Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • JW v State order and opinion 00688

JW v State order and opinion 00688

JW v State order and opinion 00688

Page 1: JW v State order and opinion 00688

Category:

Number of Pages:32

Date Created:February 2, 2017

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 13, 2017

Tags:Adviser, 00688, Stein, Opinion, Reply, legal, search, Bill Clinton, ACLU, email, order, documents, Hillary Clinton, Secretary, clinton, filed, State Department, plaintiff, document, department, FOIA, office, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No.:
15-0688 (RC) Document Nos.:
28,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GRANTING PART AND DENYING PART DEFENDANT MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; GRANTING PART AND DENYING PART PLAINTIFF CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT INTRODUCTION
Judicial Watch requested documents from the Department State related potential
conflicts interest Secretary Clinton may have had with the Clinton Foundation. The parties
have come agree upon the appropriate disclosures for much the request, but have reached impasse with respect other materials. The State Department maintains that the scope its
search was appropriate under the law and that was justified withholding redacting certain
documents. The State Department withheld part all ten documents under the statutory
exemption for materials that reflect agency deliberative process, and redacted the private
email addresses third parties three documents under the personal privacy exemption.
Judicial Watch contends that there were multiple flaws the State Department search process,
and that several the withheld documents were not exempt under the deliberative process
privilege, because they pertained matters outside the purview the State Department and
involved persons outside the Department. Judicial Watch also contends that some the
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
documents containing information withheld pursuant the deliberative process privilege contain
factual material that must segregated and produced. Judicial Watch further argues that the
identities private email addresses even those not associated with Hillary Clinton private
email server are important the public because they might show that private emails were used
pervasively the State Department during former-Secretary Clinton tenure.
The Court finds that although the Department State search was reasonable most
respects, unreasonably failed search the emails turned over Huma Abedin. The Court
further finds that the private email addresses individuals who were not yet affiliated with the
State Department are not sufficient public concern outweigh the risk undue harassment
that disclosing private email addresses could entail. However, there privacy interest the
mere domain extensions email addresses, when release the domain extension would not
reveal the owner full email address and the agency does not make any showing suggesting that
the third party has such interest. The Court also finds that several the withheld documents
withheld under the privilege for agency deliberative process contained reasonably
segregable factual material. Finally, with respect six documents withheld under the privilege,
the Court will order the parties supplement the record with further briefing and factual
support.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Judicial Watch brings this Freedom Information Act FOIA case against the
Department State State seeking certain documents related former-Secretary State
Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.1 See Compl. ECF No. March 2015,
According its website, the Clinton Foundation build[s] partnerships between
businesses, NGOs, governments, and individuals everywhere work faster, leaner, and better;
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Judicial Watch requested access all records related State Department review
donations the Clinton Foundation for potential conflicts interest with former-Secretary
Clinton Role Secretary State. Compl. Plaintiff also requested all records that
identify the policies and/or procedures place ensure that former-Secretary State Hillary
Rodham Clinton personal charitable financial relationships with foreign leaders, foreign
governments, and business entities posed conflict interest her role Secretary State.
Id. Plaintiff confined its request between January 2009 and January 31, 2013. Compl.
After State allegedly failed take sufficient action the request, Judicial Watch filed this
lawsuit May 2015. See Compl. State Search Process
State Office Information Programs and Services IPS responsible for processing
FOIA requests. See Decl. Eric Stein Stein Decl. 9.2 Generally, when the State
Department receives FOIA requests, IPS decides which offices and record systems may
reasonably expected contain the records requested based its familiarity the
Department and the purposes its various offices. Stein Decl. Each office within State
maintains files concerning matters related the daily operations that office. Stein Decl.
10. Here, IPS determined that the only offices reasonably likely contain responsive records find solutions that last; and transform lives and communities from what they are today
what they can be, tomorrow. See About Us, Clinton Foundation, https://www.clintonfoundation
.org/about (last visited Feb. 2017).
State relies the declaration Eric Stein support its motion for summary
judgment. See generally Def. Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 28. Eric Stein the acting codirector the Office Information Programs the State Department. See Stein Decl. Mr.
Stein the official immediately responsible for responding FOIA requests. See Stein Decl. Mr. Stein also submitted supplemental declaration support State opposition
Judicial Watch motion for summary judgment. See Suppl. Decl. Eric Stein Second
Stein Decl. ECF No. 32-1.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
were the Office the Legal Adviser, the Office the Executive Secretariat, and the Retired
Records Inventory Management System RIMS Stein Decl. 11. IPS also determined that
materials sent from certain non-state.gov email addresses were also reasonably likely contain
responsive records.3 Stein Decl. 11. The Court will further describe State search process
based the individual search targets. Office the Legal Adviser its search the Office the Legal Adviser, IPS searched for documents only from
the Office Ethics and Financial Disclosure, because [a]n employee who was knowledgeable both the FOIA request issue and [the Office the Legal Adviser] records systems
determined that this sub-office was the only one reasonably likely yield responsive
documents.4 See Stein Decl. 13. employee searched the office electronic document
management system which state-of-the-art electronic records management system that
permits full-text searches documents, including archived emails and Microsoft Word
documents using several search terms related the request.5 See Stein Decl. n.1. This
content server not comprehensive repository all records the office, but includes only
those specifically uploaded it. See Suppl. Decl. Eric Stein Second Stein Decl.
The Assistant Legal Adviser the Office Ethics and Financial Disclosure also searched her
State searched both State Department documents and the emails that former-Secretary
Clinton later produced the State Department. However, the parties have agreed that
further search, production, briefing concerning potentially responsive records needed
this case the 55,000 pages former-Secretary Clinton turned over. Joint Status Report, ECF
No. 17.
The Office Ethics and Financial Disclosure provides ethical advice State
employees. See Stein Decl. 13.
