Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v State Opposition to Coordination 01188

JW v State Opposition to Coordination 01188

JW v State Opposition to Coordination 01188

Page 1: JW v State Opposition to Coordination 01188

Category:

Number of Pages:21

Date Created:October 2, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 02, 2015

Tags:01188, ofState, coordination, Prince, orfanedes, Cases, Opposition, action, Civil, motion, Hillary Clinton, clinton, filed, State Department, FBI, document, DOJ, FOIA, Supreme Court, department, robert, states, district, court, Judge


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page 1of10 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
INRE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE FOIA
LITIGATION REGARDING EMAILS CERTAIN FORMER OFFICIALS
Misc. No. 15-1188
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
RESPONDENT JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.S MOTION DISMISS OR, THE
ALTERNATIVE, OPPOSITION DESIGNATION/TRANSFER MOTION
Respondent Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Rule 12(b) the Federal
Rules Civil Procedure and the Courts September 2015 order, respectfully submits this
motion dismiss or, the alternative, opposition the U.S. Department States motion
designate coordinating judge and transfer separate Freedom oflnformation Act
(FOIA) lawsuits pending before district judges the designated coordinating judge.
grounds therefor, Judicial Watch states follows:
STATEMENT POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Introduction.
Despite clear precedent holding that neither district courts chief judge nor any other
district judge has authority order another district judge take action case pending before
that judge, the U.S. Department State (the State Department the agency) seeks order
compelling district judges transfer FOIA lawsuits single coordinating judge
decide common legal, factual, and procedural issues. The extraordinary, unprecedented relief
sought the agency plainly beyond the power the Court. also unwarranted. The State its initial communication with Judicial Watch about this action, the agency represented that intended
direct its request the Chief Judge despite the express language LCvR 40.3(a) requiring miscellaneous cases
assigned randomly. See Exhibit The State Department has yet take any action have the case assigned the
Chief Judge, nor would such action proper under LCvR 40.3(a). The action must assigned randomly.
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
Departments miscellaneous action should dismissed or, the alternative, its motion should denied.
II.
The State Departments Miscellaneous Action Must Dismissed Under
Rule 12(b)(l), (2), (4), (5), and (7).
Rule 2(b) the Federal Rules Civil Procedure requires the dismissal actions for
lack subject matter jurisdiction, lack personal jurisdiction, insufficiency process,
insufficiency service process, and the failure join indispensable party. Fed. Civ.
12(b)(l), (2), (4), (5), and (7). All five shortcomings exist here.
The State Department fails identify any legal basis for the Courts subject matter
jurisdiction over this miscellaneous action. The State Department cites federal statute, rule, law authorizing the Court intervene ongoing litigation before it. The action should
dismissed under Rule 2(b )(1
The State Department also fails identify any basis for the Court exercise personal
jurisdiction over respondents -the separate FOIA requesters who brought the lawsuits
issue. There has been service process, and mere notice action substitute for
proper service process. See, e.g., Omni Capital Intl Ltd. Rudolf Wolff Co., 484 U.S. 97,
104 (1987); see also Ibiza Business Ltd. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70903 (D.D.C.
July 2010) (denying motion for default judgment miscellaneous action due insufficiency service process). The action should dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2), (4), and (5).
The State Department also has failed join indispensable parties -the district judges
who preside over the FOIA lawsuits the agency seeks have transferred coordinating
judge. These judges are the real parties interest. They are the individuals whom the
-2-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
orders sought the State Department would directed. The State Departments failure
join these judges warrants dismissal under Rule 12(b)(7).
The State Department cannot assert that Rule inapplicable because its miscellaneous
action not conventional civil lawsuit. Any such assertion would only beg the question,
Then what it? The agencys miscellaneous action plainly not like any other miscellaneous
action authorized law. does not seek enforce quash subpoena actions that are
expressly authorized law and include specific service provisions. See Fed. Civ. 45.
does not seek perpetuate testimony, which also action expressly authorized law and
has its own service provisions. See Fed. Civ. 27. not supplementary proceeding
brought aid execution judgment. See Fed. Civ. and 70. also not
request for judicial assistance, which typically arise international litigation. Requests for
judicial assistance are expressly authorized statute and are initiated application
district court. U.S.C. 1782. request for judicial assistance not wholesale invitation seek any imaginable relief from federal court. Any assertion the State Department that
this action not governed Rule and that subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction,
service process, and the joinder indispensable parties are not necessary would only further
highlight the fact that the action has basis law and made out whole cloth.
