Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v State opposition of summary judgment Clinton Foundation 00688

JW v State opposition of summary judgment Clinton Foundation 00688

JW v State opposition of summary judgment Clinton Foundation 00688

Page 1: JW v State opposition of summary judgment Clinton Foundation 00688

Category:

Number of Pages:24

Date Created:June 6, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:August 01, 2016

Tags:00688, Chris, Fedeli, Opposition, Judgment, USDA, Exemption, summary, legal, search, Abedin, Emails, ACLU, Foundation, HHS, Hillary Clinton, Secretary, defendant, clinton, filed, State Department, plaintiff, document, records, FOIA, Supreme Court, department, office, EPA


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 06/06/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
____________________________________)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Case No. 15-688-RC
PLAINTIFF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Rule 56(c) the Federal Rules
Civil Procedure, hereby cross-moves for summary judgment against Defendant U.S. Department State. grounds therefor, Plaintiff respectfully refers the Court the accompanying
Plaintiff Memorandum Law Opposition Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
and Support Plaintiff Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, and Plaintiff Response
Defendants Statement Material Facts Not Dispute and Statement Material Facts
Support Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dated: June 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli Bar No. 472919
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
____________________________________)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Case No. 15-688-RC
PLAINTIFF MEMORANDUM LAW SUPPORT PLAINTIFF
OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
SUPPORT CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, counsel, respectfully submits this memorandum opposition Defendant Department State motion for summary judgment and support Plaintiff
cross-motion for summary judgment.
Introduction
Defendant has unlawfully withheld information from Plaintiff concerning Secretary
Clinton conflicts interest arising from her private speaking arrangements and involvement
with the Clinton Foundation charitable organization. addition, Defendant search for records this case inadequate law and requires further efforts produce records. This Court
should find and order production withheld material and additional searches and productions records this FOIA lawsuit.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed this FOIA lawsuit May 2015 for records related State Department
review any conflicts interest for former Secretary Clinton based donations the Clinton
Foundation, and for records policies and procedures prevent conflicts interest stemming
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
from former Secretary Clinton personal charitable financial relationships. ECF The
FOIA request sought records from January 2009 January 31, 2013. Id. October 23, 2015, Defendant identified sixteen documents responsive Plaintiff
FOIA request, six which were released full, five which were released part with
portions redacted and withheld, and five which were completely withheld. ECF 28-2
Defendant claims withholdings under FOIA Exemptions and Following additional searches,
which Defendant claims yielded additional responsive records, the parties proposed resolve
remaining disputed issues this case cross-motions for summary judgment.
II.
SUMMARY ARGUMENT
The State Department has made multiple withholdings under FOIA Exemption that
not withstand scrutiny light the law and the facts presented its narrative Vaughn index.
First, the Defendant has claimed the deliberative privilege for communications between the
agency and individuals who were neither federal employees nor consultants the time the
communications. Second, the State Department has applied the privilege too broadly,
withholding easily segregable facts from the records facts which are not integrated with the
deliberations and would not reveal the substance the deliberations disclosed. addition, the Defendant has wrongly withheld certain non-state.gov email addresses
claiming privacy under Exemption Under ordinary circumstances, there might little public
interest these email addresses, and the privacy interests the individuals might prevail.
However, given the widespread use the clintonemail.com records system Defendant and
the complications has created for FOIA compliance, the public interest almost all additional
information about this system and certain State Department officials use private emails
generally extremely high.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Finally, Defendant has failed meet its burden proof regarding the sufficiency its
search. Specifically, the State Department fails adequately account for its decisions search
certain systems records but not others within the components identifies. The Court should
order the State Department conduct additional searches additional components and records
systems.
III.
ARGUMENT
Many Defendant Withholdings Under Exemption are Inadequately Supported
and Must Released The Defendant Cannot Withhold Communications With Individuals who Were Neither
Agency Officials nor Consultants Under the Deliberative Process Privilege
Plaintiff challenges Defendant b(5) withholdings Documents C05867882,
C05892232, C05892233, C05892234, C05892235, and C05892237, described Defendant
narrative Vaughn index paragraphs 34, 36-38, 42, and 43. ECF 28-2 13-16, 19-20, 34,
36-38, 42, 43. Defendant withheld communications between the State Department and Hillary
Clinton and Harold Koh, even though these were discussions between future employees prior
their government employment, and neither Koh nor Clinton were alleged outside
consultants the time the communications were made. Furthermore, the Defendant withheld
other communications between Cheryl Mills, Jacob Sullivan, Philippe Reines, and Secretary
Clinton dating from before any them were State Department employees alleged
consultants. Accordingly, whether this set documents were drafts talking points
proposals irrelevant, because they all involve communications with between non-agency
employees who were not consultants. Defendant arguments therefore not address Plaintiffs
challenge here. ECF 28-1 8-10.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Only communications within between government agencies, between federal
agencies and their consultants, can withheld under the deliberative process privilege. CNA
Fin. Corp. Donovan, 830 F.2d 1132, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (outside consultant
communications may withheld). However, the Defendant has improperly withheld
substantive communications and from Hillary Clinton and Harold Koh when they were mere
nominees their positions, unconfirmed the Senate. Rather than agency deliberations, these
withheld documents are final decisions the State Department communicating the agency
recommendations nominees how respond confirmation hearing questions, along with
nominee-Clinton Koh comments questions regarding the same. Although Secretary
Clinton was Senator prior assuming the Secretary role, has long been established that
documents conveying advice from agency Congress for purposes congressional
decisionmaking are not inter-agency records under Exemption because Congress not itself agency under FOIA. Dow Jones Co. Dept. Justice, 917 F.2d 571, 574 (D.C. Cir.
1990). the case the Clinton-Mills and Sullivan-Reines email exchanges, these are
discussions between non-agency employees who were not consultants, and the deliberative
process privilege does not apply here either.1 these withholdings are not properly exempt
under FOIA, they must released full. Defendant Wrongly Withheld Non-Integrated Facts Segregable From Agency
Deliberations Several Documents
Plaintiff also challenges certain Defendant b(5) withholdings Documents
C05880711, C05867888, C05867890, and C05867776 described Defendant narrative
Plaintiff does not challenge the withholding the April, 2009 Jacob Sullivan-to-Richard Verna portions these
documents
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Vaughn index paragraphs and 39- 41. ECF 28-2 14, 17-18, 35, 39-41. each
these documents, based Defendant Vaughn index and review the documents
themselves, Defendant has made some proper redactions agency deliberations, but has also
made other improper redactions facts which are not integrated with those deliberations. Those
facts could released without disclosing the substance the deliberations. Accordingly,
withholding these facts unlawful and the Defendant must release the information.
The deliberative process privilege may not used withhold factual information
ordinarily available discovery merely because the facts are contained within deliberative
documents. EPA Mink, 410 U.S. 73, (1973). While there are exceptions this rule, none
apply here. See Montrose Chemical Corp. Train, 491 F.2d (DC Cir. 1974) (facts can
withheld they were selected from larger group facts part the deliberation);
Horowitz Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 277 (DC Cir. 2005) (facts may withheld they are integrated into the deliberation that revealing the fact would reveal the substance the
deliberations themselves). this case, the factual withholdings Plaintiff seeks from these documents are merely the
identities the potential conflicts being deliberated upon. For instance, the Vaughn index for
Document C05880711 describes withheld ethics deliberations about potential speaking
engagement for Secretary Clinton. ECF 28-2 13, 35. However, the agency does not explain
why the identity the group for the potential speech integrated with the deliberations, and
indeed explanation possible. The Defendant can and should release only that portion the
document that identifies the group for the potential speech without disclosing any the ethical
back-and-forth discussion conducted the agency. Disclosure the identity the group
would not, its own, reveal the underlying deliberations about the ethics the speaking
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
engagement. The same holds true about the facts the other documents cited this section: the
identity the potential sponsors Document C05867888 (ECF 28-2 17, 39), the identity
the foreign government Document C05867890 (ECF 28-2 17, 40), the identity
potential consulting client Document C05867776 (ECF 28-2 18, 41). each case,
Defendant can release single words names each document (or, potentially, just the subject
lines the emails) without revealing any detailed factual analysis. Accordingly, the withheld
facts Plaintiff challenges are not integral the deliberations. Defendant does not state that the
withheld facts Plaintiff challenges are integral the deliberations, ECF 28-1 8-10, and its
argument that cannot segregate further information for release perfunctory and unpersuasive.