The following words and phrases were used the search the Office Ethics and
Financial Disclosure: Secretary, Clinton, ethics, agreement, conflict interest,
recusal, conflict, Clinton Foundation, foundation, and donation. See Stein Decl. 14.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
own files for responsive documents using similar terms.6 See Stein Decl. 15. These terms
were agreed upon the parties advance. See Second Stein Decl. ECF No. 32-1. The
terms used search the document management system were broader, but less effective
than those agreed upon the parties. Second Stein Decl. total, the search the Office the Legal Adviser located ten responsive documents, which six were produced full, two
were withheld part, and two were withheld full. Stein Decl. 16. Office the Executive Secretariat management analyst with knowledge the request and the systems searched for
responsive documents the Office the Executive Secretariat.7 Stein Decl. 18. The Office the Executive Secretariat the custodian records for the Office the Secretary and
maintains shared electronic office folders that were available employees the Office the
Secretary during former-Secretary Clinton tenure. See Stein Decl. 20; Second Stein Decl. The management analyst conducted search the electronic record systems reasonably
likely contain responsive records using terms agreed upon the parties. Stein Decl. 18.
The search terms were different than those used the search the Office the Legal Adviser.
See Stein Decl. 15, 18. IPS analyst also searched records retired the Office the
Executive Secretariat, which are contained shared electronic folders available Secretary
The following words and phrases were used the search the Office the Assistant
Legal Adviser: Clinton and ethics agreement, Clinton and conflict interest, Clinton and
recusal, Clinton and conflict, Secretary and ethics agreement, Secretary and conflict
interest, Secretary and recusal, Secretary and conflict, Clinton Foundation and donation,
and foundation and donation. See Stein Decl. 15. paper file entitled Secretary was also
searched. Stein Decl. 15.
The Office the Executive Secretariat responsible for coordination the work
the [State] Department internally, serving liaison between the Department bureaus and the
offices the Secretary, the Deputy Secretaries, and the Under Secretaries. Stein Decl. 17.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Clinton and her staff during her tenure, using slightly different terms. See Stein Decl. 20.
total, the searches yielded one document that was withheld part. See Stein Decl. 19. Retired Records Inventory Management System RIMS
The RIMS system database retired State Department records. See Stein Decl. 21.
Researchers can use the system search the text document manifests order locate
group retired paper files. See Stein Decl. 21. Once such group documents located,
State must search the box manually. Stein Decl. 21. Although the IPS analyst identified two
groups documents with potentially-responsive materials, the manual search yielded
responsive records. See Stein Decl. 22. Non-state.gov Accounts
After determining that materials sent from certain non-state.gov email accounts were
reasonably likely contain responsive records, IPS conducted full-text search certain emails
using terms agreed upon the parties. See Stein Decl. 23, 25. Prior Judicial Watch
request, former-Secretary Clinton had provided the [State] Department paper copies
approximately 30,000 [emails], comprising approximately 55,000 pages. Stein Decl. 24. She
did pursuant Department State letter former Secretaries State requesting copy
all emails known them their representatives have been sent received personal
email account while serving Secretary State. Stein Decl. 24. After search analyst
with knowledge the request and records, responsive documents were located. Stein Decl.
25. IPS analyst also conducted search retired non-state.gov records shared folders
available the employees the Office the Secretary, and the personal folders Cheryl
Mills and Jacob Sullivan using agreed-upon search terms. Stein Decl. 26. Cheryl Mills was
the Counselor for the Department State during some the years relevant the FOIA request
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page issue and was appointed after former-Secretary Clinton assumed office.8 Jacob Sullivan was
the Director Policy Planning which rank equivalent Assistant Secretary
State the State Department from 2011 2013.9 This search yielded five responsive
documents, three which were withheld full and two which were withheld part. Stein
Decl. 26.
Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan were, course, not the only advisers that worked with
Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary State. Then-Secretary Clinton exchanged hundreds
publicly-available emails with Lauren Jiloty, Robert Russo, Monica Hanley, and Lona Valmoro.
See Decl. Chris Fedeli ECF No. 29-3. She also exchanged emails with Huma Abedin,
who has previously turned over emails sent received personal email account. See Second
Stein Decl. Judicial Watch United States Dep State, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62283, (D.D.C. May 2016). According State, the subject-matter the FOIA requests not
within the scope these staffers respective responsibilities. See Second Stein Decl.
Notably, however, while Huma Abedin worked for the State Department, she was allowed
engage private sector work while also working the State Department, specifically
consultant with the Clinton Foundation. Judicial Watch, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62283, *1. Responsive Documents total, the searches yielded responsive documents. See Stein Decl. IPS released
six documents full, withheld five documents part, and withheld five documents full.
See Office the Historian, Counselors, United States Department State Bureau
Public Affairs, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/principalofficers/counselor
(last visited Feb. 2017).
See Office the Historian, Directors Policy Planning, United States Department
State Bureau Public Affairs, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/
principalofficers/director-policy-planning (last visited Feb. 2017).
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Stein Decl. State claims that these withholdings are justified two statutory FOIA
exemptions: the deliberative process privilege Exemption and the exemption for personal
privacy Exemption See Stein Decl. 12. Judicial Watch challenges the withholding all documents under the deliberative process privilege, and two withholdings private email
addresses under the personal privacy exemption. See Pl. Cross-Mot. Summ. Pl. Mot.
Summ. ECF No. 29. The Court will organize its description the disputed
withholdings based claimed exemptions. Documents Withheld the Basis the Deliberative Process Privilege
The first six disputed documents that State withheld C05867882, C05892232,
C05892233, C05892234, C05892235, and C05892237 all contain materials related thenSenator Clinton preparation for her Senate confirmation hearings. See Stein Decl. 34,
38, 43. The first document two-page draft letter from then-Senator Clinton State
Department ethics attorney regarding the Secretary Ethics Undertakings should she
confirmed Secretary State. Stein Decl. 34. The second email, forwarded from one
State Department official another, containing five-page email exchange between Cheryl
Mills and then-Senator Clinton that contains proposed talking points for addressing ethical
considerations her Senate confirmation hearing. Stein Decl. 36. The third document
another email exchange between two non-State employees concerning the same talking points,
forwarded the same State Department officials. Stein Decl. 37. The fourth revised
version those same talking points. Stein Decl. 38. The fifth disputed document contains
set questions for the record and proposed responses for former-Secretary Clinton
confirmation proceedings. Stein Decl. 42. The final confirmation-related document 65page document entitled Pre-hearing Questions Submitted Legal Adviser-Designate Harold
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Hongju Koh Senator Richard Lugar. Stein Decl. 43. Mr. Koh was not employed the
State Department until after former-Secretary Clinton assumed office.10 That document contains questions apparently submitted Senator Lugar and proposed responses for Legal
Adviser-Designate Harold Hongju Koh.11 Stein Decl. 43.
The seventh-through-tenth disputed documents that State withheld C05880711,
C05867888, C05867890, and C05867776 identify potential ethical conflicts for formerSecretary Clinton. See Stein Decl. 35, 41. The seventh draft memorandum from
ethics counsel regarding request from Secretary Clinton participate future speaking
engagement for undisclosed group. Stein Decl. 35. The eighth partially-disclosed
intra-agency email exchange relating request from the Clinton Foundation seeking approval two sponsors that was submitted the [State] Department Ethics Office. Stein Decl. 39.
The ninth disputed document was also partially-disclosed email exchange relating ethics
request concerning the potential sponsorship event featuring former-President Bill Clinton foreign government. Stein Decl. 40. The final disputed document this category was
another email exchange regarding consulting agreement being considered former-President
[Bill] Clinton, and whether posed any conflict interest with former-Secretary Clinton
official duties. Stein Decl. 41. For each these withholdings, State conducted line-by-line
See Office the Historian, Harold Hongju Koh, United States Department State
Bureau Public Affairs, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/koh-harold-hongju. his declaration, Mr. Stein states simply that the document entitled Pre-hearing
questions submitted Legal Adviser-Designate Harold Hongju Koh Senator Richard Lugar,
and that [t]he document contains questions and proposed responses. Stein Decl. 43.
appears that the document was meant elicit responses from Mr. Koh, Stein Decl. 43, who
was confirmed over five months after Secretary Clinton, about his own confirmation hearings,
see Office the Historian, Harold Hongju Koh, United States Department State Bureau
Public Affairs, https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/koh-harold-hongju (last visited
Feb. 2017). However, the parties may wish elaborate further concerning the context for the
document creation, purpose, and use subsequent briefing.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
review the document and determined that there was additional reasonably segregable, nonexempt material that could released. See Stein Decl. 35, 41. Documents Withheld the basis Personal Privacy
Judicial Watch also seeks disclosure the non-state.gov email addresses contained
two the above documents C05892232 and C05892233, which relate then-Senator
Clinton nomination despite State claims that doing could result unsolicited attention the person with the email account and would shed light the conduct U.S.
Government business. See Stein Decl. 37. State provides evidence who maintains
the email addresses. See Stein Decl. 37. However, none the withheld addresses were
ones that were associated with the domain name @clintonemail.com. See Second Stein Decl. July 2016, State disclosed the names the individuals associated with the withheld
addresses Plaintiff, some cases including their email prefixes (that is, the portions the
addresses before the and released the full email addresses that were associated with
@hillaryclinton.com and @clinton.senate.gov. See Second Stein Decl. 10.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
FOIA cases typically and appropriately are decided motions for summary
judgment. Defenders Wildlife U.S. Border Patrol, 623 Supp. 83, (D.D.C.
2009) (citing Bigwood U.S. Agency for Int Dev., 484 Supp. 68, (D.D.C. 2007)).
Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56, the Court must grant summary judgment when the
pleadings, discovery materials, and any pertinent affidavits show that there genuine issue any material fact showing that the moving party entitled judgment matter law.
Anderson Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). the context FOIA, the district
court reviews the record novo, and the withholding agency bears the burden proving
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
compliance with the statute. Pinson U.S. Dep Justice, 160 Supp. 285, 292 (D.D.C.
2016). The specific legal standards associated with the issues presented here are analyzed
their respective sections below.
IV. ANALYSIS
State moves for summary judgment the basis that its search was reasonably calculated uncover the responsive documents, and that lawfully withheld ten documents under the
deliberative process privilege five whole, five part and portions three documents
under the FOIA exemption protect the personal privacy third parties. Judicial Watch crossmoves for summary judgment the basis that State failed account for certain potential
sources responsive documents its search, not entitled the deliberative process privilege
because some the documents involve non-Department subject matter and others contain
reasonably-segregable material, and not entitled withhold email addresses two documents
because the identities those addresses could shed light the extent those officials use
private email servers. State has not adequately justified its failure search the emails produced Huma Abedin, who worked for both the Clinton Foundation and the State Department during
the time the request. State has also withheld reasonably segregable material, both the form substantive facts and certain portions withheld email addresses. That said, State correct
that its search was reasonable many respects, and that the privacy interests implicated the
release certain email addresses outweigh the public interest them. With respect other
issues related the deliberative process privilege, the Court will deny both motions for
summary judgment, but allow the parties file renewed motions for summary judgment after
further briefing and factual development.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page Adequacy the Search
State contends that its search was reasonably calculated uncover the documents that
Judicial Watch requested, satisfying FOIA adequacy search requirement. See Def. Mem. Supp. Def. Mot. Summ. Def. Mot. Summ. ECF No. 28. State
specifically reasons that directed its search the offices reasonably likely have responsive
records, and applied appropriate search terms the offices, record systems, and materials
searched. See id. Judicial Watch argues that the Stein Declaration does not explain why
[State] searched the particular locations searched, why searching the Office the Legal
Adviser individual employees records was necessary light the Office state-of-the art
document management system, why IPS used different search terms searching different
systems. See Pl. Mot. Summ. 11, ECF No. 29. Judicial Watch further argues that
State does not adequately explain why did not search the State Department State Messaging
and Archive Retrieval Toolset SMART which preserves employee emails. See id.