The State Department did not designate any these cases related the time they were filed any
time thereafter. Nor did move for consolidation any the underlying cases seek transfer consent. Even the Chief Judge had authority order the Courts district judges transfer cases pending before them
coordinating judge, the State Department should denied relief because failed raise the matter the first
instance before the individual district judges.
The State Department cannot claim does not seek orders directed these judges. Its motion expressly
states, the Court should grant this motion and transfer the common legal, factual, and procedural issues
member this Court serve coordinating judge. Motion 15. does not ask for the judges consent.
The State Department obviously aware requests for judicial assistance because the agency plays
significant role facilitating their passage through diplomatic channels. See, e.g., US.C. 1781.
-3-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
III.
Filed 09114115 Page
The State Departments Miscellaneous Action Must Dismissed Under
Rule 12(b)(6) or, the Alternative, Its Motion Must Denied.
Most fatal all the obvious unavailability the relief the State Department seeks. beyond peradventure that one district judge cannot order another district judge take action case pending before that judge. See, e.g., Klayman Kollar-Kotelly, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS
10148 (D.C. Cir. May 20, 2013); see also Jones Supreme Court the United States, 405 Fed.
Appx. 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curium); Prentice United States District Court, 307 Fed.
Appx. 460 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (per curium); Adams United States District Court, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 151044 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2014);Mason Kahn 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50258
(D.D.C. June 30, 2008). The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction even consider such
claim. Klayman, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 *2. Klayman, the plaintiff filed action seeking have one district judge issue
injunction against another district judge, among other relief. Then Assistant United States
Attorney Rudolph Contreras now Judge Contreras argued Judge Leon that had
authority issue order Judge Kollar-Kotelly: This Court lacks jurisdiction order
District Judge take judicial action cases pending before that judge. Defendants
Memorandum Support Motion Dismiss Klayman Kollar-Kotelly. al., Case No.
11-1775 (RJL) (D.D.C. Dec. 2011) (ECF No. 11). Judge Leon agreed. Klayman Kollar-
Kotelly, 892 Supp.2d 261 (D.D.C. 2012). did the appellate court, which summarily
affirmed. Klayman, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 *l.
Numerous other cases hold likewise. reMcBryde, 117 F.3d 208 (5th Cir. 1997),
district court judge successfully sought writ mandamus against the chief judge the district
court which sat when the chief judge ordered cases pending before the district judge
reassigned. express implied power granted chief judge affect administratively,
-4-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
directly indirectly, litigation assigned and pending before another judge the court. Id.
225 (quoting, United States Heath, 103 Supp. (D. Haw. 1952)). Not one case upholds
reassignment pending case chief judge without the consent the presiding judge. Id.
[T]there authority for the undersigned [federal district judge] any other federal district
court judge intervene [the underlying federal district court] action. Cobble Bernanke,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33872, (W.D. Ky. April 20, 2009). Applicable law does not grant
either express implied authority chief judge take action litigation which has been
assigned another judge the court. Williams Prison Health Services, 2007 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 19378, (D. Kan. Mar. 16, 2007). The structure the federal courts does not allow
one judge district court rule directly the legality another district judges acts
deny another district judge his her lawful jurisdiction. Dhalluin McKibbin, 682 Supp.
1096, 1097 (D. Nev. 1988). The undersigned [federal district judge] has authority order
another federal district judge take any action another case. Smith Peterson Paletta,
PLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83805, (W.D. Mich. June 14, 2013).
The State Departments miscellaneous action fails state claim which relief can
granted because the relief the agency seeks -that the Chief Judge order another district judge
serve coordinating judge, order many other district judges transfer FOIA
lawsuits the coordinating judge decide common legal, factual, and procedural issues,
and then order that the cases transferred back the originally assigned district judges
beyond the power the Court. The Court also does not have the power bind originally
assigned judges the decisions coordinating judge. anything, such process will only
increase the number issues decided, not reduce them, due challenges and disputes over
the lawfulness the process, and create additional delay.
-5-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
The Guantanamo Bay detainee cases heard this Court following the United States
Supreme Courts decision inBoumediene Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) are inapposite. The
Court resolved Executive Session designate single judge coordinate and manage some
249 petitions for writs habeas corpus filed Guantanamo Bay detainees. See Order 1-2, Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litig., Misc. No. 08-422 (TFH) (D.D.C. July 2008) (ECF No.
