Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • 15-692 Opposition

15-692 Opposition

15-692 Opposition

Page 1: 15-692 Opposition

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:38

Date Created:September 11, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:October 02, 2015

Tags:OppositionsList


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:15-cv O0692-APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 15-cv-692 (APM)
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF OPPOSIT DEFENDANT MOTION STAY
PENDING RESOL lWOTlO FOR DESIGNATION ORDINATING JUDGE
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., and through counsel. respectfully submits this
opposition Defcndant motion stay. grounds therefor, Plaintiff states follows:
MENIORANDUM LAW
Introduction.
Defendant seeks the extraordinary relief indefinite stay order complete its
review one month Secretary State Hillary Clinton emails. which constitute
approximately 600 emails. Defendant failed meet and confer with Plaintiff prior ling its
motion. also failed provide any evidence demonstrating l1ow proceeding this case will
affect, adversely otherwise. the other Freedom Infonnation Act FOIA cases which
these same 600 emails might issue. Further, the relief Defendant seeks its miscellaneous
action for coordinatingjudge unlikely succeed. result, Defendants motion must
denied.
mnplaint challenges Defendants ms: two separate requests. Defendants motion canmm
nnlythe lsllemlue xrdmgly, the unlikel_veventtheCmInmightrulmdei WouldCvlVl) lIlELI[12I1II2lS that
purlton ufllle lnigzmon crnnccniing the request.
Case 1:15 00692 APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
II. Factual Background.
Plaintiffs first request, also referred Request No. seeks Mrs. Clint emails
about the September 11. 2012 attack the US. Consulate Benghazi, from September
11, 2012 January 31. 2013. See Compl. Because the U.S. House Select Committee
Benghazi previously requested all Mrs. Clintons emails about Benghazi from January 201 December 31, 2012,} Defendants initial search the 55,000 pages ofemails produced
Mrs. Clinton response the Select Cormnittee request covers Request No. through
December 31, 2012. Plaintiffs request extends through the end Mrs. Clinton tenure
Secretary State February 2013, Therefore, the remaining emails searched and
processed from the emails ced Mrs. Clinton are for one month period only January 2013 January 31, 2013. These records con approximately 600 emails. Sue Second int Status Report, led July (ECF No. 11) Joint Status Report),
III. Defendant Failed 1/Iect and Confer. July 31, 2015, the Court ordered the parties confer and provide update the
court their efforts resolve PlnintifFs concems regarding the scope Defendant
and efforts preserve responsive federal records connection with Request No. 7/31/
Minute Order. subpart (2). Since the Court issued its July 2015 order, Defendant has made meaningful effort confer about the items addressed the order the relief seeks its
motion stay.
ommunlcati eltmtl -.iccounu,s 2014 the
pre nt. Scu Compl.zit1lS. Deteltdanfs first production ofnui due September
30. 2015. Subpoena Hillary
-2-
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
Local Rule 7(m) requires that [b]efore filing any nondispositive motion civil
counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel good-faith effort
determine whether there any opposition the relief saught zmd, ifthere is, lllll l!IW the
areas aftlisagrecrnent. LCVR 7011) (emphasis added). Prior ling the motion for stay,
Defendant unsel sent email all Judicial Watch attorneys signed FOIA cases
between Plaintiff and Defendant, The email stated. pertinent part:
[T]he Department will ling motion each the above-listed cases seeking stay ofthosc portions ofeach case addressing the documents provided the
Department former Secretary Clinton and the other former employees until the
coordination motion decided, and. granted. until the coordinatingjudge sues order determining how proceed the isted that motion. The sought would not affect those portions the that deal with the search
and production other documents.
See September 2015 Email from Robert Prince. attached Exhibit evident the entire email chain, attached Exhibit that the parties never met
and conferred the motion stay Defendant led this particular case how Defendant
coordination motion would affect this particular case, all. Defendant only purported
meet and confer its coordination motion, and even then did not engage any meaningful
discussion with Plaintiff about that motion. response. Plai sought understand proposed coordination motion, but also offered meet and discr how
arch and production efforts could prioritized. among other res. Sec
Defendant filed its coordination motion that same day without responding. Id. Defendant
nnsel later asserted that they forgot send response and apologized. Id. Defendant
apology regarding the coordination motion notwitlistanding. Defendant plai failed satisfy
Local Rule 7(m) with regard the instant
Case 1:15-cv-00692 APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
IV. De1endant Coordination Motion Unlikely Succeed. purported the motion stay the coordination motion Defendant led September 2015. that date, Defendant initiated miscellaneous action. seeking
have the Chief Judge order differe trict judges transfer more than FOIA
lawsuits. including lawsuits led Judicial Watch, coordinatingjudge least for
period timefl See United States Department States Motion for Designation
Coordinating Judge and Memorandum Support 15, US. Dep State FOIA
tion Regarding Emails a_/Cerm1n Format Icials, Case No. 15-n1c.-01 188 (D.D
Regardless how Defendant describes it, this miscellaneous actioi new lawsuit.
suffers from numerous fatal aws, 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 lawsui question. There plainly has been service process. and mere
notice ofan action substitute for proper service ofprocess. See Omm Capital Int
Ltd. Rudolf lff Co.. 484 US. 97, 104 (1987): also Ibiza Busine rd. United
States UASI Dist. LEXIS 70903 (D.D,C. July 2010) (RCL) (denying motion for default
judgment miscellaneous action due insuf cien service process). Defendant also
failed join least indispensable pan namely the ict judges against whom they seek
reliefs
By1 l21inu count.
cplcmber 10, 201
Case l:15 OO692 APM Documen Filed 09/11/15 Page 5of9
Most fatal all. however. t11e complete absence any substantive legal basis for
Defendants claim. One udge cannot order another district judge take action case
pending before thatjudge. Klaymrm Kollar-Kore/Iy, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10148 (D.C
May 20, 2013), re/1g der1zez12013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16769 (DC. Cir. Aug. 12, 2013), reh
banc denied 2013 US. LEXIS 16770 (DC. Cir. Aug. 12. 2013): see alsa Celotex Corp.
Edwards, 514 U.S. 300, 313 (1905); ./an Suprenxe Court nfthe United States, 405 Fed.
Appx. 508 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curium); Prent1 U1z1tedSmzes District Court. 307 Fed.
Appx. 460 (DC. Cir. 2008) (per curium); .4El(ll7 United States District Court, 2014 U.S.
LEXIS 151044 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2014) (ABJ); IL;/axon Kat/1n 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (D.D.C. June 30. 200 Not only does districtjudge lack such power. but the District urt
lacks matterjurisdiction consider claim that does. Klaymzm, 2013 U.S. App.
LEXIS 10148 *2. K/ayniari, the plaintiff led action seeking, among other relief, have one district
judge issue injunction against another dis dge. Then Assistan United States Attorney
Rudolph Contreras now Judge Contreras gued Judge Leon that had authority
is. order Judge Kollar-Kotelly: This Court lacks jur ion order District Judge
take judicial action cases pending before that judge. Defendants Memorandum Support Motion Dis Klaynzmz I(0I1ar Kata//y, a[., Case No. 1-1775 (RJL) (D.D.C.
Dec 2011) (ECF No. 11). Judge Leon agreed. Klayrrxan 11. Ka11ar KateIly, 892 Supp.2d
hesoniereliictanc ontlicp 011.1115 gozilongwitlithatl andthele
atdi Ilprocedu IpostIuest11:tImnots11re 111m thejudges, becai wouldh211e1u b11y111.I
dontlno lirinvonee nIl1cc11ct]u voIdl1avcthez11h Ivtoordci (heIe d11 ctobca
buymonlhepi oftliejildgcstliateu tionwuuldberippro
I11r.,1. (D[).C. 1(R15?1/(Sep.,
.5.
v-OO692 APM Document Filed 09/ll/15 Page6of9
261 (D.D.C. 2012). did the appellate court, which summarily rmed. Klaynimi, 2013 US.
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 isting law. See Fed.RlCiv.P. 1(b)(2). Nor warranted
nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying. reversing ing law for establishing
new law. Id. addition, Local Civil Rules 40.5(c_) and 40.6(a), both ofwhich Defendant citcs, 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 ictjudgc anything.
Defendant moti for inde nite stay should denied because its coor ration motion
unlikely succeed. Inde nite Stay Inappropriate.
Notwithstanding Defendant failure meet and confer with Plaintiff the fact that its dination motion unlikely succeed, inde nite stay still inappropriate. The
resently issue are 600 emails sent rcc ved Mrs. Clinton between January
2013 and January 31. 2013. all which have already been scanned into database and are
readily capable being searched electronically. Search terms are not issue. The same terms
used search Mrs. Clinton January 2011 December 31. 2012 emails can applied the
remaining (>00 emails January 2013 January 31, lvloreover. Defendant has
already admitted the need prioritize the search Mrs. Clintons emails relating the
Case 1:15-CV-00692 APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
Benghazi attack light the great public interest these records.7 inde nite stay search month woith emails about matter ibstantial public interest unreasonable and
inappropriate. also would bring halt the progress already being made towards final
resolution Plaintiffs claims. addition the search the 600 emails, another issue that remains whether
addi onal federal records exist that are potentially responsive Request No. and, ifso, where
those records are likely located and what steps Defendant must undertake ensure that
they are preserved, searched, reviewed. and produce Plainti response Request No.
Any such records undoubtedly include all emails sent received Mrs. Clinton using the
clintonemail.com email server regardless whether Mrs. Clint her attonieys
subsequently claimed that these emails are personal, See, e.g iscript Status nference, .Ii4dicia1 atclz, Inc. State Dep r., Case No. 13-1363 (D.D.C.) (EGS) (Aug. 20,
2015), attached Exhibit (If any e-mails pertain 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 Depai nent should ask they returned); see also F.R 1222.12 agcncic.i
must distinguish between records and nonre ord material applying the nitii ofrec any agency docume tary material all fonnats and media (em added); F.R. Se1VEl1L denee
tice oflnfo nation Programs and Scnites Director John I-Icicketl testified declina
ollowiiig the Departments receipt the l0m Secretary Clinton, the
Departmentconductcdasepz inited portion nfihe pagt, tolr ate any that requests oftlie House Sele Committc Bengliiui. ooh manual review. the Department located and produced the Select mmiltcc emails the public inter
and the that the Dcpanment all-my had itt, lhemwitlnn the larger the Dcpamrienl has
ie icW ortimee 296 emails. SiIcDc lion uriohn HaCkCt,./iIsLHiL apt)/d I75 In/ Styli Case No. 123 (D.D.C.
(RC) IECF No. [May 18. (H5) para. lo.
Case 1:lS cv-00692-APM Documen Filed 09/11/15 Page
agency activity and therefore within the definition federal record matter entrusted
the f/udgenzenz the agency (emphasis addc They also may include emails from Mrs.
Clinton contained records subsequently prov the State Department former State
Dep rent officials Huma Abedin. Cheryl Mills. Philippe Reines, and Jacob Sullivan. Joint
Status Report 11.3.
Defendant provides evidence whatsoever demonstrating that necessary
address this other, remain: issue. fact, Defendant previously asserted that had
obligation search the records returned Ms. Abedin, Ms. Mills. Mr. Sullivan order
satisfy its FOIA obligations Plaintiff. See Joint Status Report n.3. (Defendant maintains
that reasonable search responsive Request No. only requires search the Clinton
emails. While true that Defendant has agreed addition discrete search speci cally.
search any emails that has received from Ms. Mills, Mr. Sullivan, and Ms. Abedin did
not because bclieves the FOIA requires such search. Plaintiffseeks less and
more than what FOIA requires. Defendant now believes must search these retumed records satisfy its FOIA obligations, Plainti menable discu ing reasonable schedule for
completion this task. But the fact that Defendant would seek indefinite stay this
litigation that coordination judge can appointed oversee the completion task
Defendant deni has any obligation undertake demonstrates that Defcndant mot
baseless.
Case 1:15 00692 APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
VI. Conclusion.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant motion for stay should denied.
Dated: September 11, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
/S/R[U1l0)1. Cat
Ramona otca,
Bar No. 501159
425 ird Street SW, Suite 800
Waslnngton, 20024
(202)646-5172 (202) 646 5199
Email: rcoica@_1udicia1vatch.0rg
for Plaintiff
Case 1:15~cv-00692-APM Document 15-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Case 1:15-cv-00692 APM Document Filed 09/11/15 Page
SUBPOENA
AUTHORITY THE HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES THE
CONGRESS THE. UNITED STATES AMERICA The Honorable Hillzny Clintun
You are hereby cmmuandcd and appear before the
Select Committee the Events Surmundin the 2012 Terrorist Atmnk Run hzizi the House Reprasentatves the United States thn pee, date and time specified bolow. testify touching matters ofinquity lllmitted said ctnnnlittee subcommittee; and you are not
depart withnul leave ofsaid cmnmittee subcommittee,
Place tostimon)
Date; prorhlce the things identi the attached schedule touching matters inquiry camntittcd said
committcc subcommittee; and you are not depart without leave said cmnmittee subconrunittee,
Place production:
arch 13. 2015 some and mnkc i61Ll1lL
Witness It-and and the seal the House Reprcseutalivw oftltc-2 United States, the city VasiIingtnn, this day airman Axzrhorizerl Iilzrrzber
Attesl:
(Herr-k
Case 1:15 O0692-APM Docume Filed 09/11/15 Page
Pnoon SERVICE
Subpoena for
The I-Ionombla Hill Clinton
Address Per agreement with David Kendall, Esq. the service will completed email
David Kendall Williams Connolly LLP
before the Select Committee the Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack Benghazi
US. House qfRepre.renlatxve.v Congress
(prlntnnme) IVA CHP/M/
zlm 5;/{J
Manner service E/;_A-{L jflf/y] 5/Njgdf
Date 711/
Signature Sen/er
Address 1036 Longworlh House Office Bull Washington, DC. 20515
Case l:l5 cv-00692 APM Document 15-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page
SCHEDULE accordance with the attached schedule instructions and nitions, you,
Hillary Clinton, are required produce all records unredacted form
described below: For the time period January 2011 through December 31, 2012, any and all documents
and communications your possession, and/or sent from received the email
addresses hdr22@clintcnemail.cnm, hrod17@c1intonemail.con1, any other nil
address communications device used you another your behalf, referring
relating to:
(a) Libya (including but not limiied Benghazi and >li),
(b) weapons located found in, imported brouglit into, and/or exported removed
from Libya;
(0) Ihe attacks US. facilities Benghazi, Libya September 11, 2012 and
September 12, 2012;
(d) stafernents periaining the attacks US. facilities Bengliazi, Libya
September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012.
Case 1:15 cv-0O692 APM Document 15-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Schedule Instructions complying with this subpoena, you are required produce all responsive
documents that are your possession, custody, control, whether held you
your past present agents, employees, and representatives acting your behalf.
You should also produce doelunents that you have legal right obtain, that you
have right copy which you have access, well documents that you have
placed the temporary possession, custody, control any third party.
Subpoenaed records, documents, data information should not destroyed,
modi ed, removed, transferred otherwise made inaccessible the Committee. the event that any entity, organization individual denoted this subpoena has
been, also known any other name than that herein denoted, the subpoena shall read also include that alternative identi cation. The Comn1ittee preference receive documents electronic form (ie, CD,
memory stick, thumb drive) lieu paper productions. Documents produced electronic format should also organized, identi ed, and
indexed electronically. Electronic document productions should prepared according the following
standard
(a) The production should consist single page Tagged Image File TIF les
accompanied Concor format load file, Opticcn reference file, and
file ning the fields and character lengths the load le.
Document numbers the load should match document Bates numbers and
TIF file names,
(c) the production completed through series multiple partial productions,
field names and tile order all load files should match.
Documents produced the Committee should include index describing the
contents the production. the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory
stick, thumb drive, box folder produced, each CD, hard drive, memory stick,
thumb drive, box folder should contain index describing its contents.
Documents produced re. onse ubpoena shall produced together with
copies tile labels, dividers idc markers with which they were iatcd
when the subpoena was sewed.
When you produce documents, you should identity the paragraph the Commit1cc
schedule which the documents respond, shall not refusal produce documents that any other person entity
also possesses non-identical identical eopie the some documents.
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Document 15-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page any the subpoenaed information only reasonably available machine-
readable form (such computer sewer, hard drive, computer backup tape),
you should consult with the Committee staff determine the appropriate format
which produce the information. compliance with the subpoena cannot made full March 13, 2015 12:00
pm., compliance shall made the extent possible that date. explanation
why full compliance not possible shall provided later than March 12, 2015
12:00 p.m. the event that document withheld the privilege, provide privilege
log containing the following information conceming any such document: (it) the
privilege asserted; (b) the type document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the
date, author and addressee; and (e) the relationship the author and addressee
each other. any document responsive this subpoena was, but longer is, your
possession, custody, control, identify the document (stating its date, author, subject
and recipients) and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased your possession, custody, control. date other descriptive detail set forth this subpoena referring document inaccurate, but the actual date other descriptive detail kno\~n you
otherwise apparent from the context the subpoena. you are required produce all
documents which would responsive the date other descriptive detail were
correct. The time period covered this subpoena from January 2011 December 31,
2012. This subpoena continuing nature and applies any newly-disco
information the time period January 2011 1)ecember 31. 201 Any
responsive record, document, compilation data information, not produced
because has not been located discovered the return date, shall produced
immediately upon subsequent location discovery. All documents shall Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially. Two sets documents shall delivered, one set the Majority Staff and one set
the Minority Staff. When docunicnts are produced the Committee, production sets
shall delivered the Majo Staff Room 1036 the Longworth House Office
Building and the Minority Staff Room B241 the Longworth House Office
Building,
ocutnent production, you should submit written
certi cation, signed you your counsel, stating th: (1) diligent search has
been completed all documents your posses study control which
reasonably could ontain responsive documents (2) documents located during
the search that are sponsive have been produced the Committee.
Case 1:15-cv 00692-APM Document 15-1 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Schedule Del ions
The term document means any written, recorded, graphic matter any nature
whatsoever, regardless how recorded, and whether original copy, including, but
not limited to, the following: memoranda, reports, cables, ords, correspondence,
letters, notes, manuals, instructions, nancial reports, working papers, inter-office and
intra.-office communications, messages, electronic mail (email), summaries
notations any type conversation, telephone cellular call, meeting other
communication, transcripts, diaries, analyses, minutes, projections, comparisons,
contracts, press releases, ews, opinions, studies and investigations, (and all dra
preliminary versions, alterations, modi cations, revisions, changes, and amendments any the foregoing, well any attachments appendices thereto), and graphic oral records representations any kind (including without limitation,
photographs, charts, graphs, micro che, microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion
pictures), and electronic, mechanical, and electric records representations any
kind (including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other
written, printed, typed, other graphic recorded matter any kind nature,
however produced reproduced, and whether preserved uniting, lm, tape, disk,
videotape otherwise. document bearing any notation not part the original
text considered separate document. draft non-identical copy
separate doctuncnt within the meaning this term.
The term cornmunic ion means each manner means disclosure exchange
information, regardless means utilized, whether oral, electronic, document,
otherwise, and whether meeting, telephone, imile, e-mail (desktop
mobile device), text message, instant message, MMS SMS message, regular mail,
telexes, rcleases, otherwise, Communications sent received includes any
means transmission receipt including but not limited communications that are
copied, blind copied forwarded. Addi cnally, any commnnica that
incorporates, contains, attaches another document communication shall include
that additional document communieat
The terms and and shall construed broadly and either conjunctively
disjunctively bring within the scope this request/subpoena any information which
might otherwiie construed outside its scope. The singular includes plural
number, and vice versa. The masculine. includes the feminine and neuter genders.
The term referring relating, with respect any given subject, means anything that
constitutes, contains, embodies, reilects, identities, states, refers to, deals with
pertinent that subject any manner wliatsoever.
The term weapons includes any instrument, tool, device for use attack
defense, include but not limited rearms, grenades, mortars nissil
I/LANPADS (man-portable air-defen ystems), CBRNE (chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, explosives) devices.
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Document 15-2 Filed 09/11/15 Page
EXHIBIT
Case 1:15-cv 0O692-APM Document 15-2 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Ramona Cotca
From: Prince, Robert (CIV) 
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 Watch U.S. Dept State, al., Civil No. 12-893 (JDB)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept Defense, al, Civil No. 14-812 (KBJl
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No.12-2034(RW)
Judicial Watch US. Dept State, Civil No. 13-1363 (EGS)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 13-772 (CKK)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 14-1242 (RCL)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No.14-1511(ABJ)
Judicial Watch US. Dept State, Civil No. 15-1128 (EGS)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-321 (CKK)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-646 (CKK)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-684 (BAH)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-687 (JEB)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 15-688 (RC)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No.15-689(RDM)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No.15-691(APM)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dep State, Civil No.15 692lAPM] seek your position two motions. First, the Department State intends file motion with the ChiefJudge 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 ofthe recently
provided documents, requests for information and discovery about those documents, and requests for orders relating
preservation,
This coordination motion will filed miscellaneou 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
Case 1:15 OO692-APM iment 15-2 Filed 09/11/15 Page3of3
determining how proceed the cases listed that motion. The stay 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~isted case today?
Best,
Rob
Robert Prince
TriaiAttorney
U.S. Department ofiustlce, Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
(202) 3053554
The information this transmittal {including attachments, any) intended only for the recipientfs) listed above and contains
information that confidential. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution, copying this transmittal prohibited except
behalf the intended recipient. ifyau have received this transmittal error, please notify immediately and destroy all copies
the transmittal. Your cooperation appreciated.
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Document 15-3 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Case 1:15-cv O0692-APM Document 15-3 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Paul Orfanedes
From: Shapiro, Elizabeth (CW) 
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:17
To: Paul Orfanecies; Barman, Marcia (CIV)
Subject: 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:P0rt anedes@JUDICIALWATCH.0RG]
sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 11:07
To: Shapiro, Elizabeth (cIV,); Barman, Marcia (CIV)
Subject: FW: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Elizabeth/Marci
Further our conversation this morning, the last communication received from Robert Prince was 11:01 am.
yesterday. sent him this email 1:51 pm. and second 4:04 p.m., which sending you separately. irecelved
response either email.
From Paul Orfanedes
Sen Wednesday, September 02, 2015
To: Prince, Robert (C1V)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watct-is 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.
Vour proposed order would have the coordinating judge resolve and rnanage all issues law, fact, and procedure
regarding the search and production responsive records within the recently provided documents, ifyour 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 wcil. 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 ior
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 Sullivan materials, what would your proposal leave for the originally assigned judges decide For
example, 14-1242, which before Judge Lambcrth, State moved for summary judgment and filed Rule 56id)
motion respon. would your proposal take those motions away from Judge Lamberth and put them hold? so,
Case 1:15-cv-00692 APM Docume 15-3 Filed 09/11/15 Page3of6
for how long? What about Judge Sullivans orderlin 13-1363 requiring State ask the FBI for information about what
the FBI recovers from the server? that within oroutslde 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.
ifyour concern about requests for information discovery about the Clinton servel 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. ifthe 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 ofthe 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 tryto accommodate them, and the status
our various cases, offered Ms. Shapiro early July, wed happy 50.
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?
From Prince, Robert (CW) 11-
Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 11:01
To: Paul Oifanedes
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 motion).
What were proposing actually very simple. plan leave the involved questions the coordinatingjudge, 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 documents
(recently provided documents defined the order). That the reiefwere requesting. the email sent yesterday morning, gave some specific examples ofwhat those issues would include (scheduling
searches ofthe 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 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 coordinatingjudge resolve the detailed, involved que: ons,
with input from all parties described the relief are seekin iscussing questions not addressed the motion
are not necessary meaningfully confer.
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Docume 15-3 Filed 09/11/15 Page
Regarding the use eilaneous action, there precise rule that provides for what are seeking, which not
traditional consolidation. nce 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
Trirzi/lttorney
U.S. epartment aflustice, Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
(202) 305-3654
The information this transmittal (including attachments, ifony) intended only for the reclpientls) listed above and contains
information that confidential. Any review, use, disclosure, distribution, copying this transmittal prohibited except
behai/ofthe intended recipient. lfyarl have received this transmittal error, please notify immediately and destroy all copies
the transmittal. Your cooperation appreciated,
F151 Paul anedes
sent:Tu$day,Sepi:eniber01,2O .16.P
To: Prince, Robert (CW)
Subject: RE: Seeking Judicial Watch Position Motion Designate Coordinating Judge and Corresponding Stay
Motions cases State Department
Robert: familiarwith miscellaneous actions relating discovery subpoenas, administrative subpoenas, judgment
enforcement, registration foreign judgments, etc. Frankly, never heard oia party ongoing lawsuit opening
miscellaneous action the same court move for the designation ofa coordinatingjudge. 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
Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, but was understanding that was done administratively the courl- 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
going take some time for even understand it. sure well have more question, but don 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 diflc-rent claims,
there different parties, there are different stages. the mechanics oithat have eluded date, but havent
given the idea. asked her after the hearing DDJ 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) [:_i;gu;g;3obi2rI,_ jri g(t; _(1oj.gp1]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2015
To: Paul Orfanedes; Ramona Cotca; Michael Bekesha; Jason Aldrich uren Burke; Chris Fedeii 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 (CW)
Case 1:15-cv-00692-APM Document 15-3 Filed 09/11/15 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 position (or, you prefer, needs see motion before taking
positionvii
Sen 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); Weehsier, Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CW); 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. won decide your 4:00 pm. deadline. this point, its more involved question
than that.
rince, Robert (CIV) nngjlgmgg
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); Wechsier Peter (CIV); Todd, James (CIV); Thurston, Robin (CIV);
Carmichael, Andrew (CIV); Anderson, Caroline (CIV)-, lson, 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 Watch U.S. Dept State, aI., Civil No. 12-893 [JDB)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept Defense, al, Civil No. 14-812 (KBJ)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dept State, Civil No. 12-2034 (RW)
Judicial Watch US. Dept State, Civil No. 13-1363 iEGS)
Judicial Watch U.S. Dep State, Civil No. 13-772 (Cl