(citing May 2016 Office the Inspector General Report). Plaintiff also argues that State
provided justification for searching the emails Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan but not
those other State Department advisers. See id. 12. Judicial Watch takes particular issue
with State failure search Huma Abedin official emails. See id. 13. State responds that
its evidence shows that its search was reasonably calculated locate all responsive records and
made good faith. See Def. Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. Opp Pl. Cross-Mot.
Summ. Def. Reply ECF No. 32. prevail summary judgment the defending agency must show beyond material
doubt that has conducted search reasonably calculated uncover all relevant
documents. Morley CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Weisberg U.S.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Dep Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Although agencies need not search
every record system, agencies must conduct good faith, reasonable search those systems
records likely possess the requested records. Marino Dep Justice, 993 Supp.
(D.D.C. 2013) (citing Oglesby Dep Army, 920 F.2d 57, (D.C. Cir. 1990), overruled
part other grounds, F.3d 1172 (D.C. Cir. 1996)). agency may meet its burden
showing reasonableness via declaration responsible agency officials, long the
declaration reasonably detailed and not controverted contrary evidence evidence bad
faith. Id. (citing Military Audit Project Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1981)); see also
Pinson, 160 Supp. 293 Agency affidavits attesting reasonable search are afforded presumption good faith and can rebutted only with evidence that the agency search was
not made good faith. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Once agency has
provided such affidavits, the burden shifts back the plaintiff demonstrate the lack good
faith search. Marino, 993 Supp. (citing Maynard CIA, 986 F.2d 547, 560 (1st Cir.
1993)).
State declaration from qualified declarant, see Stein Decl. shows that IPS
determined which offices search based IPS familiarity with the request and records
systems. See Stein Decl. 11. IPS specializes responding FOIA requests directed the
State Department. See Stein Decl. Mr. Stein explained that when the State Department
receives FOIA request, IPS evaluates the request determine which offices are reasonably
likely contain responsive material based familiarity with the holdings the
Department record systems, applicable record disposition schedules, and the substantive and
functional mandates numerous Department offices and Foreign Service posts and missions.
Stein Decl. IPS takes into account the scope the request itself and any specific places that
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
the requester identifies. Stein Decl. Once IPS identified the places reasonably likely
contain responsive materials namely, the Office the Legal Adviser, the Office the
Executive Secretariat, the Retired Records Inventory Management System, and categories
non-state.gov emails employees knowledgeable with the relevant document systems conducted
searches using list terms, almost all which were agreed upon the parties. See Stein
Decl. 11, 15, 20, 22, 26. Plaintiff many objections State search most
which were presented cursorily, see Pl. Mot. Summ. are unavailing. The Court
will address them turn.
First, Plaintiff argues that State never explained why was necessary search both the
state-of-the-art records management content server which appears contain all the
potentially-relevant records the Office the Legal Adviser and the individual files the
Assistant Legal Adviser. See Pl. Mot. Summ. 11. Plaintiff further argues that State
did not explain why searched the Assistant Legal Adviser files but not those other
employees. Id. 11. However, State explained its opposition, the content server not
repository all records generated within the Office the Legal Adviser only includes files
specifically uploaded. See Second Stein Decl. Thus, was reasonable for State search
both the state-of-the-art content server and other locations that might reasonably have
contained documents that were not uploaded the content server. for how State chose where search, Mr. Stein explained that, because the Assistant Legal Adviser the official[] who
manage[s] the Department ethics program and would have been involved any determinations
relating the subject FOIA request, IPS determined that the assistant legal adviser and her
predecessors records were reasonably likely contain responsive materials. See Second Stein
Decl. Notably, Judicial Watch never responded State explanations its reply. See Pl.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Reply Br. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. Pl. Reply ECF No. 34. The Court finds that
State adequately explained its search the Office the Legal Adviser despite Plaintiff
objections.
Judicial Watch next contends that State never explained why used different search
terms searching the content server the Office the Legal Adviser compared the files the Assistant Legal Adviser. See Pl. Mot. Summ. 11. baseline, the parties agreed the search terms that State used search the Assistant Legal Adviser files. See Second Stein
Decl. State noted its reply, the terms used search the content server were actually
broader, but less effective, than the agreed-upon search the Assistant Legal Adviser files.
Id. Judicial Watch did not respond State argument its reply. See Pl. Reply
There reason for the Court believe that broader search than that agreed upon the
parties would less likely produce responsive documents.
Judicial Watch, citing 2016 Office the Inspector General report, further argues that
State never searched its State Messaging and Archive Retrieval Toolset SMART system.12
See Pl. Mot. Summ. 12. Plaintiff describes the system one that allows employees preserve record copy emails through their Department email accounts without having
file and print them. Id. 12. Again its reply, Defendant established that the SMART system Microsoft Outlook-based system that allows users send working emails, record emails,
and cables. See Second Stein Decl. Some the documents that are sent are stored through one sentence, Plaintiff also argues that State did not explain how its search the
RIMS system differed from the content-server search. See Pl. Mot. Summ. 11. State went explain that the content server holds only archived material that has been uploaded the
system, while the RIMS system contains more retired records than the content server. See
Second Stein Decl. Plaintiff did not respond this explanation. See Pl. Reply
Accordingly, the Court finds the search reasonable this respect.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
the SMART system, but some are not. See id. any case, however, [r]esponsive records
this matter would have been generated, received, communicated the relevant offices
searched, and are not reasonably likely the type that would found SMART,
because the employees the Office the Secretary did not have access SMART, and the
relevant employees [the legal ethics office] did not use SMART. See id. Judicial Watch
again did not respond State explanation its reply. See Pl. Reply Thus, the Court
concludes that State has met its burden explaining why did not conduct separate search
the SMART system.
