Skip to content

Judicial Watch • JW v State response to discovery plan 01363

JW v State response to discovery plan 01363

JW v State response to discovery plan 01363

Page 1: JW v State response to discovery plan 01363

Category:

Number of Pages:5

Date Created:April 5, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 06, 2016

Tags:scope, Plan, Procedure, rules, proposed, Discovery, 01363, Civil, motion, response, Hillary Clinton, Secretary, defendant, clinton, filed, State Department, plaintiff, FBI, document, federal, records, FOIA, department


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 04/05/16 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
____________________________________
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-CV-1363 (EGS)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
STATE,
Defendant.
____________________________________)
DEFENDANT RESPONSE PLAINTIFF PROPOSED DISCOVERY PLAN accordance with the Court Order February 23, 2016, Defendant U.S. Department State State hereby responds Plaintiff Judicial Watch Proposed Discovery Plan, ECF
No. 58-1, Mar. 15, 2016.
BACKGROUND response Plaintiff request under the Freedom Information Act FOIA State
conducted numerous searches for responsive records, including search the records from
clintonemail.com that former Secretary State Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin, who also had account clintonemail.com, determined were federal records potential federal records and
provided State.
Additionally, the request this Court, State sent letters the
representatives former Secretary Clinton, Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills, seeking
confirmation that they provided State all federal records potential federal records that were their possession result their employment the State Department. Among other
responses, former Secretary Clinton provided sworn declaration stating that she directed that all
her emails clintonemail.com her custody that were potentially were federal records
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 04/05/16 Page
provided State and that, information and belief, this had been done. Clinton Declaration
(Aug. 2015) (ECF No. 22-1).
State does not have possession control over
clintonemail.com. State filed its Motion for Summary Judgment November 13, 2015 (ECF
No. 47), and Plaintiff filed its Motion for Discovery December 11, 2015 (ECF No. 48).
February 23, 2016, over State opposition, the Court granted Plaintiff motion for discovery.
II.
ANY ORDERED DISCOVERY MUST NARROWLY TAILORED. remains State position that discovery this action not appropriate for the reasons
set forth its Opposition Plaintiff Motion for Discovery Pursuant Rule 56(d) the
Federal Rules Civil Procedure, ECF No. 49, Jan. 2016, and the February 23, 2016
hearing this matter. light the Court February 23, 2016 Order, State responds
Plaintiff proposed discovery plan follows, without waiving its objection discovery.
Scope discovery. the February hearing, the Court directed Plaintiff submit
discovery plan that narrowly tailored. Tr. Feb. 23, 2016 83:17-20, 84:16-17,
85:13-15.
Although Plaintiff proposed plan identifies certain individuals whom Plaintiff
wishes depose, makes proposal whatsoever regarding the scope those depositions. See
ECF No. 58-1. State submits that the scope discovery must limited and specified the
outset prevent questioning that exceeds the limited inquiry that the Court has authorized.
Based the Court statements the February hearing, State understands the scope permissible discovery the reasons for the creation [the clintonemail.com] system.
Tr. Feb. 23, 2016 78. State respectfully submits that the Court order should specify
that discovery limited this topic. that end, State requests that the Court clarify that
Plaintiff not entitled discovery matters unrelated the topic identified the Court,
include without limitation: the substantive information sought Plaintiff its FOIA request
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 04/05/16 Page
this case, which involves the employment status single employee; the storage, handling,
transmission, protection classified information, including cybersecurity issues; and
questions about any pending investigations. particular, consistent with the invocation
FOIA Exemption 7(A) the Federal Bureau Investigation FBI Leopold U.S.
Department Justice, No. 1:15-cv-2117-RDM (D.D.C. filed Dec. 2015) (Motion for
Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 7-9), State objects any discovery requests pertaining the
FBI pending investigation into matters referred the Inspectors General the
Intelligence Community and State connection with former Secretary Clinton use private
email server.
State does not anticipate that any classified information information relating the
pending FBI investigation will inadvertently disclosed during depositions, especially with
appropriate limitation the scope discovery the Court. But prevent public release
any such information inadvertently disclosed, State also requests reasonable period time
review deposition transcripts before they may publicly released, quoted paraphrased. State
proposes that permitted three business days from the time that deposition transcript
made available the parties within which conduct such review and, necessary, seek
order precluding public release, quotation paraphrase any inadvertently disclosed classified
information, information specifically exempted from disclosure statute, information
relating the pending FBI investigation.
Additional discovery. Plaintiff plan indicates that may seek permission conduct
certain additional discovery beyond the depositions identified paragraph and the
interrogatories identified paragraph
ECF No. 58-1 and State understands
Plaintiff proposal require request the Court permission conduct any such discovery,
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 04/05/16 Page
and State reserves the right object this additional discovery Plaintiff requests it. not
objecting this time the depositions identified paragraph State does not represent
imply that any those named individuals have relevant information.
Current employees.
Within days the Court ruling regarding the scope
discovery, State further proposes that have the opportunity submit declarations from any
the current State employees identified Plaintiff its discovery plan regarding the extent
their knowledge information potentially relevant the ordered scope. The parties could then
meet and confer regarding whether there need take that individual deposition and,
necessary, apply the Court for appropriate relief.
Former employees.
State notes that the individuals identified paragraphs 1(F)-(H)
Plaintiff proposed discovery plan are not current State employees and are not parties this
litigation. State reiterates its position that discovery appropriate this case, including
non-parties, and notes that State cannot accept notices deposition behalf the non-parties
identified Plaintiff proposed discovery plan.
Timing and mechanics. The Federal Rules limit the number depositions party may
take ten, Fed. Civ. 30(a)(2)(A)(i), and the length each deposition one day seven
hours, Fed. Civ. 30(d)(1). State requests that the order for discovery explicitly incorporate
these limits and further state that all discovery conducted consistent with the Federal
Rules Civil Procedure, subject the scope and other limitations designated the Court.
State further reserves the right question the deponents the conclusion Plaintiff
questioning. State also objects Plaintiff request that the Court shorten the time period for
State respond Plaintiff proposed interrogatories, ECF 58-1 Plaintiff identifies
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 04/05/16 Page
basis for shortening the time provided Federal Rule Civil Procedure 33(b)(2) (30 days after
service). State course reserves the right object individual interrogatories appropriate.
Finally, State believes that eight weeks from the Court order Plaintiff discovery
plan sufficient period for the parties conduct the discovery that Plaintiff has proposed, see
ECF No. 58-1 and respectfully requests that the Court require discovery completed
within that timeframe.
Dated: April 2016
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MARCIA BERMAN
Assistant Director
/s/ Caroline Lewis Wolverton
CAROLINE LEWIS WOLVERTON (DC 496433)
Senior Trial Counsel
STEVEN MYERS (NY 4823043)
Trial Attorney
United States Department Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Tel.: (202) 514-0265
Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: caroline.lewis-wolverton@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant