785 (JEB), Docket No. 21. However, t he

r e l ev an t

s t a nda r ds under t he

FR

and FOIA

a re

d i f f e r e n t .

Under

t he FRA a p l a i n t i f f ' s

r i g h t to

compel

r e f e r r a l to

t he

At to rney

General i s

l i mi t ed

to s i t u a t i o n s where an agency has

t aken

e i t h e r

minimal

o r

no

ac t io n to

remedy

t he

removal

o r d e s t r u c t i o n

o f

f ed e ra l r eco rd s . Id a t

10

( c i t i n g Armstrong v. Bush 924

F.2d 282, 296 (D.C. Ci r . 1991) . Although

t he


has t aken

some ac t io n

to recover

f ed e ra l

records r e l a t e d to t h i s

11


13/16

Case 1:13 cv 01363 EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 12 of 15

case , those e f f o r t s do

not

r e so lv e

the ques t ion o f

whether

the

agency ' s sea rch

in response

to

J u d i c i a l

Watch s

FOI

reques t

was

reasonab le . As

Judge

Lamberth

recen t ly

observed [ t ] h e St a t e

Depar tment ' s wil l ingness to now

sea rch

documents

v o l u n t a r i l y

t u rned

over

to

the Department by

S e c r e t a r y Cl in ton and

other

o f f i c i a l s h ard ly

t r ansforms such

a

sea rch i n t o an ' ad eq u a te '

o r

' r e a s o n ab l e ' o n e .

ee

Ci v i l Act ion No. 14-1242 (RCL), Docket

No. 39.

In sum, the c i r cums tances sur rounding approva l o f

Mrs.

C l i n t o n ' s

use

o f


fo r o f f i c i a l government

b u s in es s , as wel l as

the

manner

in which it was opera ted ,

a re

i s s u es

t h a t

need

to be explored

in

discovery to

enable the

Cour t

t o r e so lv e , as a mat ter o f law, the adequacy of the St a t e

Depar tment ' s

sea rch

o f r e l ev an t records in r esponse to J u d i c i a l

Watch s FOI

r eq u es t .

III Conclus ion

Having cons ide red

P l a i n t i f f ' s

proposed plan , S t a t e ' s

response , P l a i n t i f f ' s

r ep ly , and

the p a r t i e s ' j o i n t l y proposed

o rd e r , and recogniz ing t h a t

Defendant has not waived its

o b j ec t i o n

to

d iscovery , it

i s

hereby ORDERED

t h a t :

A.

The

scope

o f

p e rmis s ib l e d i s co v e ry s h a l l be as fol lows:

the c rea t i o n and o p era t io n o f c l in tonemai l . com fo r St a t e

Department b u s in es s , as wel l as the St a t e Depar tment ' s

approach and

p ra c t i c e

fo r p rocess ing FOI r eq u es t s t h a t

p o t e n t i a l l y

imp l i ca t ed former S e c r e t a r y

C l i n t o n ' s

and

Ms.

Abedin ' s emai l s

and S t a t e ' s

process ing o f the FOI

r eq u es t

t h a t i s

the s u b j ec t o f

t h i s

ac t i o n . P l a i n t i f f

i s

2


14/16


3

of 15

not e n t i t l e d

to d i sc ove r y on m a t t e r s u n re l a t ed to

whether

St a t e

conducted an

adequa te

sea rch

in response

to

P l a i n t i f f s

FOIA r eq u es t ,

i n c lu d in g

wi thout

l i m i t a t i o n : t he s u b s t a n t i v e i n format ion sought by

P l a i n t i f f in ts FOIA reques t in t h i s case , which

i nvo lves the employment s t a t u s o f

a

s i n g l e employee; t he

s to rag e ,

handl ing , t r an smis s io n ,

o r

p r o t e c t i o n

o f

c l a s s i f i e d i n format ion ,

inc lud ing cy b e r s ecu r i t y i s s u es ;

and

any pending

FBI o r

law enforcement i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .

B.

P l a i n t i f f

i n t e nds

to

t ake d ep o s i t i o n s of the

fo l lowing

i n d i v i d u a l s

and des ignees :

1 . Stephen

D.

Mull

(Execut ive S e c r e t a r y of t he

St a t e

Depar tment from June 2009 to October 2012 and sugges ted

t h a t

Mrs.

Cl i n t on be i s su ed

a

St a t e

Depar tment BlackBerry , which would p ro t e c t her

i d e n t i t y

and

would a l so be s u b j ec t to

FOIA

r eq u es t s ) ;

2. Lewis A. Lukens Exe

cu

t ve D irec to r

of the

Execu t ive

S e c re t a r i a t from 2008 to 2011 and emai led

wi th

P a t r i c k

Kennedy and Chery l Mil l s about s e t t i n g up

a

computer fo r

Mrs. Cl in ton to check her c l in tonemai l . com emai l

account I ;

3.

Pa t r i ck

F. Kennedy Under S e c r e t a r y f o r Management s in ce

2007 and t he S e c r e t a r y o f S t a t e s

p r i n c i p a l

ad v i so r on

management i s s u es , inc lud ing t echnology

and i n format ion

s e rv i c e s ) ;

4. 30 b) 6) deposi t ion(s) of Defendant regard ing

process ing

of

FOIA

requests ,

inc lud ing

P l a i n t i f f s

r eques t ,

for emai ls

of

Mrs. Clin ton

and Ms.

Abedin

during

Mrs. Cl in to n s t enure as Secre ta ry of Sta te

a f t e r ;

the

FOIA

both

and

5.

Cheryl

D Mil l s

Mrs.

C l i n t o n s

Chie f

o f


o f

S t a t e ) ;

S t a f f

th roughout he r four yea r s

6. Huma

Abedin Mrs.

C l i n t o n s

Deputy

Chie f

o f

S t a f f

and

a

s en i o r

a dv i so r to Mrs. Cl in ton th roughout he r

four

year s


o f

St a t e

and

a l so had an

emai l

account

on

c l in tonemai l . com) ;

7.

Bryan Pagl i ano

(S t a t e Depar tment Schedule C

employee

who

has

been

r ep o r t ed to

have

se rv i ced

and

main ta ined

t he

13


15/16


4

of 15

s e r v e r t h a t hos ted t he c l in tonemai l . com

sys tem

dur ing

Mrs.

C l i n t o n ' s

t e n u r e


o f

S t a t e ) ;

8.

P l a i n t i f f r e se r v e s t h e

r i g h t

to seek t he Co u r t ' s

pe r m i s s ion to t ake

t he d ep o s i t i o n o f Donald R.

Reid a t

a l a t e r

t ime ,

and S t a t e r e se r v e s t h e

r i g h t

to o b j e c t .

Reid i s Senior Coord ina tor f o r S e c u r i t y

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , Bureau o f Dip lomat i c S e c u r i t y

s i n c e

2003

and was invo lved

in e a r l y

d i scu s s io n s

about Mrs. Cl in ton

us ing he r BlackBer ry

and o t h e r

de v i c e s to

conduc t

o f f i c i a l S t a t e

Depar tment b u s in es s ) ; an d

9.

Based

on i n fo rmat ion l ea rned

d ep o s i t i o n o f

Mrs. Cl in ton

P l a i n t i f f b e l i ev es Mrs.

dur ing

may

be

C l i n t o n ' s

d i sc o v e r y ,

necessa ry .

t e s t im ony

t he

I f

i s

r eq u i red , it

w i l l

r e q u e s t permiss ion from t he

Cour t a t

t he ap p ro p r i a t e t ime.

