JW v DOJ reply 01189 01167
Number of Pages:6
Date Created:December 13, 2017
Date Uploaded to the Library:January 12, 2018
Donate now to keep these documents public!
See Generated Text ∨
Autogenerated text from PDF
Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC. Plaintiff, FEDERAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION, Defendant. ____________________________________) GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATION NETWORK, LLC, al., Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, Defendant. ____________________________________) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, Defendant. ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 17-01167 (JEB) Civil Action No. 17-01175 (JEB) Civil Action No. 17-01189 (JEB) Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page FREEDOM WATCH, INC., Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, Defendant. ____________________________________) THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, U.S. DEPARTMENT JUSTICE, Defendant. ____________________________________) Civil Action No. 17-1212 (JEB) Civil Action No. 17-1830 (JEB) PLAINTIFF JUDICIAL WATCH REPLY DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION PLAINTIFF CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. respectfully submits this reply Defendants opposition Plaintiffs cross-motions for summary judgment: MEMORANDUM POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Defendant acknowledges that the February Memo the only record Judicial Watch seeks was not created for law enforcement purpose. Def Opp. and 10. Its claim that the memo was later compiled for law enforcement purposes ignores several undisputed facts. First and foremost, Judicial Watch did not ask the alleged compiler Special Counsel Mueller for the memo. Judicial Watch asked the originating agency and primary custodian the FBI for the memo. Special Counsel Mueller had not even been appointed when Judicial Watch served its FOIA request the FBI. addition, Defendant readily admits that the memo was -2- Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page found former Director Comey files, not Special Counsel Mueller files. Def Opp. Defendant does not even claim have searched Special Counsel Mueller investigatory files. immaterial whether Special Counsel Mueller may have obtained copy the February Memo after Plaintiff requested the memo from the FBI. claim made that the FBI compiled the memo for law enforcement purposes. anything, Defendant voluntary disclosure that Special Counsel Mueller subsequently obtained copy the memo undermines Defendant Exemption 7(A) claim. the D.C. Circuit recently found similar situation the context alleged grand jury material withheld under Exemption The government argues that documents subpoenaed grand jury are more revealing than documents merely presented grand jury, because they reveal the direction the grand jury investigation. the documents would reveal the requester that they had been subpoenaed, would agree. But subpoenaed documents would not necessarily reveal connection grand jury. possible that, had the government released the documents without invoking Exemption Labow would never have known that any the documents had been subpoenaed grand jury course, the documents are now belatedly released, might apparent that they had been subpoenaed grand jury given that the potential connection with grand jury now known. That fact, however, should not bar disclosure. Labow U.S. Dep Justice, 831 F.3d 523, 529-30 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Defendant could have produced the memo Judicial Watch without any reference the Special Counsel his files. had, Judicial Watch would not have known any potential connection between the memo and Special Counsel Mueller investigation. Similarly, the attorney-client privilege does not authorize the withholding record client files simply because the client gives copy the record his her attorney. revealing that copy the record was turned over the client attorney, the client reveals the very thing the privilege intended protect. Here, Defendant botched assertion Exemption 7(A) that has created connection between the February Memo and -3- Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Special Counsel Mueller investigation, not anything inherent the memo creation, purpose, location former Director Comey non-investigatory files. Judicial Watch cited Labow its cross-motion. Mem. 12, n.2. Defendant ignored it. The cases cited Defendant not address records requested from the noninvestigatory files their creators original custodians. They only address requests for records the investigatory files law enforcement officials. They not support Defendant argument. Defendant categorical approach its claims exemptions also not supported the case law. Defendant identifies nothing about the memos showing they are the type records which the balance characteristically tips one direction. Citizens for Responsibility Ethics Washington U.S. Dep Justice, 746 F.3d 1082, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2014). The individual memos themselves are not single type. Former Director Comey described some the memos, including the February Memo, somewhat formal documents memorializing his in-person meetings with the President. Stmt. 1-2. described others nothing more than emails chief staff others some the brief phone calls. Tr. 93. The February Memo unique given that former Director Comey chose leak the memo the media, then described and quoted length during his Select Committee testimony. Obviously, greater showing harm required when record has been described and quoted extensively public, the cat already out the bag. The February Memo cannot grouped together the same category the other memos, some which former Director Comey referenced only passing. failing properly invoke categorical approach and relying broad brush assertions harm that not differentiate between memos, Defendant fails prove that disclosure the February Memo particular will harm the investigation. -4- Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Defendant does nothing rebut Judicial Watch showing that, because former Director Comey testified extensively about the February Memo, its disclosure will not harm the Special Counsel investigation. Defendant asserts that the precise contents all the Comey Memos have not yet been revealed. Def Opp. 15. But that not true with respect the February Memo. Former Director Comey testified that need[ed] remember every single word that spoken and was quoting the President exact words him and his carefully chosen words back the President. Tr. 40, 49, and 55. Obviously, former Director Comey would not have testified the U.S. Senate about statements and material believed were insignificant unimportant. testified about and quoted what believed was most significant and most important about his February 14, 2017 meeting with the President. Defendant does not claim former Director Comey testimony left out anything substantial significant about the February Memo particular. irrelevant, least Judicial Watch request for the February Memo, that former Director Comey did not testify extensively about the contents the other memos. Finally, Defendant does nothing dispel the conclusion that former Director Comey Select Committee testimony was authorized Defendant least coordinated with Defendant some fashion. also refuses state why, former Director Comey testimony was not authorized coordinated, has not taken steps remedy that testimony, along with his removal the memo from the FBI and leaking the media. Instead, Defendant coyly asserts that such matters are committed the discretion the government. Def Opp. 17-18. failing state affirmatively whether former Director Comey testimony was authorized coordinated, Defendant only further undermines its claim that disclosure the February Memo will somehow harm Special Counsel Mueller investigation. -5- Case 1:17-cv-01167-JEB Document Filed 12/13/17 Page Dated: December 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul Orfanedes Paul Orfanedes D.C. Bar No. 429716 JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 425 Third Street SW, Suite 800 Washington, 20024 (202) 646-5172 Counsel for Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. -6-