ECF 28-1 12-13. the exceptions allowing agencies withhold these particular facts from
deliberative documents not apply, this factual information must released.
Given the State Department Highly Unusual Records Management Practices, the
Public Interest Requires Disclosure Officials Private Email Addresses Which
Would Otherwise Subject Exemption
Plaintiff challenges Defendant b(6) withholdings private email addresses used
government employees Documents C05892232 and C05892233, described Defendant
narrative Vaughn index paragraphs 36-37. ECF 28-2 14-16, 18-19, 36, 37. The
government claim that release these personal email addresses will shed light the
conduct U.S. Government business mistaken. Id. Furthermore, the withheld private email
addresses appear from January 2009 emails between Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, Phillipe
Reines, and Jacob Sullivan. Id. Release this information would potentially reveal whether
any these future State Department employees were using clintonemail.com addresses early two months before they began government employment. This may shed further light the
truth the clintonemail arrangement (which has only come out dribs and drabs over the past
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
year), and the use other private email addresses for business State Department
employees. Accordingly, the public interest outweighs any privacy interests these email
addresses.
[U]under Exemption the presumption favor disclosure strong can
found anywhere the Act. Multi Media LLC USDA, 515 F.3d 1224, 1227 (D.C. Cir.
2008), quoting Nat Ass Home Builders Norton, 309 F.3d 26, (D.C. Cir. 2002).
Indeed, FOIA presumption favoring disclosure its zenith under Exemption
Consumers Checkbook Ctr. for the Study Servs. HHS, 554 F.3d 1046, 1057 (D.C. Cir.
2009). When Exemption claimed, the Court must assess whether the third party privacy
interest outweighed the public interest the disclosure. See Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics Dep Justice, 840 Supp. 226, 231 (D.D.C. 2012), quoting ACLU Dep
Justice, 655 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 2011). Dep Justice Reporters Committee for
Freedom the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989), the Supreme Court observed that the extent
the public interest disclosure under FOIA tied how well the release the information
will shed[] light agency performance its statutory duties.
The public interest knowing which State Department officials used the clintonemail
system (or other, yet unknown non-state.gov email systems) and when they began doing
enormous. The Inspector General the Department State has indicated that use nonofficial emails for official State Department business may have led the evasion the federal
Freedom Information Act. January 2016, the State Department Office Inspector General
issued report, Evaluation the Department State FOIA Process for Requests Involving
the Office the Secretary, which explains least one State Department lawyer believed that
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
the exclusion Secretary Clinton emails had led failure comply with FOIA.2
Wednesday May 25, the State Department Inspector General provided second report with more
evidence that the clintonemail system was evasion existing rules, and that the records laws
have still not been satisfied the aftermath its disclosure.3 For instance, the May 2016 State
Department Inspector General report identifies additional emails related government business
which were not released part the 55,000 pages the former Secretary turned over. one
previously unknown email between Clinton and her deputy chief staff, they discuss her use
private email system: November 2010, Secretary Clinton and her Deputy Chief Staff for
Operations discussed the fact that Secretary Clinton emails Department
employees were not being received. The Deputy Chief Staff emailed the
Secretary that should talk about putting you state email releasing your
email address the department you are not going spam. response, the
Secretary wrote, Let get separate address device but don want any risk
the personal being accessible.
May 2016 OIG Report 38. another instance, the same report hints evidence
attempted cover-up:
Two staff [the State Department Bureau Information Resource
Management] reported OIG that, late 2010, they each discussed their
concerns about Secretary Clinton use personal email account separate
meetings with the then-Director S/ES-IRM. one meeting, one staff member
raised concerns that information sent and received Secretary Clinton account
could contain Federal records that needed preserved order satisfy
Federal recordkeeping requirements. According the staff member, the Director
stated that the Secretary personal system had been reviewed and approved
Department legal staff and that the matter was not discussed any further.
previously noted, OIG found evidence that staff the Office the Legal
Adviser reviewed approved Secretary Clinton personal system. According
See State Department Office Inspector General, January 2016 Report, Evaluation the Department State
FOIA Processes for Requests Involving the Office the Secretary, Report ESP-16-01, 15, 64, available
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-01.pdf January 2016 OIG Report
See State Department Office Inspector General, May 2016 Report, Office the Secretary: Evaluation
Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements, Report ESP-16-03, available
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf May 2016 OIG Report
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the
Director stated that the mission S/ES-IRM support the Secretary and
instructed the staff never speak the Secretary personal email system again.