1); see also Resolution the Executive Session, U.S. District Court for the District Columbia
(July 2008), attached Exhibit The Courts Executive Session resolution was
administrative act, not judicial act. party lawsuit filed motion invoking the Courts
judicial power order relief. district judge was ordered another district judge serve coordinating judge transfer cases pending before him her. Two district judges
opted out the coordination process, fact the State Department readily admits. See Motion 10, n.7. The fact that two judges could opt out this coordination process further
confirms that the process was consensual, voluntary process, not court-ordered relief.
Local Civil Rules 40.5(c) and 40.6(a) not provide legal basis forthe relief the State
Department seeks. Both rules make clear that the assignment and transfer processes they
establish are effectuated only with the consent the judges involved. Neither rule authorizes
one district judge order another district judge transfer case, accept case assignment,
serve coordinatingjudge. Local Civil Rule 40.7(h) only expresses general terms the
administrative authority the chief judge. not grant additional judicial authority the
chief judge, nor does contradict overrule the well-established, constitutionally-based
The Courts resolution addressed procedural issues primarily. Exhibit 2at1] With respect substantive
issues, the coordinating judge was confer with those Judges whose cases raise common substantive issues
before ruling the issue. district judge did not agree with substantive ruling made the
coordinating judge, that judge was not bound the ruling and could resolve the issue his her own cases she deem[ ed] appropriate. Not only does the State Department make effort address how such conflicts
might resolved here, but originally assigned judge able ignore the coordinating judges substantive
rulings, little any efficiencies will gained and further delays will result.
-6-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
principle that neither chief judge nor district judge has express implied authority order
action taken litigation assigned another district judge.
Finally, before the State Department initiated this action, Judicial Watch asked
identify the legal basis for the action. could not so. The State Department responded,
There precise rule that provides for what are seeking. Since will filing notice
with the motion attached each case, all (sic)judges and plaintiffs will receive notice,
and the Court will able respond sees fit. See Exhibit continued, will,
course, follow directions from the Court turns out miscellaneous action inappropriate.
Id. short, the State Department knew its miscellaneous action had basis law certainly
none that could identify but proceeded nonetheless. The action should dismissed for
failure state claim under Rule 12(b )(6), or, alternatively, the motion should denied.
IV.
The State Departments Motion Unwarranted Substantively.
The State Department claims that granting its motion will more convenient for the
agency, but fails demonstrate that the FOIA requesters the district judges affected
the relief will benefit any way. The agency seeks coordination on: (1) searching the Clinton
emails; (2) searching records provided others; and (3) adjudicating requests for information,
discovery, and preservation. The agencys request unwarranted each issue.
Searches the Clinton Emails.
The State Department complains that searches the Clinton emails have the potential interfere with each other. Motion 11. does not identify the cases which this alleged,
potential interference might occur. Nor does identify how any specific search might interfere
with others. far Judicial Watch can tell, the Clinton emails are issue only the
cases, and, those cases, disputes about searches have arisen them. One such
-7-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page
case Leopold U.S. Dep ofState, 15-0123, which the production all the Clinton
emails completed January 29, 2016. the cases, the agency has already
completed its searches. another cases, the FOIA requesters have agreed defer searches
until after the Leopold production complete. other cases, the State Department has not
sought stay production schedules that include searches the Clinton emails. other
cases, searches have not begun, not even clear the Clinton emails are issue.
Therefore, only the cases implicating the Clinton emails have the parties not yet
reached agreement when the records will searched.
With respect these cases, the State Department does not demonstrate how searches
will interfere with one another jeopardize the agencys ability release all non-exempt
Clinton emails January 29, 2016. The emails have been scanned into database and are
readily capable being searched electronically. Most, not all, the searches can
accomplished keyword search. The State Department fails address the procedural posture these cases whether the parties are working together resolve issues about searches.
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Depto/State, 13-1363;Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Depto/State, 14-1242;
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 14-1511; Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 15-0321; Judicial
Watch, Inc. U.S. Depto/State, !5-0688;Freedom Watch, Inc. U.S. Depto/State, 12-1088.
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 12-2034; Canning U.S. Dep ofState,13-0831; Brien
U.S. Depto/State, 14-0ll9;AssociatedPressv. U.S. Depto/State, 15-0345; Citizens Unitedv. U.S. Deptof
State, 15-0441; Citizens Unitedv. U.S. Depto/State, 15-0518.
