Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • 13-1363 Opposition

13-1363 Opposition

13-1363 Opposition

Page 1: 13-1363 Opposition

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:23

Date Created:September 8, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 02, 2015

Tags:OppositionsList, State Department, DOJ


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 09/08/15 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No. 13-cv-1363 (EGS)
PLAINTIFF OPPOSITION DEFENDANT MOTION FOR
PARTIAL STAY PENDING RESOLUTION ITS MOTION FOR
DESIGNATION COORDINATING JUDGE
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel, respectfully submits this opposition
Defendant motion. grounds therefor, Plaintiff states follows:
MEMORANDUM LAW
Introduction.
Defendant motion for indefinite stay proceedings should denied. Defendant
has presented evidence whatsoever that proceeding course this case will, any way,
adversely affect any other cases. Moreover, Plaintiff demonstrates below, the relief sought
Defendant will slow, not stop entirely, the substantial progress that the Court and the parties
have made resolving the few issues that remain.
Since the reopening this case June 2015, the Court has held two status hearings and
has scheduled another two hearings for September 16, 2015 and October 2015. The Court
also has issued least six orders. addition, the parties either jointly separately have
docketed less than filings with the Court. result this activity, only two significant
questions remain: whether any additional records that are potentially responsive Plaintiff
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
FOIA request exist and, so, where they may located. the first step resolving this
issue, the Court ordered Defendant establish dialogue with the FBI and provide the Court
with update September 21, 2015. Now, without any evidence whatsoever that indefinite
stay necessary avoid conflicts with other courts, Defendant requests that the Court stay this
order and prevent the case from moving forward. The request should denied.
II.
Defendant Failed Meet and Confer.
Defendant failed meet and confer before moved for stay. Defendant has filed
motion stay indefinitely two aspects this case. First, Defendant seeks stay the search
and processing certain additional records that have been provided Ms. Mills and Ms.
Abedin. See Defendant Motion for Partial Stay Pending Resolution Its Motion for
Designation Coordinating Judge Def Mot. 2-3. Second, Defendant seeks stay the
Court August 20, 2015 Order, which requires Defendant establish dialogue with the FBI
and provide update the Court September 21, 2015. Id.
Local Rule 7(m) requires that [b]efore filing any nondispositive motion civil action,
counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel good-faith effort
determine whether there any opposition the relief sought and, there is, narrow the
areas disagreement. LCvR 7(m) (emphasis added). Prior Defendant filing its motion for stay, attorney who purportedly represents Defendant but has not entered his appearance
this case sent email all Judicial Watch attorneys assigned FOIA cases involving Plaintiff
and Defendant. The email stated:
[T]he Department will filing motion each the above-listed 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
-2-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
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.
See September 2015 Email from Robert Prince, which attached Exhibit This email
fails satisfy Local Rule 7(m) least three ways.
First, the email way states that Defendant would seeking stay the Court
August 20, 2015 Order requiring Defendant establish dialogue with the FBI and provide
update the Court September 21, 2015. Second, evident from the entire email chain,
which attached Exhibit Defendant did not allow for the parties fully discuss the
motion. Plaintiff not only sought fully understand what Defendant intended file, but
Plaintiff also again proposed that the parties meet and discuss the issue. Instead, Defendant filed
its coordination motion and the motion stay this case. Third, there was attempt
Defendant whatsoever narrow the areas disagreement. Had Defendant meaningfully
conferred with Plaintiff about the remaining searches conducted certain additional
records that have been returned Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin, Defendant would have learned
that Plaintiff willing reasonably coordinate such production necessary. not properly
conferring with Plaintiff, Defendant unnecessarily burdening the Court with this issue. For
this reason alone, Defendant motion should denied.
III.
Defendant Coordination Motion Whatever Unlikely Succeed. September 2015, Defendant filed miscellaneous action, seeking have the
Chief Judge order district judges transfer more than Freedom Information Act FOIA lawsuits, including least lawsuits filed Judicial Watch, coordinating
-3-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
judge least for period time.1 See United States Department State Motion for
Designation Coordinating Judge and Memorandum Support 15. Regardless how
Defendant describes it, this miscellaneous action new lawsuit. suffers from numerous
fatal flaws, not the least which Defendant failure identify any basis for the District
Court subject matter jurisdiction demonstrate why the relief seeks properly the subject miscellaneous action. Defendant also has failed identify any basis for the District Court assert personal jurisdiction over respondents the FOIA requestors who have bought the more
than lawsuits question. There plainly has been service process, and mere notice
action substitute for proper service process. See, e.g., Omni Capital Int 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) (Lamberth, J.) (denying motion for default judgment miscellaneous action due insufficiency service process). Defendant also failed join least indispensable parties, namely the district judges against whom they seek relief.
Most fatal all, however, the complete absence any substantive legal basis for
Defendant claim. One district judge cannot order another district judge take action case
pending before that judge. Klayman Kollar-Kotelly, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 (D.C. Cir.
May 20, 2013), reh denied 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16769 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2013), reh
banc denied 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16770 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 12, 2013); see also Celotex Corp.
Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313 (1995); 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. avoid confusion, Plaintiff uses the numbers identified Defendant its
coordination motion.
-4-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
LEXIS 151044 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2014) (Berman Jackson, J.); Mason Kahn 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 50258 (D.D.C. June 30, 2008). Not only does district judge lack such power, but
the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction consider claim that does. Klayman,
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 *2. Klayman, the plaintiff filed action seeking, among other relief, have one district
judge issue injunction against another district judge. 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 *1. The relief Defendant seeks that district judge order other
district judges transfer more than FOIA lawsuits single coordinating judge
unwarranted any existing law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2). Nor warranted nonfrivolous
argument for extending, modifying, reversing existing law for establishing new law. Id. addition, Local Civil Rules 40.5(c) and 40.6(a), both which Defendant cites, also
not provide legal basis for the relief Defendant seeks. Both rules make clear that the
assignment and transfer processes they establish are effectuated only with the consent the
judges involved. Again, district judge can order another district judge anything.
Defendant motion for indefinite stay should denied because its coordination motion
unlikely succeed.
-5-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
IV. Indefinite Stay Inappropriate.
Notwithstanding Defendant failure confer the fact that its coordination motion
unlikely succeed, indefinite stay inappropriate. Since this case was reopened June 19,
2015, significant progress has been made resolving the few outstanding issues. Defendant
now wants halt this progress.
When the Court reopened this case June 19, 2015, three general issues existed:
Defendant had not searched the 55,000 pages emails returned
Mrs. Clinton for records responsive Plaintiff FOIA request;
Defendant had not searched the emails returned Ms. Abedin and Ms.
Mills; and
Defendant had not conducted additional searches reasonably calculated
uncover all responsive records.
Since then, less than three months, Defendant has (1) agreed re-search the system records originally searched for records responsive Plaintiff FOIA request; (2) requested that Mrs.
Clinton, Ms. Abedin, and Ms. Mills return all records potentially responsive Plaintiff FOIA
request; (3) searched the 55,000 pages emails returned Mrs. Clinton for records responsive Plaintiff FOIA request; (4) searched the emails returned Ms. Abedin and Cheryl Mills June 30, 2015; and (5) since June 30, 2015, received additional records from Ms. Abedin and
Ms. Mills that Defendant has said will search. short, the first issue has been completely
resolved, and the second and third issues have been partly resolved and continue efficiently
move towards resolution.
What remains issue simple and straightforward. First, Defendant does not seek
stay its revised searches the system records that originally searched. Based statements
made Defendant counsel during the August 20, 2015 Status Hearing, appears that the
-6-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
search has been completed and Defendant the process preparing approximately 200 pages
for production. This process should continue course.
Second, Defendant has said will search the records returned Ms. Abedin and Ms.
Mills since June 30, 2015 for records responsive Plaintiff FOIA request. Defendant needs
additional time conduct these searches, Plaintiff does not oppose reasonable schedule for
completion. However, without knowing the number records well the number pages
that were returned both individuals and whether the records were returned native format paper form, Plaintiff does not know and cannot know what reasonable. Plaintiff therefore
requests that Defendant identify the total number records and pages that were returned Ms.
Abedin and Ms. Mills since June 30, 2015 and that have not already been searched well
whether such records were returned native format paper form. Once Defendant identifies
this information, the parties can meaningfully meet and confer and attempt agree
reasonable production schedule.
Third, the Court must resolve whether any additional records that are potentially
responsive Plaintiff FOIA request exist and, so, where they may located. Those records
undoubtedly include all emails sent received Mrs. Clinton from any email address the
clintonemail.com system well all emails sent received Ms. Abedin the same
system. such records exist, Defendant has obligation recover those records and search
them for responsiveness. August 20, 2015 Transcript any e-mails pertaining official
government business are found the 30,000, quote, unquote, personal e-mails through the FBI,
DOJ search, will those documents returned State? guess that would the second part
that directive. think the State Department should ask they returned.
-7-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page the first step this process, the Court ordered Defendant open dialogue with the
FBI about recovery potential information that may responsive [Plaintiff FOIA
request. August 20, 2015 Transcript 44. Two weeks later and conveniently the day before
Defendant moved stay the Court order Defendant initiated the dialogue with the FBI. See
September 2015 Letter, which attached Exhibit Now Defendant seeks stop that
dialogue. should not stopped.
Now that the dialogue has finally been initiated, assumed that the FBI will provide
[Defendant] with the information that has obligation provide; that is, with respect
materials that are responsive [Plaintiff FOIA request. Id. 46. Defendant does not
receive the necessary information from the FBI the FBI informs Defendant that emails
Mrs. Clinton Ms. Abedin exist the server the FBI possession, discovery may
appropriate. Id. think just need wait and see what the response before the Court
determines whether not there any basis for discovery. see also id. 46-47 Let see
what the investigation reveals, anything. And whatever reveals, anything probably
going inform the Court decision about the need for discovery. Stopping the process now,
less than two weeks before Defendant inform the Court about the outcome its dialogue
with the FBI, will only slow resolution this case.
Importantly, Defendant provides evidence whatsoever that stay necessary.
Defendant has failed demonstrate that the Court August 20, 2015 Order requires Defendant take action that already taking response another court order. Nor has Defendant
demonstrated that the Court August 20, 2015 Order conflicts with any order another court
that any order another court conflicts with the Court August 20, 2015 Order. Nor does
-8-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document Filed 09/08/15 Page
Defendant demonstrate that opening dialogue with the FBI and the gathering information
from the FBI will cause injury harmful Defendant. Nor does Defendant demonstrate
how another district judge would the best position determine the next steps this case
when this Court already has held two status hearings, received numerous filings, and has ordered additional filing and scheduled another hearing for October 2015.
Ironically, was counsel for Defendant that suggested that the Court order Defendant
open dialogue with the FBI. See August 20, 2015 Transcript 20-21. Defendant counsel
also agreed with the Court that [p]erhaps the response [from the FBI] will help inform any
next steps that are required. Id. 22. now Defendant position two weeks later that burdensome injurious for the Court require Defendant take such steps? Perhaps,
Defendant simply does not want take such steps such time because seeking out another
district judge hopes that that judge will not require Defendant take such steps.
Conclusion.
For all the reasons stated above, Defendant motion for indefinite stay should
denied.
Dated: September 2015
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael Bekesha
Michael Bekesha (D.C. Bar No. 995749)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
425 Third Street S.W., Suite 800
Washington, 20024
(202) 646-5172
Counsel for Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc.
-9-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Exhibit
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Michael Bekesha
Prince, Robert (CIV) Robert.Prince@usdoj.gov>
Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:38
Ramona Cotca; Paul Orfanedes; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris
Fedeli
Elliott, Stephen (CIV); Edney, Marsha (CIV); Wechsler, Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV);
Thurston, Robin (ClV); Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CIV); Olson,
Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and
Corresponding Stay Motions cases State Department
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear counsel,
This email reference the following cases
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Dept State, aI., Civil No. 12-893 (JOB)
Dept Defense, ai, Civil No. 14-812 (KBJ)
Dept State, Civil No. 12-2034 (RW)
Dept State, Civil No. 13-1363 (EGS)
Dept State, Civil No. 13-772 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 14-1242 (RCL)
Dept State, Civil No. 14-1511 (ABJ)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-1128 (EGS)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-321 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-646 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-684 (BAH)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-687 (JEB)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-688 (RC)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-689 (RDM)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-691 (APM)
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, fact, and procedure across
numerous FOIA suits, including these cases, that implicate the search and production documents that were provided 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 all other purposes, 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 documents, and requests for orders relating
preservation.
This coordination motion will filed miscellaneous action. Once filed, the Department will file notice each the above-listed cases, along with copy the motion itself.
Second, the Department will filing motion each the above-listed 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.
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-1 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Could you please let know your position with respect each above-listed case today?
Best,
Rob
Robert Prince
Trial Attorney
U.S. Department Justice, Civil 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 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Exhibit
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Paul Orfanedes
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shapiro, Elizabeth (CIV) Elizabeth.5hapiro@usdoj.gov>
Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:17
Paul Orfanedes; Berman, Marcia (CIV)
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. Apologies.
From: Paul Orfanedes [mailto:POrfanedes@JUDIClALWATCH.ORG]
Sent: Thursday, September 03,2015 11:07
To: Shapiro, Elizabeth (ClV); Berman, Marcia (ClV)
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 email.
PJO
From: Paul Orfanedes
Sent: Wednesday, September 02,2015 1:51
To: Prince, Robert (ClV)
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 resolve and manage all issues law, fact, and procedure
regarding the search and production responsive records within the recently provided documents. your concern
coming with 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 well. The same would true for the Abedin, Mills, Reines, and Sullivan
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 implicate 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 concern something broader than completing searches the 55,000 Clinton emails and the Abedin, Mills,
Reines, and SuI/ivan materials, what would your proposal leave for the originally assigned judges decide? For
example, 14-1242, which before Judge Lamberth, State moved for summary judgment and filed Rule 56(d)
motion response. Would your proposal take those motions away from Judge Lamberth and put them hold? so,
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page
for how long? What about Judge Sullivans order 13-1363 requiring State ask the FBI for information about what
the FBI recovers from the server? that within outside your proposal? You say its not feasible have detailed
discussion about how each case might proceed under your proposal, but sure you can imagine, that very
important issue, least for us. some our cases, weve 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
clear that within outside your proposal even issue all our cases, all cases you
seek include 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-Judicial Watch cases which have these issues have been raised. not asserting that hasnt; 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, miscellaneous cases are assigned
random basis. How you propose getting your motion front the Chief Judge light the Courts rule?
PJO
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) [mailto:Robert.Prince@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 02,2015 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 list will 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 lito resolve and manage issues law, fact, and procedure arising the
Coordinated Cases from the search and production responsive records within the recently prOVided documents
(recently 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
sea rches 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 Court 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 detailed 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,
with input from all parties. Weve described the relief are seeking; discussing questions not addressed the motion
are not necessary meaningfully confer.
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Regarding the use miscellaneous action, there precise rule that provides for what are seeking, which not
traditional consolidation. Since will 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, Civil 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.
From: Paul Orfanedes [mailto:POrfanedes@JUDICIALWATCH.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 9:26
To: Prince, Robert (CIV)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion DeSignate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Robert: familiar with miscellaneous actions relating discovery subpoenas, 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 coordinating 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 include 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
weve met and conferred unless understand better.
Elizabeth Shapiro told 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. asked her after the hearing DOJ wanted try talk about it. There was real response,
and never heard anything further until your email this morning. Not only not understand what you are
proposing, but dont understand why there seems sudden rush file something.
PJO
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) [mailto:Robert.Prince@usdoi.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 3:44
To: Paul Orfanedes; Ramona Cotca; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris Fedeli
Cc: Elliott, Stephen (CIV); Edney, Marsha (CIV); Wechsler, Peter (crV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CIV); Olson, Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Paul, can put your position down has not yet taken position (or, you prefer, needs see motion before taking
position)?
From: Paul Orfanedes [mailto :POrfanedes@JUDICIALWATCH.ORGJ
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015 10:43
To: Prince, Robert (CIV); Ramona Cotca; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich; Lauren Burke; Chris Fedeli
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 Watchs 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, its more involved question
than that.
PJO
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) [mallto :Robert.Prince@ usdoi.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); Wechsler, Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CIV); Olson, Lisa (CIV); Riess, Daniel (CIV)
Subject: Seeking Judicial Watchs Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay Motions cases State Department
Dear counsel,
This email reference the following cases:
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Judicial
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
Watch
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Dept State, aI., Civil No. 12-893 (JOB)
Dept Defense, ai, Civil No. 14-812 (KBJ)
Dept State, Civil No. 12-2034 (RW)
Dept State, Civil No. 13-1363 (EGS)
Dept State, Civil No. 13-772 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 14-1242 (RCL)
Dept State, Civil No. 14-1511 (ABJ)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-1128 (EGS)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-321 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-646 (CKK)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-684 (BAH)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-687 (JEB)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-688 (RC)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-689 (RDM)
Dept State, Civil No. 15-691 (APM)
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, fact, and procedure across
numerous FOIA suits, including these cases, that implicate the search and production documents that were provided
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-2 Filed 09/08/15 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 all other purposes, 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 documents, and requests for orders relating
preservation.
This coordination motion will filed miscellaneous action. Once filed, the Department will file notice each the above-listed cases, along with copy the motion itself.
Second, the Department will filing motion each the above-listed 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, Civil 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 ail copies
the transmittal. Your cooperation appreciated.
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-3 Filed 09/08/15 Page
Exhibit
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 35-3 Filed 09/08/15 Page
United
St