May 2016 OIG Report 40.
[T]he public interest whether public servants carry out their duties efficient and
law-abiding manner outweighs the alleged privacy interest the withheld email addresses.
Chang Department the Navy, 314 F.Supp.2d 35, (D.D.C. 2004). light the
foregoing, the State Department argument that [p]rivate email addresses reveal nothing about
State conduct, and thus their disclosure would not advance the public interest incorrect.
ECF 28-1 12.
Defendant Search Declaration Fails Satisfy its Burden Proof Given the
Circumstances This Case
Defendant has failed meet its burden proof that conducted sufficient search, and
its argument otherwise does little more than set out the legal standard and cite its own
declaration. ECF 28-1 3-6. The adequacy agency FOIA search declaration
dependent the circumstances the case, and the circumstances this case are unusual due Defendant unusual records management and non-state.gov email practices, and the impact
those practices FOIA compliance. People for the Am. Way Found. Nat Park Serv., 503
Supp. 284, 293 (D.D.C. 2007) Because the adequacy agency search dependent
upon the circumstances the case there uniform standard for sufficiently detailed and
nonconclusory affidavits. (internal punctuation omitted); see generally January 2016 OIG
Report and May 2016 OIG Report. the January 2016 OIG Report explained, the State
Department lack oversight leadership and failure routinely search emails have
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
contributed recent incomplete FOIA searches from Defendant, including several instances
when S/ES searches have yielded inaccurate incomplete results satisfy its burden, agency search declaration must relatively detailed,
Weisberg Dept. Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983), and must explain that the
components and systems searched were reasonably calculated uncover all relevant
documents and that other record system was likely produce responsive documents.
Oglesby U.S. Dep the Army, 920 F.2d 57, (D.C. Cir. 1990). The Defendant has failed meet this standard with its search declaration, which incomplete places, conclusory
other places, and way adequate given the circumstance this case. See Boyd U.S.
Marshals Serv., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 27734, *2-3, No. 99-2712 (D.D.C. Mar. 15, 2002)
(search declarations were insufficient because neither agency provides explanation for where searched for records and why those locations are the only locations contain responsive
records. (italics added). Accordingly, the search not sufficient and Defendant should
required conduct additional searches.
Defendant search declaration insufficient several ways. See Plaintiff Statement Facts SOF First, the State Department description the search the Office
the Legal Advisor raises more questions than answers. ECF 28-2 12-16. Here,
Defendant describes search the office Ethics and Financial Disclosure EFD within the
Legal Advisor office. This search apparently included certain records from the front office
the Legal Advisor contained state-of-the-art records management system called the
Content Server, which includes retired records and archived emails. ECF 28-2
and Separately, the search declaration states the Assistant Legal Advisor for EFD also
January 2016 OIG Report, 13, available https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-01.pdf.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
searched her emails, and the emails her predecessor during the relevant time period, and the
emails attorney who previously worked relevant issues. ECF 28-2 15.
However, the State Department search declaration does not explain why searched the
particular locations searched within the EDF office sufficiently satisfy its burden. the
Content Server comprehensive database for EFD files, the defendant does not explain why separate search the Assistant Legal Advisor records was necessary. the Content
Server not comprehensive collection EFD documents, Defendant failed explain that, adequately address why there were other relevant file storage locations that also should
have been searched separately addition the search the Assistant Legal Advisor records.
Similarly, Defendant fails explain why did not conduct searches other officials who
regularly interacted with the EFD office beyond the Assistant Legal Advisor. Finally, Defendant
fails explain why different search terms were used for its search the EFD Content Server
and its search and the Assistant Legal Advisor records. ECF 28-2 14, 15. Defendant
should ordered conduct further searches and produce all new records located, and provide
the Court with declaration that adequately explains that those additional searches now
constitute reasonable search.