Plaintiff also argues that Defendant never explained why did not conduct searches
the Office the Secretary. See Pl. Mot. Summ. 12. Defendant responds that the Office the Executive Secretariat the custodian records for the documents generated the Office the Secretary during the time period Plaintiff request. See Second Stein Decl.
Plaintiff only response that this description does not make clear that Executive Secretariat
records and Secretary Office records are one and the same. See Pl. Reply This
response insufficient. State need not show that the record systems for the two offices are one
and the same need only provide sufficient detail show that they searched all places where
responsive material reasonably likely located. See id. State did just that: explaining
that the Executive Secretariat the custodian records for the Office the Secretary
documents that were generated during the relevant timeframe, State fulfilled its burden
showing that searched the relevant locations connected the Office the Secretary. Plaintiff
gives the Court reason believe that the current Office the Secretary would still possess
responsive records, which would necessarily have been generated years ago. Judicial Watch
does, however, cite Judicial Watch Department State, 2012 case where State indicated
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
that had searched both the Office the Executive Secretariat and the Office the Secretary.
See Pl. Reply contrast the case bar, there the plaintiff sought records related
actions taken the Secretary and made the request while she was still office. See generally
Compl., Judicial Watch Dep State, 12-cv-2034 (2012), ECF No. would make sense
that, that situation, the Office the Secretary and the Office the Executive Secretariat
might each have responsive documents when the request sought records sitting Secretary
rather than ex-Secretary.
Finally, Plaintiff devotes much its objection the search process its argument that
State never explained why searched the emails Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan, but not
other key officials, especially Huma Abedin. Pl. Mot. Summ. 12. State responds that
the subject matter this FOIA request which concerned potential conflicts interest between
the State Department and the Clinton Foundation falls outside the scope other staffers job
responsibilities. See Second Stein Decl. Stated differently, the staffers that Plaintiff
identifies potential sources responsive material are not involved with State Department
review donations for potential conflicts interest. See id.; Compl. Thus, IPS
concluded, was not reasonably likely that these staffers emails would have contained
responsive materials. See Second Stein Decl. Plaintiff, reply, does not refute State
argument, but contends that Huma Abedin wore many hats within the State Department and
the Clinton Foundation. See Pl. Reply Judicial Watch does not argue [that] the search
was made bad faith Id. Nor does contend that anyone other than Huma Abedin
had any role the Clinton Foundation, any specialized ethical training. See id. Accordingly,
State point with respect staffers other than Ms. Abedin well-taken. However, with respect Ms. Abedin, State has failed show that not reasonably likely that Ms. Abedin emails
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
contain responsive materials. Although Ms. Abedin did not have any particular ethics training,
she was simultaneously involved both Clinton Foundation and State Department business. See
Pl. Reply reasonable expect that someone who had role both organizations
would discuss the subject matter potential ethical issues. Accordingly, the Court will order
State conduct search the records turned over Huma Abedin. sum, State search was reasonable most respects. However, Judicial Watch
correct that State should have searched the records produced the State Department Ms.
Abedin, the Court will order State so. Deliberative Process Privilege
State contends that the responsive documents, ten total five part, five
whole are exempt from disclosure under the deliberative process privilege. See Def. Mot.
Summ. Judicial Watch responds that the deliberative process privilege does not apply
officials and employees who have not yet been confirmed the Senate formally taken office.
See Pl. Mot. Summ. Judicial Watch further argues that State improperly redacted the
reasonably segregable identities groups for potential speeches, potential Clinton Foundation
sponsors, and potential consulting client. See id. State responds arguing that the
deliberative process privilege does apply potential officials and employees who act
consultants, and that the redacted identities fall within the scope and purpose the privilege,
because revealing those identities would have chilling effect ethical deliberations. See
Def. Reply 13.
The Court impose[s] substantial burden agency seeking avoid disclosure
through the FOIA exemptions. Morley, 508 F.3d 1114 (alteration original) (quoting
Vaughn Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 828 (D.C. Cir. 1973)). Accordingly, disclosure exemptions are
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
narrowly construed, and conclusory and generalized allegations exemptions are
unacceptable. See id. 1114 (quoting Founding Church Scientology Wash., D.C., Inc. Nat Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 830 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). However, courts generally respect the
factual reasoning agencies, and [u]ltimately[] agency justification for invoking FOIA
exemption sufficient appears logical plausible. Wolf CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 374
(D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting Gardels CIA, 689 F.2d 1100, 1105 (D.C. Cir. 1982)). Thus,
reviewing court should respect the expertise agency and not overstep the proper limits
the judicial role FOIA review. Pinson, 160 Supp. 293 (quoting Hayden Nat Sec.
Agency/Cent. Sec. Serv., 608 F.2d 1381, 1388 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). claiming exemptions,
government agency must explain its reasoning such manner permit adequate adversary
testing the agency claimed right exemption, and enable the [c]ourt
rational[ly] deci[de] whether the withheld material must produced without actually viewing
the documents themselves, and without thwarting the [claimed] exemption purpose. King
U.S. Dep Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 218 19, 224 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quotation marks omitted).
Exemption under FOIA protects inter-agency intra-agency memorandums letters
that would not available law party other than agency litigation with the agency
from disclosure. U.S.C. 552(b)(5). Broadly, Exemption covers documents that could
withheld parties litigation pursuant evidentiary privileges. Williams Connolly
S.E.C., 662 F.3d 1240, 1243 (D.C. Cir. 2011). One such privilege the deliberative process
privilege, id., which protects confidential intra-agency advisory opinions and materials
reflecting deliberative policy-making processes. Judicial Watch, Inc. Dep Justice, 365
F.3d 1108, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quotation marks omitted) (citing Envtl. Prot. Agency Mink,
410 U.S. 73, 86, (1973)). qualify for the privilege, the agency must show that the
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
information contained within the document both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial
Watch, Inc. Dep Justice, 365 F.3d 1113. document predecisional was
generated before the adoption agency policy. Pub. Citizen, Inc. Office Mgmt.
Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 874 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc. Food Drug
Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006)). deliberative reflects the give-and-take
the consultative process. Pub. Citizen, Inc., 598 F.3d 874 (quoting Judicial Watch, Inc.
Food Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 151). That means that the document must reflect the
personal opinions the writer rather than the policy the agency. Morley, 508 F.3d 1127
(quoting Coastal States Gas Corp. Dep Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
Factual material can only withheld its release would inevitably reveal the deliberative
process the agency. See Pub. Citizen, Inc., 598 F.3d 876; Morley, 508 F.3d 1127. Thus,
the deliberative process privilege cannot used sword for agencies withhold underlying
factual material that would not reveal the agency internal deliberative process. See Morley,
508 F.3d 1127.
The Court will first address the deliberative process privilege issue relates the
withheld documents related former-Secretary Clinton Senate confirmation hearings, then
turn the documents that Judicial Watch contends contain reasonably segregable facts. Documents Related Senate Confirmation Hearings
State withheld six documents related Senate confirmation hearings, five13 which
relate then-Senator Clinton confirmation specifically. See Stein Decl. 34, 38, 43.
Judicial Watch contends that these documents cannot withheld because they did not relate noted above note 11, one document apparently concerns pre-hearing questions
submitted Senator Lugar Mr. Koh.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
State Department policy decision and were, least some cases, generated between persons
who were not employed consulting with the State Department. See Pl. Mot. Summ. State responds that these communications were made the equivalent State
Department consultants, and pertained the Department decision-making process. See Def.
Reply 13.
Although strict reading the deliberative process privilege would include only
documents exchanged between employees federal agencies, the D.C. Circuit has adopted
more functional approach the exemption. Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep Transp., 950 Supp. 213, 216 (D.D.C. 2013). This approach looks the purpose the deliberative
process privilege, which promote the quality agency policy decisions. Id. line with
that purpose, the D.C. Circuit has applied the exemption cases where outside experts are
consulted for their advice agency decisions. See id. While such rendering departs from the
general rule that courts should construe FOIA exemptions narrowly, best captures the
exemption purpose protecting the government deliberative process when that process
involves outsiders. Id. (citing Dep Justice Julian, 486 U.S. (1988) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting)). Ryan Department Justice, the plaintiff sought disclosure questionnaires
that the Attorney General sent United States Senators, seeking their input for the selection
judicial nominees. See 617 F.2d 781, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1980). finding that the questionnaires
constituted intra-agency memoranda, the Court held that [w]hen agency record submitted outside consultants part the deliberative process, and was solicited the agency, [is] entirely reasonable deem the resulting document intra-agency. Id. 790.
Importantly, the exemption does not apply agency deliberations between the agency and
outsider for the purpose the outsider decision-making process; applies only [w]hen
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
communications between agency and non-agency aid the agency decision-making
process. Judicial Watch, Inc. U.S. Dep Transp., 950 Supp. 218 (emphasis
added).
Judicial Watch raises serious questions whether the documents withheld State
relating officials nominations fall within the scope the deliberative process privilege. The
first six documents14 withheld concern confirmation hearings, which, definition, occurred
prior officials assuming their positions the State Department. See U.S. Const. art.
They were communications made and potential State Department officials and nominees
advice for Senate confirmation hearings. The first document withheld was draft document
from then-Senator Clinton State Department ethics attorney regarding her ethical obligations
were she confirmed the Senate. See Stein Decl. 34. The second and third documents
are forwarded emails containing email exchange between Cheryl Mills, who was not State
Department employee the time, and then-Senator Clinton, and email exchange between
Jacob Sullivan and Philippe Reines, neither whom were State Department employees the
time. See Stein Decl. 37. The fourth withheld document was revised version the
talking points contained the second and third documents, which concerned potential ethical
considerations then-Senator Clinton Senate confirmation hearings. See Stein Decl. 36,
38. The fifth and sixth withheld documents contain questions and proposed answers for officials
during their confirmation hearings. See Stein Decl. 43.
State has not adequately responded Judicial Watch legal contentions. Specifically,
State does not adequately address whether, its legal opinion, the subject-matter these
Identified State C05867882, C05892232, C05892233, C05892234, C05892235,
and C05892237. See Stein Decl. 34, 38, 43.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
documents can fairly said relate State Department policies and goals. The documents
primarily relate then-Senator Clinton Senate confirmation hearings, many them
promulgated for the purpose informing then-Senator Clinton answers during her
confirmation hearings. The Court queries whether the issues prospective official facing
her pursuit public office fall within the gamut agency policies such that deliberation
them shielded Exemption Accordingly, the Court will deny the cross-motions for
summary judgment, but allow the parties move for renewed motions for summary judgment
after they are able more fully brief the issue. The parties may also further supplement the
factual record provide context these documents that the Court may have more clear
understanding whether the deliberative process privilege any other FOIA exemption
applies. Potentially Segregable Information
Judicial Watch also contends that the identities certain potential sources conflict
being deliberated upon are reasonably segregable from the withheld documents. Judicial Watch
argues that the following information should disclosed: the identities (1) the group for
potential speech former-Secretary Clinton, (2) two potential sponsors the Clinton
Foundation, (3) the foreign government offering sponsor event featuring former-President
Bill Clinton, and (4) potential consulting client for former-President Bill Clinton. See Pl.