Accuracy inMedia U.S. Dep to/ State, 14-1589; Veterans for Strong America U.S. Dep to/State,
15-0464.
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 15-1128; Competitive Enterprise Institute U.S. Dep ofState,
15-0553; Citizens Unitedv. U.S. Depto/State, 15-1031.
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 12-0893; Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 13-0772;
Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 15-0646; Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep ofState, 15-0691; Judicial
Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep State, 15-0692; Bauer U.S. Dep ofState, 1-0693; Joseph U.S. Dep ofState, 141896
-8-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document
Filed 09114115 Page least one case, Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep State, 13-0772, the parties are attempting reach agreement search terms. sum, search issues have already been resolved the cases which the
Clinton emails are relevant. Search issues remain only cases. The State Department has not
and cannot demonstrate that these search issues cannot resolved without coordinating judge that conducting searches these cases will interfere with each other jeopardize the
agencys ability release all the Clinton emails the January 29, 2016 deadline Leopold.
Searches Records Provided Others,
The State Departments motion devoid any facts analysis regarding searches
records returned other former employees. The agency does not identify the quantity
volume these records. also does not identify the format native, pdf, paper, something
else the records. Nor does identify which the cases even implicate searches these
records. other words, the agency complains about the effort must undertake search these
records without disclosing any information that would allow its complaint assessed. addition, the State Department states that will search these additional records only has obligation search the state.gov email accounts the former employees and ifthe
FOIA requester requests that the records searched. Motion 12, fn. 10. Plainly, ifthe State
Department does not know not willing say whether even intends search these records any the cases, the extraordinary relief seeks unwarranted.
Requests for Information, Discovery, and Preservation,
Finally, the State Department baldly asserts that various requests for information,
discovery, records preservation may result conflicting rulings such issues. Motion
14. The State Department fails identify any case which has been subject conflicting
-9-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document Filed 09114115 Page
rulings disclose information, respond discovery, preserve records. Judicial Watch not
aware any such cases. Nor has the agency identified any cases which conflicting rulings are
likely occur. fact, Judicial Watchs knowledge, only one judge single case has
ordered the State Department provide information about the existence and location
potentially responsive records and directed the agency preserve records. When the State
Department moved stay that case pending the outcome its motion, its request was denied.
See Minute Order, Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep State, 13-1363 (EGS) (D.D.C. Sept. 11,
2015). Because the State Department cannot point single conflicting ruling- even
potentially conflicting rulings regarding requests for information, discovery, records
preservation, would appear that its motion nothing more than thinly veiled attempt delay
having provide the information ordered that case.
WHEREFORE, Judicial Watch respectfully requests that this action dismissed, or,
the alternative, that the State Departments motion denied.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 14, 2015
Isl Paul Orfanedes
Paul Orfanedes (D.C. Bar No. 429716)
Isl Michael Bekesha
Michael Bekesha (D.C. Bar No. 995749)
Isl Ramona Cot
Ramona Cotca (D.C. Bar No. 501159)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20025
(202) 646-5172
Email: porfanedes@judicialwatch.org
mbekesha@judicialwatch.org
rcotca@judicialwatch.org
Counsel for Judicial Watch, Inc.
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1of6
EXHIBIT
RESPONDENT JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.S MOTION DISMISS
OR, THE ALTERNATIVE, OPPOSITION
DESIGNATION/TRANSFER MOTION
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page
Paul Orfanedes
From:
Sent
To:
Subject:
Shapiro, Elizabeth {CIV) 
Thursday, September 031 2015 11:17
Paul Otfanedes; Berman/ Marcia (OV)
RE: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and
Corresponding Stay Motions cases State Department
Paul, asked Rob, and simply forgot send the follow message had written. Apologles.
