Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • Court Order State Department 01363

Court Order State Department 01363

Court Order State Department 01363

Page 1: Court Order State Department 01363

Category:Legal Document

Number of Pages:2

Date Created:June 19, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:June 19, 2015

Tags:reopened, 013631, watchs, ECFNotice, Procedure, Relief, motion, order, State Department, federal, FOIA, department, district, court, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

From: DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov [mailto:DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov]
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 11:44
To: DCD_ECFNotice@dcd.uscourts.gov
Subject: Activity Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. DEPARTMENT STATE Order Motion for Relief from Judgment
This automatic e-mail message generated the CM/ECF system. Please NOT
RESPOND this e-mail because the mail box unattended.
***NOTE PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference the United States
policy permits attorneys record and parties case (including pro litigants)
receive one free electronic copy all documents filed electronically, receipt required law directed the filer. PACER access fees apply all other users. avoid later
charges, download copy each document during this first viewing. However, the
referenced document transcript, the free copy and page limit not apply.
U.S. District Court
District Columbia
Notice Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered 6/19/2015 11:43 and filed 6/19/2015
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. DEPARTMENT STATE
Case Name:
1:13-cv-01363-EGS
Case Number:
Filer:
WARNING: CASE CLOSED 03/19/2014
Document Number: document attached
Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER granting [13] Judicial Watchs motion for relief from judgment.
view revelations that then-Secretary State Clinton and members her staff
used personal email accounts conduct State Department business, and that
emails from those accounts may not have been covered State Department
searches for documents responsive the FOIA request issue this case, the
plaintiff seeks reopen this case for further proceedings. The State Department
agrees that the case should reopened under these circumstances. Judicial
Watch relies upon Federal Rule Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), which permits relief
cases fraud (whether previously called intrinsic extrinsic),
misrepresentation, misconduct opposing party. obtain relief under
Rule 60(b)(3), the burden proof fraud the moving party and... fraud
must established clear and convincing evidence. Charles Alan Wright
Arthur Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 2860 (3d ed. 2014); see also
Sack CIA, Supp. 154, 178 (D.D.C. 2014). The State Department suggests
Rule 60(b)(2), which allows for reopening due newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered time move for
new trial under Rule 59(b). Judicial Watch indicates that did not rely upon Rule
60(b)(2) solely because statement footnote this Courts Opinion
Sack, which stated that Rule 60(b)(2) address[es] defects changed
circumstances regarding prior Court judgment. Sack, Supp. 179
(D.D.C. 2014). This statement way affects this case: The newly discovered
information changed circumstance regarding the prior judgment this case-i.e. the stipulated dismissal 2014. Because the parties agree that Rule 60(b)(2)
applies, the Court will rely upon that provision, rather than spilling ink resolve
their dispute whether Judicial Watch has submitted clear and convincing
evidence fraud the State Department. For that reason, the Court GRANTS
Judicial Watchs motion and ORDERS that this case REOPENED and restored the active calendar this Court. the extent that the parties pleadings
regarding the reopening this case under Rule 60(b) address issues regarding
the State Departments FOIA obligations once this case reopened, the Court
finds that such arguments are not proper subjects Rule motion. They may raised appropriate motion such time they become relevant. The
parties are directed submit joint status report, setting forth their individual
recommendations for further proceedings this newly reopened case,
later than July 2015. Signed Judge Emmet Sullivan June 19, 2015.
(lcegs2)