Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v State Clinton motion to compel 01363

JW v State Clinton motion to compel 01363

JW v State Clinton motion to compel 01363

Page 1: JW v State Clinton motion to compel 01363

Category:

Number of Pages:9

Date Created:November 3, 2016

Date Uploaded to the Library:November 03, 2016

Tags:Compel, Rodham, interrogatory, interrogatories, facts, 01363, Civil, motion, hillary, Benghazi, Secretary, clinton, filed, State Department, plaintiff, document, federal, FOIA, department, district


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 141 Filed 11/03/16 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 MOTION COMPEL FORMER SECRETARY STATE
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ANSWER INTERROGATORIES
Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel and pursuant Rules and the Federal
Rules Civil Procedure, respectfully moves compel former Secretary State Hillary
Rodham Clinton answer the three interrogatories she refuses answer. Secretary Clinton
opposes this motion; the State Department reserves its right oppose upon reviewing the
motion. grounds therefor, Plaintiff states follows:
STATEMENT POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Introduction.
Former Secretary State Hillary Rodham Clinton refuses answer three
interrogatories. She also fails justify her refusal with nothing more than bare-bone objections each. Because she has not and cannot demonstrate that her refusal answer the
interrogatories proper, Secretary Clinton should required answer them promptly.
II.
Background.
The Court granted Plaintiff request seek discovery from Secretary Clinton.
Specifically, the Court authorized Plaintiff propound questions that are relevant Secretary
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Clinton unique firsthand knowledge the creation and operation clintonemail.com for State
Department business, well the State Department approach and practice for processing
FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton and Ms. Abedin emails
and State processing the FOIA request that the subject this action. Memorandum
Opinion (Docket No. 124) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff subsequently propounded interrogatories Secretary Clinton. October
13, 2016, Secretary Clinton responded them. doing so, she refused answer
Interrogatories 14, and 24. Clinton Response (Docket No. 137-1). Secretary Clinton refuses answer Interrogatory because she believes outside the scope permitted discovery. Id. 4-5. She refuses answer Interrogatory because she believes concerns cybersecurity
issues and outside the scope permitted discovery. Id. 10-11. Secretary Clinton refuses answer Interrogatory because she believes calls for information protected the attorneyclient privilege. Id. 18.
After reviewing her response, Plaintiff informed Secretary Clinton counsel that
intended move compel Secretary Clinton answer the three interrogatories she refused
answer. October 28, 2016, Secretary Clinton counsel stated that Secretary Clinton opposed
Plaintiff motion.
III.
Argument.
Pursuant Rule the Federal Rules Civil Procedure, [t]he grounds for objecting interrogatory must stated with specificity. Fed. Civ. 33(b)(4). addition, the
party objecting the interrogatory bears the burden show[ing] why discovery should not
permitted. Convertino U.S. Department Justice, 565 Supp. 10, 12-13 (D.D.C. 2008)
(quoting Alexander Federal Bureau Investigation, 194 F.R.D. 299, 302 (D.D.C. 2000)).
-2-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Although she objects the three interrogatories, Secretary Clinton fails provide sufficient
reasons for refusing answer them, and the limited reasons she provides not warrant
sustaining her objections.
Interrogatory
Interrogatory asks, Describe the creation the clintonemail.com system, including
who decided create the system, the date was decided create the system, why was
created, who set up, and when became operational. Clinton Response Secretary
Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory outside the scope permitted discovery. Id. 4-5. However, the creation the clintonemail.com system squarely within the scope
permitted discovery.1 Understanding the basic facts surrounding the creation the system
integral part understanding how and why came used for State Department business. date, witness has testified about these facts, and the Court specifically authorized
interrogatories enable Plaintiff gather this information. Secretary Clinton refusal
answer the interrogatory therefore misplaced.
Secretary Clinton also asserts that Interrogatory addresses the creation the
clintonemail.com system. Id. However, Interrogatory clearly asks about the creation
[Secretary Clinton clintonemail.com email account. Id. other words, Interrogatory only
addresses the creation Secretary Clinton account the system, not the system itself.
Secretary Clinton should compelled answer Interrogatory
The State Department did not object this question being outside the scope
permitted discovery. Defendant Objections
-3-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Interrogatory 14.
Interrogatory asks: March 2009, Assistant Secretary State for Diplomatic Security Eric
Boswell wrote Information Memo your Chief Staff, Cheryl Mills, that cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified BlackBerry
highly vulnerable any setting remotely and covertly monitoring
conversations, retrieving email, and exploiting calendars. March 11, 2009
email states that, management meeting with the assistant secretaries, you
approached Assistant Secretary Boswell and mentioned that you had read the and that you get it. Did you review the March 2009 Information Memo,
and, so, why did you continue using unclassified BlackBerry access your