from: Paul Orfanedes [maUto:POrfanedes@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, September 03i 2015 11:07
To: Shapiro, Elizabeth (CIV); Berman, Marcia (CIV)
Subject: FW: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Elizabeth/Marcia:
Further our conversation this morning, the last communication received from Robert Prince was 11:01 a.m,
yesterday, sent him this email 1:51 p.m. and second 4:04 p.m. which sending you separately. received
response either emalL
PJO
from: Paul Orfanedes
Sent: Wednesday1 September02, 2015 1:51
To: *Prince, Robert (CIV)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Robert:
Wed also like see these cases move forward more efficiently and expeditiously, but not sure how your proposal
does that. Maybe not understanding your concerns,
Your proposed order would have the coordinating judge ureso!ve and manage11 a!! issues law, fact, and proceduret
regarding the ({search and production responsive records within the recently provided documents. your concern
corning wlth order for completing searches the 55,000 Clinton emails between now and the January 29, 2016
date set Judge Contreras, were happy that for our cases, and would try way that
accommodates the other requestors we!!. The same would true for the Abedin, Mills1 Reines, and Su!Hvan
materials. this point however, not sure have enough information about these latter sets materials have informed discussion, but sure could work something out. Off the top head, not even sure which {or
how many) our cases you listed might imp!icate these latter sets materials such that makes sense include
them all your proposal. sure the judges our various cases also would not object reasonable, agreed,
coordinated production schedules, your concem something broader than completing searches the 55,000 Clinton emails and the Abedin, Mills/
Reiru:.?s1 and Sullivan materials, what would your proposal leave for the originally assigned judges dedde? For
example, 14-1242, which before Judge Lamberth, State moved for summary judgment and filed Rule S6(d}
motion response. Would your proposal take those motions away from Judge Lamberth and put them hold? so,
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page
for how long? What about Judge Sullivans order.in 13,.1363 requiring State ask the FBI for information about what
the FBI recovers from the server? that within outside your proposal? You say it1s not feasible have detailed
discussion about how each case might proceed under your proposalt but sure you can imagine, that very
important issue, least for us. some our cases, wrlve been trying obtain records for more than four years. your concern about requests for information discovery about the Clinton server and related issues its not
dear that within outside your proposal even issue all our cases all +cases you
seek lndude your proposal might able work something out there well. the State Department would
work with enable get answers some our basic questions one case, that same information could
used other cases well. wouldnt need make requests for Information discovery multiple lawsuits.
not aware any non~Judldal Watch cases which have these issues have been raised. not asserting that hasn just not aware any. How many others are there? the end, and without more time for discuss logistics and think about these question, could see fair amount
disputes and more delay- about what within outside the scope the referral the coordinating judge, what
still within the purview the originally assigned judge, how these disputes will resolved, etc. could end
wasting least diminishing the substantial progress made date and the substantial efforts expended the
courts. youd like sit down and discuss your concerns, how might try accommodate them, and the status
our various cases, offered Ms. Shapiro early July, wed happy so.
Finally, one more concern about your proposed procedure, under LCVR 40.3, misceHaneous cases are assigned
random basis. How you propose getting your motion front the Chief Judge light the Courts rule?
PJO
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) [roailto:~_rt.Prince@JJJ~Qi~ov]
Sent: Wednesday1 September 021 2015 11:01
To: Paul Orfanedes
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Paul,
The plan seek coordinate 30+ cases specific iistwi!I included the motion).
What were proposing actually very simple. plan leave the involved questions the coordinating judge, whom
assume would seek input from the parties. Ive attached the proposed order and, you can see, simply asks for the
designation coordinating judge resolve and manage issues law, fact, and procedure arising the
Coordinated Cases from the search and production responsive records within the recently provided documentsu
(nrecently provided documents defined the order). That the relief were requesting. the email sent yesterday morning, gave some specific examples what those issues would include (((scheduling
searches the recently provided documents, requests for information and discovery about those documents, and
requests for orders relating preservation); the motion explains why the Court and the parties would benefit from
coordination these issues that have arisen multiple cases the district. But are not specifically asking the manage those issues particular way. the motion were addressing here does not seem particularly involved.
Given that there are other plaintiffs {all but one whom have responded with position statement include the
motion), not feasible engage detQHed discussions about how these cases will proceed once coordinated. This
one the reasons that our motion contemplates that the coordinating judge resolve the detailed, involved questions,.
wfth input from all parties. Weve described the relief are seeking; discussing questions not addressed the motion
are not necessary meaningfully confer.
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page
Regarding the use miscellaneous action, there precise rule that provides for what are seeking, which not
traditional consolidation. Since wrn filing notice with the motion attached each case, all judges and
plaintiffs will receive notice, and the Court will able respond sees fit. will, course, follow direction from
the Court turns out miscellaneous action inappropriate.