Mot. Summ. Plaintiff maintains that State need only release single words names, potentially, just the subject lines the emails comply with FOIA. See id. State
responds that the release factual materials can often reveal the underlying deliberations the
agency, and that release these identities would discourage candid discussion. See Def.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
Reply 11. essence, State argues that the disclosure the subject ethical deliberations
would have chilling effects the deliberations themselves. See id. 13. true that the release materials labeled factual can occasionally reveal much
about [the deliberative] process agency. Dudman Commc Corp. Dep Air Force,
815 F.2d 1565, 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1987). However, also true that [t]he release materials
plausibly labeled deliberative will occasionally reveal nothing about agency
decisionmaking process. Id. result, courts must focus less the nature the materials
sought and more the effect the materials release: the key question [deliberative process
privilege] cases [is] whether the disclosure materials would expose agency
decisionmaking process such way discourage candid discussion within the agency and
thereby undermine the agency ability perform its functions. Id. [I]f person requests
particular factual material the agency will usually able excise the material and
disguise the material source, and thus the agency will usually able release the material
without disclosing any deliberative process. Id. 1569. determine whether release the
information would reveal the agency deliberative process, the Court must determine whether
the factual material bear[s] the formulation exercise agency policy-oriented judgment.
Edmonds Inst. U.S. Dep Interior, 460 Supp. 63, (D.D.C. 2006) (alteration
original) (quoting Petroleum Info. Corp. U.S. Dep Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C.
Cir. 1992)).
State conclusory argument that, times, factual material can reveal agency
deliberative process does not show that would this case. Nor does State chilling-effect
argument hold water. Although may true that the possible revelation the sources
ethical questions may have chilling effect employees willingness bring those questions
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page the Department, would not have chilling effects the Department deliberation about
them. Presumably, when presented with such potential conflict, State has duty assess the
conflict; cannot chilled from doing so. Judicial Watch seeks only certain raw factual
information that the State Department deliberated upon; there nothing about the sources
potential ethical conflicts that would chill ethics lawyers candid discussion them. State does
not argue that either the submitter the ethics inquiry the third party subject that inquiry
has privacy interest not having his her potential speech action disclosed. Taken its
logical extreme, State argument would justify the shielding all factual material that the
subject deliberation agency officials. Accordingly, State must release the identities of: (1)
the group for the potential speaking engagement for former-Secretary Clinton Document
C05880711, (2) the potential sponsors Document C05867888, (3) the foreign government
Document C05867890, and (4) the potential consulting client Document C0586776. See Stein
Decl. 35, 41. Withholding based Personal Privacy
State further contends that private email addresses contained three documents are
exempt from disclosure because release would constitute unwarranted invasion the
personal privacy the owners the addresses, and disclosure the addresses could lead
harassment. See Def. Mot. Summ. 12; Def. Reply 15. Judicial Watch argues that the
withheld email addresses which were apparently used Hillary Clinton, Cheryl Mills,
Phillipe Reines, and Jacob Sullivan prior their employment with the State Department
two15 partially-redacted documents that relate then-Senator Clinton nomination would shed
Judicial Watch did not challenge State redaction email addresses contained within
Document C05867776 its motion for summary judgment. See Pl. Mot. Summ. Plaintiff challenges Defendant b(6) withholdings private email addresses used
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
light how private email accounts were used connection with official State Department
business. See Pl. Mot. Summ. This, they argue, makes the public interest the
email addresses enormous. See id. State responds that none the redacted private email
addresses were from the domain extension @clintonemail.com, and that they disclosed the
identities the individuals whose private email addresses contained the domain extensions
@hillaryclinton.com and @clinton.senate.gov, which fulfills the public interest the
information without opening the individuals unsolicited attention and harassing inquiries.
See Def. Reply 15. Judicial Watch, reply, argues that the public still has interest
knowing what email addresses were used, and that the State Department should, minimum,
release the domain extensions the redacted addresses. See Pl. Reply 11.
There is, however, problem with Judicial Watch suggestion that State release the
domain extensions the redacted email addresses: one the documents, State released the
email prefixes but redacted the domain extensions. See id. 11. Thus, State were rerelease the documents with the prefixes redacted but the extensions released, keen observer
could piece together the redacted documents ascertain the full email addresses. This problem
does not extend the other partially-withheld document that Judicial Watch challenges.
FOIA exempts personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure which
would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion personal privacy. U.S.C. 552(b)(6).
government employees Documents C05892232 and C05892233, described Defendant
narrative Vaughn index paragraphs 37. its reply which the final filing these
motions Judicial Watch asked the Court order the release redacted email address
Document C05867776. See Pl. Reply. Br. Supp. Cross-Mot. Summ. 11, ECF No. 34.
Because this issue was not properly raised, the Court will deny Plaintiff request. See Walker
Pharm. Research Mfrs. Am., 461 Supp. 52, n.9 (D.D.C. 2006) Because the
plaintiff only addresses this particular claim her reply the motion the plaintiff has
waived the argument.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
This exception also protects bits personal information, such names and addresses, the
release which would create palpable threat privacy. See Prison Legal News Samuels,
787 F.3d 1142, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (alteration and quotation marks omitted). These bits
information are protected only they can identified applying that individual. See
U.S. Dep State Wash. Post Co., 456 U.S. 595, 602 (1982) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th
Cong., 2nd Sess., (1966), reprinted 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2418, 2428); accord Gov
Accountability Project U.S. Dep State, 699 Supp. 97, 106 (D.D.C. 2010) Because
those email addresses can identified applying particular individuals, they qualify
similar files under Exemption [U]nder Exemption the presumption favor
disclosure strong can found anywhere the Act. Wash. Post Co. U.S. Dep
Health Human Servs., 690 F.2d 252, 261 (D.C. Cir. 1982). determine whether disclosure warranted, the court must first determine whether the third[]party has more than minimis
privacy interest the requested material. Citizens for Responsibility Ethics Washington
U.S. Dep Justice, 840 Supp. 226, 231 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing ACLU U.S. Dep
Justice, 655 F.3d (D.C. Cir. 2011)). such interest exists, the court must then
determine whether the third[]party privacy interest outweighed the public interest
disclosure. Id. (citing ACLU, 655 F.3d 6). The case law clear that there substantial
privacy interest full email addresses. See, e.g., Gov Accountability Project, 699 Supp. 106.