C. At t he

c onc lu s ion

o f a

d ep o s i t i o n

S t a t e may

e l e c t in

good f a i t h on t he

r ecord to have

a p e r i o d o f t h r e e

b u s i n e s s

days fo l lowing

t he t ime t h a t a d ep o s i t i o n

t r a n s c r i p t o r a u d i o v i su a l r e c o r d i n g i s

made a v a i l a b l e to

t he p a r t i e s

wi th in

which

to r ev iew

t hos e p o r t i o n s of the

t r a n s c r i p t o r a u d i o v i su a l r e c o r d in g t h a t may c o n t a i n

c l a s s i f i e d i n fo rmat ion , in format ion s p e c i f i c a l l y

exempted from d i s c l o s u r e

by s t a t u t e ,

or in format ion

about any pend ing

FBI

o r law

enforcement

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,

and, i necessa ry , to seek an

o r d e r p r e c l u d i n g

p u b l i c

r e l e a s e ,

q u o t a t i o n o r pa r a ph r a s e o f

any

i n a d v e r t e n t l y

d i s c l o s e d c l a s s i f i e d i n fo rmat ion , in format ion

s p e c i f i c a l l y

exempted

from

d i s c l o s u r e

by s t a t u t e , o r

in format ion about any pend ing FBI o r law

enforcement

i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . The d ec i s io n t o e l e c t t he t h r e e

b u s i n e s s - d a y p e r i o d i s in S t a t e ' s so l e

d i s c r e t i o n

and

may

no t be cha l l enged .

D

E.

Discovery s h a l l be

conduc ted

Rules

o f C i v i l

Procedu re ,

l i m i t a t i o n s

h ere in .

pur s ua n t to

s u b j e c t

to

t he

Federa l

t he

scope

and

Defendant

s h a l l

s e r ve its

answers

and

t he

four i n t e r ro g a t o r i e s

s e t f o r t h i n

proposed d i sc o v e r y

p l a n ,

ECF No. 58-1

wi t h i n 21 days o f t h e Co u r t ' s o rd e r .

i n t e r ro g a t o r i e s

i n c l u d e :

14

any o b jec t i o n s

to

P l a i n t i f f ' s

Mar. 15, 2016) ,

Those


16/16


5

of 15

1 .

Who

was

r e sp o n s ib l e

for

pr oc e ss i ng a nd / o r

responding

to

record

r eq u es t s ,

inc lud ing

FOIA r eq u es t s ,

concern ing

emai ls

o f Mrs. Cl in ton and o t h e r

employees

of the Off i ce

of the Secre t a ry ;

2. Who was r e sp o n s ib l e fo r t he

account ing

o f

Mrs. C l i n t o n s

r eco rd s , and

i n format ion ;

i nve n t o r y i ng o r

and Ms. Abedin s

o t h e r

emai l s ,

3.

Who

was

r e sp o n s ib l e

for responding

to

P l a i n t i f f s

FOIA

r eq u es t

from t he

d a te

o f submiss ion

to

t he

p res en t ;

and

4. Which St a t e

Department o f f i c i a l s

and employees

had

and/or used an

account

on

t he


sys tem

to

conduct o f f i c i a l

government

b u s in es s .

F. Discovery s h a l l be

comple ted

w i th in e i g h t weeks

of the

C o u r t s

o rd e r . P l a i n t i f f r e se rv es

t he

r i g h t to seek

ad d i t i o n a l

t ime

i

necessa ry ,

and Defendant r e se rv es

t he

r i g h t to o b j ec t . P l a i n t i f f must seek

t he C o u r t s

pe r m i s s ion to conduct d i sc ove r y beyond t he d ep o s i t i o n s

and t he i n t e r ro g a t o r i e s i d e n t i f i e d above, and Defendant

r e se rv es t he

r i g h t

to o b j ec t .

SO ORDERED

Emmet G

Su l l i v an

Uni ted

St a t e s

D i s t r i c t

Cour t

May 4,

2016.

5

jw v. state discovery approved 01363

Documents