Rob
Robert Prince
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department Justice, Civif Division
Federal Programs Branch
(202) 305-3654
The information this trcmsmfttaf (including attochments1 any) l.s intended only for the recfpient(s) listed above and contains
information that confidential, Any review, use, disclosure.. distribution, copying ofthis transmittal prohibited except
behalf the intended recipient Jfyou have received this transmittal error, please notify immediately and destroy all copies
the transmittal. Your cooperation appreciated.
from: Paul Orfanedes [mailto:t::Qrfruiedes@JUOICIALWATCH,J.OR~]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:26
To: Prince, Robert (CTV)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Robert: familiar with miscellaneous actions relating discovery subpoenas1 administrative subpoenas, judgment
enforcement, registration foreign judgments, etc. Frankly; Ive never heard party ongoing lawsuit opening
miscellaneous action the same court move for the designation coordinat!ng judge/ order better
understand what you propose, can you explain, preliminary matter, how you settled this particular
procedure? What rule statute are you relying on? recall that coordinating judge was designated for the
Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, but was understanding that was done administratively the court think
was resolution the Executive Session not party motion, Also, which other cases you propose lndudc this miscellaneous action? All so? indicated previously, what you propose involved question and its
going take some time for even understand it. sure well have more question, but dont think can say 1ve met and conferred unless understand better.
Elizabeth Shapiro Judge Contreras July And there are approximately various stages and various
forms. There are difficulties terms how they would consolidated, and since some them are different claims,
there are different parties, there are different stages. the mechanics that have eluded date, but havent
given the idea.11 asked her after the hearing DOJ wanted try talk about There was real response,
and never heard anything further until your email mornlt1g. Not only not understand what you are
proposing,, but don understand why there seems sudden rush file something.
PJO
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) [m9JJto:RQb!Ett.frI11~~@u:idQ!iS9.X]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:44
To: Paul Orfanedes; Ramona Cotca; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris Fedeli
Cc: Emott, Stephen (CIV); Edney, Marsha (CIV); Wechsler, Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Coraline (CIV); Olson, Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page
SUbject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Paul, can put your position down has not yet taken posltion {or, you prefer, needs see motion before taking
positionu)?
from: Paul Orfanedes [m?ilto:POrfanedes@JYDICIALWATCH.O.RG]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 10:43
To: Prince, Robert (CIV); Ramona Cotca; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris Fedeii
Cc: Elliott, Stephen (CIV); Edney, Marsha (CIV); Wechsler/ Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew {CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CIV); Olson, Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Robert:
Well give some thought. wont decide your 4:00 p.m. deadline. this point, lt1 more involved question
than that.
PJO
From: Prince, Robert {CIV) [tnaifto:Robmt.frince@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:38
To: Ramona Cotca; Paul Orfanedes; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris Fedeli
Cc: Elliott, Stephen (CIV); Edney, Marsha (CIV)i Wechsler, Peter (CIV); Todd1 James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, caroline (CIV); Olson, Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Subject: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay Motions cases State Department
Dear counsel,
This email reference the following cases:
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judiciai Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
Judicial Watch
U.S. Dept State, al., Civil No. 12-893 (JDB)
U.S. Dept Defense, al, Civil No. 14-812 (KBJ)
U.S. Dept State, CM! No. 12-2034 (RW)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 13-1363 (EGS)
U.S. Dep State, Civil No. 13-772 (CKK)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 14-1242 (RCL)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 14-1511 (ABJ)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-1128 (EGS)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-321 (CKK)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-646 (CKK)
U.S. Dep State, Civil No. 15-684 (BAH)
U.S. Dept State, Civit No. 15-687 (JEB)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-688 (RC)
U.S. Dep State, Civil No. 15~689 (ROM)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No, 15-691 (APM)
U.S. Dept State, Civil No.15-692 (APM) seek your position two motions. First, the Department State intends file motion with the Chief Judge seeking
designation coordinating judge for resolution and management common issues law, fact1 and procedure across
numerous FOIA suits, including these cases, that implicate the search and production documents that were provided
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-1 Filed 09/14/15 Page the Department former Secretary State Hillary Clinton and, the extent applicable, certain other former
employees (Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jacob Sullivan, and Phillippe Reines). each case, the transferring judge would
retain the case for other purposes1 including searches for responsive records other than the provided
documents. The motion envisions coordination common issues such the scheduling searches the recently
provided documents, requests for information and discovery about those documents1 and requests for orders relating
preservation.