Because Judicial Watch does not dispute that disclosure the email addresses would
trigger substantial other words, more than minimis, see ACLU, 655 F.3d n.17
privacy interest, see Pl. Mot. Summ. Reply 11, the issue before the Court whether the third-party privacy interests the owners the addresses are outweighed the
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
public interest the information. general, the public has interest information
concerning what the agency to. Lepelletier FDIC, 164 F.3d 37, (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(quoting U.S. Dep Def. FLRA, 510 U.S. 487, 497 (1994)). Accordingly, the public does
not have interest [i]nformation that reveals little nothing about agency own
conduct. Beck Dep Justice, 997 F.2d 1489, 1493 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (quoting U.S. Dep
Justice Reporters Comm. For Freedom Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989)). Courts have
upheld agency withholding private email addresses because they typically not reveal
anything about what the agency to, and constitute clearly unwarranted invasion[s]
privacy. See, e.g., Gov Accountability Project, 699 Supp. 106.
The public does not have significant interest the email addresses contained within the
redacted emails. Judicial Watch freely admits even highlights that these emails were used
before the users were employed the State Department. See Pl. Mot. Summ.
Judicial Watch does not establish any connection between the use private email servers
prospective employees who, presumably, did not even have state.gov email address and use private email servers while office. Although true that members the State Department
appear have been included this communication some way and thus reviewed the
content specified Plaintiff FOIA request, Judicial Watch does not respond Mr. Stein
declaration that revealing the identities the private emails would shed light the conduct U.S. Government business with respect that review. See Stein Decl. 38. Given the
context the documents, the Court has reason question his assertion. The mere use
private email addresses outsiders the State Department does not show much anything,
much less pattern. Moreover, even Judicial Watch were correct that use former-Secretary
Clinton servers before she took office would shed light the use these addresses other
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
State Department employees, State has shown that these emails were not sent from
clintonemail.com. See Second Stein Decl. 10. contrast, the disclosure such emails
would constitute clearly unwarranted invasion privacy. See Gov Accountability Project,
699 Supp. 106.
Mere domain extensions, however, not trigger substantial third-party privacy
interest. State predicates its privacy argument the potential for harassment against individuals
should their private email addresses released the public. See Def. Mot. Summ. 12;
Def. Reply 15. This argument salient with respect full email addresses, which could
used members the public harass the owner the address. Moreover, because
Exemption protects the privacy interests third parties, State previous decision release
the email prefixes alone cannot waive the privacy interests those third parties. State does not
show, however, that the email domain extensions contained within the document where the email
prefixes are still redacted are the types bits information that can identified
applying that individual, any more than the redactions themselves can attributed the
unredacted identities the authors. There suggestion Mr. Stein, for example, that the
particular domain extensions would reveal anything substantial about the already-apparent
owners the addresses. light the strong presumption favor disclosure, the Court will
order the release email domain extensions that, based previous releases, could not used infer the full email addresses Documents C05892232 and C05892233, but grant State
motion for summary judgment the basis withholding for personal privacy all other
respects.
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant motion for summary judgment GRANTED
PART and DENIED PART, and Plaintiff cross-motion for summary judgment
GRANTED PART and DENIED PART. order consistent with this Memorandum
Opinion separately and contemporaneously issued.
Dated: February 2017
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT COLUMBIA
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.,
Plaintiff,
U.S. DEPARTMENT STATE,
Defendant.
Civil Action No.:
15-0688 (RC) Document Nos.:
28,
ORDER
GRANTING PART AND DENYING PART DEFENDANT MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; GRANTING PART AND DENYING PART PLAINTIFF CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
For the reasons stated the Court Memorandum Opinion separately and
contemporaneously issued, Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28)
GRANTED PART and DENIED PART, and Plaintiff Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 29) GRANTED PART and DENIED PART. hereby:
ORDERED that Defendant shall search any and all documents produced Huma
Abedin for responsive materials. The parties shall meet, confer, and attempt agree upon
appropriate method for conducting the search February 17, 2017;
FURTHER ORDERED that with respect the adequacy the search, JUDGMENT ENTERED favor Defendant all other respects.
FURTHER ORDERED that with respect Documents C05880711, C05867888,
C05867890, and C05867776, identified the declaration Eric Stein, JUDGMENT
ENTERED favor Plaintiff; and
FURTHER ORDERED that the State Department shall release the identity the group
for potential speaking engagement Document C05880711, the identity the potential
Case 1:15-cv-00688-RC Document Filed 02/02/17 Page
sponsors Document C05867888, the identity the foreign government C05867890, and the
identity the potential consulting client Document C05867776.
FURTHER ORDERED that the State Department shall release the email domain
extensions email addresses for which full email prefixes have not previously been released
Documents C05892232 and C05892233, identified the declaration Eric Stein; and
FURTHER ORDERED that with respect Documents C05867882, C05892232,
C05892233, C05892234, C05892235, and C05892237, identified the declaration Eric
Stein, the parties cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 28, 29) are DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit proposed
schedule for the parties file renewed motions for summary judgment with respect
Documents C05867882, C05892232, C05892233, C05892234, C05892235, and C05892237,
identified the declaration Eric Stein, February 17, 2017. The renewed motions for
summary judgment shall address whether the documents are exempt from disclosure under FOIA
Exemption The supplemental briefing may include arguments for withholding disclosure other grounds, and may contain further factual support. ORDERED.
Dated: February 2017
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS
United States District Judge