Furthermore, the Defendant fails explain how its search the Retired Records
Inventory Management System RIMS for EFD office retired records differs from the EFD
office Content Server search, especially since the Content Server already contains the scanned
and uploaded retired paper records from EFD. ECF 28-2 21-22; ECF 28-2 Retired L/EFD paper records related Secretary Clinton have been scanned and loaded into
Content Server and thus were included the search described above. Similarly, the State
Department declaration fails address whether made search (or using) the State
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset SMART According the May 2016 OIG report,
SMART State Department-wide system that enable[es] employees preserve record
copy emails through their Department email accounts without having print and file them. SMART system records, likely should have been searched response Plaintiff
FOIA request. SMART records management system, its use the search should have
been described, similarly Defendant use RIMS and the Content Server. Defendant
declaration does not address SMART all.
Furthermore, the Declaration also makes more than conclusory statement explain
why Defendant searched where did, and does not adequately explain why Defendant did not
conduct searches the Office the Secretary, other key officials who Secretary Clinton
emailed frequently. ECF 28-2 11. Plaintiff FOIA request seeks records high level
sensitivity regarding potential conflicts interest sitting Secretary State, evidenced
the searches records top advisors Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan. ECF 28-2 20, 26.
Beyond those advisors, during her tenure the State Department, Secretary Clinton sent least
717 emails Lauren Jiloty, 522 emails Robert Russo, 439 emails Monica Hanley, and 434
emails Lona Valmoro during their respective employment the State Department. See
Plaintiff SOF see Exhibit Chris Fedeli Declaration The Defendant search
declaration does not address identify specific searches the Office the Secretary
Jiloty, Russo, Hanley, Valmoro records state.gov emails, searches any non-state.gov
email addresses these individuals may have used conduct government business. least one these former State Department officials, Monica Hanley, has been confirmed have used
non-state.gov email address communicate with the Secretary concerning State Department
May 2016 OIG Report available https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
business. See Exhibit Chris Fedeli Declaration see also Exhibit see also Plaintiff
SOF This adds yet another circumstance concern the litany problems with the
State Department records practices.
Finally, Defendant states that separate search was conducted Cheryl Mills and Jacob
Sullivan official emails. ECF 28-2 20. But adequate explanation given for why
Huma Abedin official emails were not also separately searched. The State Department also
chose search only the individual electronic folders Mills and Sullivan, but not Abedin. ECF
28-2 Similarly, the search non-state.gov records returned the State Department
from Secretary Clinton top aides, Mills and Sullivan records were searched but not those
Abedin, and adequate explanation for that omission provided. ECF 28-2 26. Abedin
was subject the same Defendant request return non-state.gov records after leaving the State
Department Mills. See Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep State, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis
62283 *3, Case No. 13-1363 (D.D.C. May 2016) (Sullivan, J.) Pursuant Court order,
the State Department collected and searched federal records that were voluntarily produced
Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills. Furthermore, Abedin held special
employment status with Defendant that enabled her work for both the State Department and
the Clinton Foundation during least some the relevant time period. Id., 2016 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 62283 Designated special government employee, Ms. Abedin was allowed engage private sector work while also working the State Department. Specifically, Ms.
Abedin served consultant Teneo Holdings and the Clinton Foundation. (internal
citations omitted). The Defendant search declaration does not address why Huma Abedin
records within the Office the Secretary Abedin returned non-state.gov records were not
searched with anything more than conclusory statement about determination made the
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-1 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Office Information Programs and Services. ECF 28-2 11. light Abedin special
status, and considering the Clinton Foundation conflict matters that are the subject Plaintiff
FOIA request, the failure specifically search these records glaring omission. light the foregoing, the State Department search not adequate under FOIA.6
Additional searches for responsive records should performed, and further records should
produced.
Conclusion
Plaintiff motion should granted, and Defendant motion should denied.
Dated: June 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli Bar No. 472919
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff Plaintiff previously identified, there remain substantial questions whether Defendant search can
adequate until reviews the outstanding, unsearched 31,830 records the clintonemail.com system. ECF
Plaintiff currently proceeding with discovery other FOIA cases, but has decided not move for discovery
under Rule 56(d) this case even though grounds for doing are present.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
____________________________________)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Case No. 15-688-RC
PLAINTIFF RESPONSE DEFENDANTS STATEMENT MATERIAL FACTS
NOT DISPUTE AND PLAINTIFF STATEMENT MATERIAL FACTS
SUPPORT CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Local Civil Rule 7.1(h),
respectfully submits this response Defendants Statement Material Facts Not Dispute and
Plaintiff Statement Material Facts Support Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment:
Plaintiff Response Defendants Statement Material Facts Not Dispute.