This coordination motion will flied miscellaneous action. Once filed, the Department file notice each the above-listed cases, along with copy the motion itself.
Second, the Department will filing motion each the above~Hsted cases seeking stay those portions each
case addressing the documents provided the Department former Secretary Clinton and the other former
employees until the coordination motion decided, and, granted, until the coordinating judge issues order
determining how proceed the cases listed that motion. The stay sought would not affect those portions the
cases that deal with the search and production other documents.
Could you please let know your position with respect each above-listed case today?
Best,
Rob
Robert Prince
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department Justice, CMI Division
Federal Programs Branch
(202) 305-3654
The Information this transmittal (including attachments, any) intended only for the recipient(s) listed above and contains
information that confidential. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution, copying this transmittal prohibited except
behalf the intended recipient. you have received this transmittal error; please notify immediately and destroy all copies
the transmittal. Your cooperation appreciated.
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page
EXHIBIT
RESPONDENT JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.S MOTION DISMISS
OR, THE ALTERNATIVE, OPPOSITION
DESIGNATION/TRANSFER MOTION
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
RESOLUTION THE EXECUTIVE SESSION
July 2008
WHEREAS, some 249 cases pertaining more than 643 individual detainees who have
been are being held Guantanamo Bay are pending with this Court (the Guantanamo Bay
cases); and
WHEREAS, expected that several dozen more new Guantanamo Bay cases
could filed with this Court the near future; and
WHEREAS, the interests the litigants, well the public, the Court, and
counsel, provide the most expeditious and efficient handling these cases; HEREBY RESOLVED the Executive Session the United States District
Court for the District Columbia that:
Senior Judge Thomas Hogan designated coordinate and manage
proceedings all Guantanamo Bay cases that these cases can addressed
expeditiously possible required the Supreme Court Boumediene
Bush. No. 06-1195, slip op. (U.S. June 12, 2008).
All Guantanamo Bay cases, both those which have been filed and those which
may filed the future, are transferred the Judge whom they are
assigned, pursuant LCvR 40.6(a) and 40.S(e), Senior Judge Thomas
Hogan for coordination and management. The transferring Judge w~ll retain the:
case for all other purposes.
Senior Judge Thomas Hogan will identify and delineate both procedural and
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-2 Filed 09/14/15 Page
substantive issues that are common all some these cases. the extent possible, Senior Judge Thomas Hogan will rule procedural
issues that are common these cases. substantive issues, Senior Judge Thomas Hogan will confer with those
Judges whose cases raise common substantive issues. the extent possibk, and
provided that consent given the transferring Judge, one the transferring
Judges Senior Judge Thomas Hogan will address specified substantive issues
that are common the Guantanamo Bay cases. Judge who does not agre:c
with any substantive decision reached this manner may resolve the issue his her own cases she deems appropriate.
LCvR 40.6(a) provides that: Judge, upon written advice the Calendar
Committee, may transfer directly all part any case the Judges docket any consenting
Judge (emphasis added).
-2-
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-3
Filed 09114115 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
INRE:
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE FOIA
LITIGATION REGARDING EMAILS CERTAIN FORMER OFFICIALS
Misc. No. 15-1188
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
!PROPOSED! ORDER
Upon consideration the U.S. Department States motion for designation
coordinatingjudge, Respondent Judicial Watch, Inc.s Motion Dismiss or, the Alternative,
Opposition Designation/Transfer Motion, and the entire record herein, hereby ORDERED
that:
The U.S. Department States motion for designation coordinating judge
and transfer DENIED; and
Respondent Judicial Watch, Inc.s motion dismiss GRANTED.
Dated:
U.S. District Judge
Case 1:15-mc-01188 Document 24-3
Copies to:
Paul Orfanedes
Michael Bekesha
Ramona Cotca
WDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
Elizabeth Shapiro
Robert Prince
U.S. DEPARTMENT WSTICE
P.O. Box 883
Washington, 20044
Theodore Olson
Matthew McGill
GIBSON, DUNN CRUTCHER, L.L.P.
1050 Connecticut Avenue,
Washington, 20036-5306
Ryan Steven James
LAW OFFICE JAMES
5208 Capricorn Loop
Killeen, 76542
Jeffrey Louis Light
LAW OFFICES JEFFREY LIGHT
1712 Eye Street,
Suite 915
Washington, 20006
and
All other counsel record
-2-
Filed 09114115 Page