clintonemail.com email account conduct official State Department business?
Id. 10-11. Secretary Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory asks about
cybersecurity issues and therefore outside the scope permitted discovery. Id. 11.
Interrogatory does not concern cybersecurity issues. asks whether Secretary Clinton read memorandum about the general use unapproved unclassified Blackberries, and, she did
read the memorandum, why did she continue using unapproved unclassified Blackberry
the device which accessed the clintonemail.com account she used conduct official
government business. yes answer whether she read the memorandum will not reveal
any information the parties agreed-upon scope sought avoid. Similarly, the answer yes,
Secretary Clinton explanation why, after reading the memorandum, she continued
access her clintonemail.com account through her Blackberry also will not reveal any information
the parties agreed-upon scope sought avoid. The interrogatory clearly seeks information
squarely within the scope permitted discovery. Secretary Clinton should compelled
answer Interrogatory 14.
-4-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Interrogatory 24.
Interrogatory asks:
During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House
Representatives Select Committee Benghazi, you testified that percent your emails were the State system and they wanted see them, they
would certainly have been able so. Identify the basis for this statement,
including all facts which you relied support the statement, how and when
you became aware these facts, and, you were made aware these facts
through another person, identify the person who made you aware these facts.
Id. 18. Secretary Clinton objects and asserts that the interrogatory asks for information
protected the attorney-client privilege. Id.
The attorney-client privilege only protects confidential communications between clients
and their attorneys made for the purpose securing legal advice services. Tax Analysts
Internal Revenue System, 117 F.3d 607, 618 (D.C. Cir. 1997). addition, [i]t not sufficient show merely that the communication was between client and attorney. Federal Trade
Commission Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131862,
*29 (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2016). The party claiming the privilege must demonstrate that one the
significant purposes the communication was obtain give legal advice. Id. *29-30. addition, communication from attorney client only protected rest[s]
confidential information obtained from the client. Upjohn Company United States, 449 U.S.
383, 395-96 (1981). [P]urely factual exchanges between attorney and client merit protection
when those facts are provided the attorney his request for the purpose enabling him
provide legal advice. Boehringer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131862, *29. However,
attorney conveys his client facts acquired from other persons sources, those facts are not
privileged. Brinton U.S. Department State, 636 F.2d 600, 604 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
-5-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Interrogatory does not seek any factual information Secretary Clinton may have
provided her attorneys confidence for purposes obtaining legal advice. Nor does seek
any advice Secretary Clinton attorneys may have provided the secretary that would reveal facts
she provided them confidence. The interrogatory only seeks the factual basis for specific
representation Secretary Clinton made Congress. irrelevant whether Secretary Clinton
told her attorneys about the factual basis for this representation, either for purposes obtaining
legal advice for some other purpose, because Plaintiff has not asked about any such
communications. result, the attorney client privilege does not apply. the extent Secretary Clinton might claim that her attorneys provided her with the
factual basis for the representation she made Congress, she has made attempt
demonstrate how her attorneys obtained this information. She plainly has not demonstrated that
her attorneys obtained the information from her. Even Secretary Clinton provided the
information her attorneys, the attorney-client privilege does not prevent its disclosure, only
protects disclosure the communication with the attorneys. does not prevent disclosure the
underlying facts. the secretary attorneys obtained the information from third parties, such
the State Department, from their own efforts analysis, not fact conveyed
confidence from client attorney for purposes seeking legal advice. Because Secretary
Clinton has failed provide any such information justify her assertion the attorney client
privilege, she should compelled answer Interrogatory 24.
IV.
Conclusion.
Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court compel Secretary Clinton answer the three
interrogatories she refuses answer.
-6-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Dated: November 2016
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.
-7-
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141 Filed 11/03/16 Page
Certification hereby certify that Plaintiff has good faith conferred with former Secretary State
Hillary Rodham Clinton and the U.S. Department State effort obtain Secretary
Clinton answers the three interrogatories she refuses answer without court action.
/s/ Michael Bekesha
Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 141-1 Filed 11/03/16 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)
[PROPOSED] ORDER
Upon consideration Plaintiff Motion Compel Former Secretary State Hillary
Rodham Clinton Answer Interrogatories and the entire record herein, hereby ORDERED
that: Plaintiff motion GRANTED. ORDERED.
DATE:
The Hon. Emmet Sullivan, U.S.D.J.