Not disputed.
Not disputed.
Not disputed.
Not disputed
Not disputed.
Not disputed
Not disputed.
Not disputed.
Not disputed.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/16 Page
10.
Not disputed.
10.
Not disputed.
11.
Not disputed.
12.
Not disputed.
13.
Not disputed.
14.
Not disputed.
15.
II.
Not disputed.
Not disputed.
Plaintiff Statement Material Facts Not Dispute Support Cross-Motion
for Summary Judgment.
Defendant Department State identified sixteen documents claims are
responsive Plaintiff FOIA request. ECF 28-2 The Defendant released six
documents full, released five documents part with portions redacted and withheld, and
completely withheld another five documents. Id. The Defendant produced narrative Vaughn
index alleging these withholdings were proper under the FOIA exemptions. ECF 28-2 14-21,
34-43.
Certain these documents, and certain portions other documents, were redacted withheld the Defendant allegedly exempt pursuant FOIA Exemption U.S.C.
552(b)(5), the grounds that the information was subject the deliberative process privilege and
would not ordinarily available party litigation. ECF 28-2 14-21, 34-43.
Certain other portions these documents were redacted withheld the
Defendant allegedly exempt pursuant FOIA Exemption U.S.C. 552(b)(6), the
grounds that disclosure the information would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-2 Filed 06/06/16 Page
personal privacy. ECF 28-2 14-16, 18-19, 36, 37, 41. response Plaintiff FOIA request, Defendant alleged performed adequate
search that was reasonably calculated uncover all documents relevant the request. ECF 28-1. 3-4; ECF 28-2 3-10, 9-26.
Defendant search declaration does not explain detail why Huma Abedin
records were not searched, what the search the Content Server and Retired Records Inventory
Management System entailed, why the Legal Advisor office search was limited, why the Office the Secretary records were not searched, why emails various top aides the Secretary were
not searched, whether the State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset SMART was
searched used conduct search. ECF 28-2 3-10, 9-26.
During the course their respective employment with Defendant, Secretary Clinton
sent least 717 emails Lauren Jiloty, 522 emails Robert Russo, 439 emails Monica Hanley,
and 434 emails Lona Valmoro. Exhibit Declaration Chris Fedeli
Monica Hanley used non-state.gov email correspond with Secretary Clinton
concerning State Department matters. Exhibit see also Exhibit Declaration Chris Fedeli
Dated: June 2016
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli Bar No. 472919
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Exhibit
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Case No. 15-688-RC
DECLARATION CHRIS FEDELI
Pursuant U.S.C. 1746, Chris Fedeli, declare follows: attorney with Judicial Watch, Inc. and counsel for Plaintiff the above-
captioned matter. over the age eighteen and have personal knowledge the matters set forth
below.
During the course this litigation, office examined the now publicly-
available emails from Secretary Clinton and identified many 717 emails from Clinton
Lauren Jiloty, 522 emails Robert Russo, 439 emails Monica Hanley, and 434 emails
Lona Valmoro during their respective employment with Defendant. These emails are available the State Department website, https://foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=
Clinton_Email and Wikileaks.org, https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/.
Filed herewith Exhibit true and correct copy email exchange
regarding government business conducted over the non-state.gov email addresses both Monica
Hanley and Secretary Clinton.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page declare under penalty perjury that the foregoing true and correct. Executed
Washington, this 6th day June, 2016. Chris Fedeli
Chris Fedeli
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page
Exhibit
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05777136 Date: 09/30/2015
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document 29-3 Filed 06/06/16 Page
RELEASE PART
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hanley, Monica 
Saturday, January 201111:32 monica.hanle
Huma Abedin
Re: ipad
Yup! did receive but had not checked personal account yet.
Not problem. Ill bring the ipad.
Sorry for the delay!
Original Message --From: 
To: Hanley, Monica monica.hanley
Cc: Huma Abedin 
Sent: Sat Jan 11:26:51 2011
Subject: Fw: ipad