Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v State Deposition Videos Protective Order 01242

JW v State Deposition Videos Protective Order 01242

JW v State Deposition Videos Protective Order 01242

Page 1: JW v State Deposition Videos Protective Order 01242

Category:

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:April 25, 2019

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 29, 2019

Tags:Videos, deponents, recordings, protective, Depositions, audiovisual, heather, samuelson, Departments, Justin, 01242, cooper, deposition, Civil, order, filed, document, district


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:14-cv-01242-RCL Document Filed 04/25/19 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Case No. 14-1242
ORDER
Following this Courts discovery order [65], Judicial Watch has (or will) depose
number ofnonparties with information about Hillary Clintons private email use, the State
Departments conduct this case, the adequacy the Departments search for responsive
documents. Now, several deponents ask this Court for limited protective orders sealing any
audiovisual recordings their depositions: Justin Cooper [72], Jake Sullivan and Heather
Samuelson [78], and all current and former civil servants [71].
The Court will grant their motions. individual demonstrates that publicly disclosing
discovery information would cause injury embarrassment, Rule 26(c )(I) allows courts issue protective order prevent annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden.
sure, any protection must balanced against the publics strong and legitimate interest
transparency, particularly case-like this one-concerning government misconduct. Yet
the civil litigation context, depositions are not public components civil trial. Seattle Times
Co. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, (1984). They are conducted and memorialized not educate titillate the public, but rather facilitate the factfinding process and help the parties
prepare for trial. Joy North, 692 F.2d 880,893 (2d Cir. 1982).
Case 1:14-cv-01242-RCL Document Filed 04/25/19 Page
Although the public has undoubtedly high interest what these deponents say, the
interest does not stretch beyond the testimonys substantive content. the public can satisfy its
interest reading written transcript the depositions, the release which deponent
opposes. Put another way, the Court does not see what informational value audiovisual
recording would add. Whats more, exhibits attached Justin Coopers reply brief show the
deponents concerns about annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression are not purely
speculative. See ECF No. exs. 1-6. course, the Court does not foreclose future releases audiovisual recordings-in this other cases. Judicial Watch may move unseal portions these recordings relied upon
future court filings. too may use the video recordings trial, consistent with the Federal
Rules Evidence. Moreover, other depositions individuals not subject this Order may
implicate the public interest ways that cannot satisfied through words alone. And course,
although the current technologicaJ and media landscape makes testimony presented audiovisually
roughly equivalent informa_tional value testimony presented writing, advances along
either dimension may militate different outcome. But-especially since they agree release
transcripts their testimony-for these deponents and this time, the Court considers written
deposition transcripts adequate let the public know what its government to. Nat
Archives Records Admin. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 162 (2004).
Case 1:14-cv-01242-RCL Document Filed 04/25/19 Page
The Court GRANTS the motions [71. 72, 78] for protective orders. Any audiovisual
recordings depositions Justin Cooper, Clarence Finney. John Hackett, Heather Samuelson.
Gene Smilansky. Jake Suillivan. Monica Tillery, Sheryl Walter. and Jonathan Wasser shall
remain sealed absent further Court order.
Date: April -Z..} 2019
Royce Lamberth
United States District Judge