Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v State Mills Abedin ethics documents 01817

JW v State Mills Abedin ethics documents 01817

JW v State Mills Abedin ethics documents 01817

Page 1: JW v State  Mills Abedin ethics documents 01817

Category:

Number of Pages:9

Date Created:July 19, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 19, 2016

Tags:01817, Opposition, Reply, Ethics, summary, Abedin, Mills, documents, production, defendant, filed, plaintiff, State Department, document, FOIA, department, Washington


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/10/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 15-cv-688-RC
PLAINTIFF RESPONSE STATUS REPORT PARTIAL OPPOSITION
DEFENDANT PROPOSED PRODUCTION SCHEDULE
Pursuant this Court January 28, 2016 Minute Order, Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch submits this response Defendant State Department State recent Status
Report (ECF No. 23). that Status Report, State explains how failed meet the Court
October 23, 2015 deadline for the production all documents this case due State document
management mistakes. Plaintiff recognizes that, practical matter, Defendant conduct this
case has now made impossible for Plaintiff obtain all records which entitled without
some additional delay. ECF No. However, Plaintiff opposes Defendant proposed
open-ended production and briefing schedule, which unreasonable given the circumstances. its recent Status Report, State proposes that the Court impose production
deadline all. Instead, State suggests that merely inform Plaintiff State own self-selected
production schedule month from now. ECF No. The basis for State request for
such leniency the reported failure its employees communicate with each other concerning
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/10/16 Page
which State Department files were moved where whom, and what those files contained.1 ECF
No. 6-7. result these reported miscommunications, State has failed comply
with this Court previously-established production deadline October 23, 2015. See Minute
Order, Aug. 21, 2015. State now acknowledges that has missed this Court-imposed deadline
over four months, and asks this Court indulgence for another month before State must inform
Plaintiff whether will ultimately wind five, six, seven months arrears.
The Court should decline reward State failure satisfy its statutory obligations produce records. The Defendant failure comply with this Court reasonable deadlines
does not constitute proper grounds for such broad extension time. See, e.g.,
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., 577 Supp. 309, 312 (D.D.C. 2008) [T]he government
cannot claim basis for failing meet deadlines imposed this Court that simply did not
appreciate the full extent the challenges posed
Rather than adopt Defendant proposed open-ended production schedule (ECF
No. 9), Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court order State produce all responsive
documents from the newly discovered files later than April 18, 2016. This gives State over
two months review and produce from set 2,500 potentially responsive documents, which
more than reasonable light standard Court-ordered deadlines FOIA litigation.
Defendant proposal regarding the briefing schedule similarly unreasonable and
While this explanation technically complies with the Court Jan. 28, 2016 Minute Order directing State describe
why these files were overlooked, Plaintiff notes that State answer merely describes certain actions and inactions
employees, but does not assume accountability for those actions identify oversight failures. See State Department
Office Inspector General, Evaluation the Department State FOIA Processes for Requests Involving the
Office the Secretary, Jan. 2016, available https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-01.pdf, These
procedural weaknesses, coupled with the lack oversight leadership and failure routinely search emails, appear contribute inaccurate and incomplete responses. [State Officials] recalled several instances when S/ES
searches have yielded inaccurate incomplete results, though they were unable determine the magnitude this
problem. Id. [I]n litigated cases, incomplete searches S/ES can expose the Department financial
liability, including attorney fees and other litigation costs.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/10/16 Page
inappropriate. ECF No. Plaintiff has already challenged all exemption withholdings
from Defendant original October 23, 2015 productions. See Exh. Letter from Chris Fedeli
Daniel Riess, October 29, 2015. Accordingly, there currently question whether
summary judgment briefing will necessary this case. State proposal that the parties confer
and ask the Court once again adopt briefing schedule necessary some unspecified future
date therefore constitutes needless waste the Court and the parties time. Rather, Plaintiff
asks the Court adopt the following shortened (but very reasonable) briefing schedule now
partially make for the delay these proceedings and save the parties time:
Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment: May 18, 2016
Plaintiff Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary Judgment: June 17, 2016
Defendant Opposition and Reply: July 18, 2016
Plaintiff Reply: August 2016
Dated: February 10, 2016
Respectfully submitted, Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third St. SW, Ste. 800
Washington, 20024
Tel: (202) 646-5185
cfedeli@judicialwatch.org
Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 24-1 Filed 02/10/16 Page
October 29, 2015
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Daniel Riess
U.S. Department Justice Massachusetts, Avenue,
Washington, 20530
(202) 353-3098
daniel.riess@usdoj.gov
Re: Judicial Watch Department State, Case No. 15-688-RC (DDC)
State Department FOIA Case No. F-2015-05559
Dear Daniel: received the October 23, 2015 letter from John Hackett Kate Bailey and the
accompanying document production this case. initial matter, please instruct your client send all documents and correspondence this case directly going forward. Thank you. have Joint Status Report due this case November 2015 concerning
summary judgment briefing. July 2015, the Court issued order directing the State
Department complete its search for responsive records August 17, 2015. August 21,
2015, the Court issued order requiring the completion the production from that search
October 23, 2015. that production has been made, this case now ripe for summary
judgment briefing. client challenge all exemption withholdings identified the October Letter.
This includes all documents subject exemption withholdings this matter, whether withheld full partially released. also challenge the sufficiency the State Department search. enclosing draft Joint Status Report with proposed summary judgment briefing
schedule. Once you have had chance review it, hope you agree reasonable and
should file with the Court drafted. you have any changes this Joint Status Report,
please let know. Also, please note that will out the office travelling and unreachable November 6th, well out the office after November Accordingly, would
ask you please obtain your client agreement now approve and file this report
November the alternative, you your client are not able accommodate request
for any reason, will plan file status report for Plaintiff November
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 24-1 Filed 02/10/16 Page
Mr. Daniel Riess
October 29, 2015
Please let know you have any questions. look forward your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Chris Fedeli
Attorney for Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.
encl.
425 Third St. SW, Suite 800, Washington, 20024 Tel: (202) 646-5172 1-888-593-8442
FAX: (202) 646-5199 Email: info@JudicialWatch.org www.JudicialWatch.org
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 24-2 Filed 02/10/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 15-cv-688-RC
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration the Defendant February 2016 Status Report (ECF No. 23) and
Plaintiffs response thereto, hereby
ORDERED that Defendant shall complete its production all responsive documents
from the recently-discovered files later than April 18, 2016; Defendant Motion for
Summary Judgment due May 18, 2016; Plaintiff Opposition and Cross Motion for Summary
Judgment due June 17, 2016; Defendant Opposition and Reply due July 18, 2016; and
Plaintiff Reply due August 2016.
_______________
Date
__________________________
Rudolph Contreras
United States District Judge