Case Detail

FOIA Project Annotation: Magistrate Judge Alan Kay has ruled that the State Department properly invoked Exemption 5 (deliberative process privilege) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) to withhold names of proposed attendees at a briefing on the regulatory process for Canadian business groups pertaining to the Keystone Pipeline project. Judicial Watch requested records pertaining to Transcanada lobbyist Paul Elliott, a former deputy campaign manager for Hillary Clinton. After Judicial Watch filed suit, the litigation narrowed to a single document containing a chain of 12 emails exchanged over 17 days between members of government agencies, including State, discussing potential attendees at the meeting. Judicial Watch argued that the names were purely factual. But Kay agreed with the agency that "in the emails, the withheld names are not purely factual information because the agencies are in the process of deciding who will attend the meeting. The emails do not merely state a confirmed list of attendees, but rather a series of views and opinions on the potential attendees. Here, the presence or absence of a name conveys an agency or employee's opinion about a potential attendee's value to the meeting. The Department has adequately shown the deliberation that was occurring between the agencies." Kay added that "disclosure of potential invitees would also have a chilling effect on the sort of inter-agency discussions taking place in these emails. Disclosing these discussions in full would likely have the effect of forcing agency employees to question whether to express opinions about who should attend a meeting." State also withheld the names of two White House employees involved in the email chain. He noted that "the emails here, which contain names, titles, offices and phone numbers, qualify as similar files because they contain personal information about the named government personnel." Kay then observed that "there is a substantial [privacy] interest in bits of personal information where there is a justified and articulable risk of media harassment. The risk of media harassment and undesired contact for these two individuals is substantial and not de minimis. The issue of the Keystone XL Pipeline continues to receive substantial press coverage. While lobbyists like Mr. Elliott may be prepared to weather intense media attention, the same may not necessarily be said for the White House Security Staff." Turning to the public interest, he pointed out that "learning who was involved in the planning of this meeting would provide insight into the authorization process. The public would better understand the agency's decision-making process by learning the names of individuals who recommended possible attendees. However, the Department has disclosed most of the responsive emails. The staffers' titles, offices, and text of emails minus the recommended attendees have all been disclosed." Weighing the public interest against the individuals' privacy interest, Kay observed that "as redacted, the emails describe the extent of the individuals' involvement without subjecting them to harassment. The White House Security Staff's involvement in the decision-making process is already apparent. Disclosing the names of two staffers, where the format and nature of their involvement have already been disclosed would accomplish little for the public interest. The risk of intrusion on the two remaining individuals' privacy is too high, and 'clearly unwarranted' given the context provided by the Department."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy

Date Filed	Doc #	Docket Text
2011-06-22	1	COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616039903) filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-06-22		SUMMONS (3) Issued as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (jf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-06-22	2	LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests NONE by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (jf, ) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-06-23	3	ORDER Establishing Procedures for Electronic Filing for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, signed on June 23, 2011. (SM) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
2011-06-29	4	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 6/27/2011. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 7/27/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cristina Rotaru)(Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
2011-06-29	5	RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 6/26/2011, RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 06/27/11. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Cristina Rotaru)(Orfanedes, Paul) (Entered: 06/29/2011)
2011-07-28	6	ANSWER to 1 Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE.(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 07/28/2011)
2011-07-29		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). The Defendant having now answered the Complaint in this Freedom of Information Act action, the parties shall promptly meet and confer and, on or before Wednesday, August 10, 2011, file a Joint Status Report proposing a schedule for proceeding in this action. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on July 29, 2011. (lcckk3) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
2011-07-29		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 8/10/2011. (dot ) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
2011-08-10	7	STATUS REPORT , Joint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
2011-08-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). The Court is in receipt of the parties' 7 Joint Status Report. Therein, Defendant represents that it is conducting a search for records responsive to Plaintiff's FOIA requests and anticipates beginning a rolling production by no later than August 29, 2011. Defendant proposes updating the Court regarding the status of its search by no later than October 1, 2011, and Plaintiff raises no objection to this proposal. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report with the Court by no later than October 1, 2011, which shall, at a minimum, (a) provide an update as to the status of Defendant's production, (b) identify any remaining matters of dispute falling within the scope of the 1 Complaint, and (c) propose a schedule for proceeding in this action. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on August 11, 2011. (lcckk3) (Entered: 08/11/2011)
2011-08-11		Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Status Report due by 10/1/2011. (dot ) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
2011-10-03	8	STATUS REPORT , Joint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
2011-10-11		MINUTE ORDER (paperless). Upon consideration of the parties' 8 Joint Status Report dated October 3, 2011, Defendant shall produce all non-exempt, responsive records in its possession, custody, or control by no later than October 31, 2011, with the exception of records requiring interagency referral or coordination. In addition, by no later than November 15, 2011, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report (a) certifying that Defendant has produced all non-exempt, responsive records, excepting those records requiring interagency referral or coordination, (b) providing an update as to the status of Defendant's processing of records requiring interagency referral or coordination, (c) identifying any remaining matters of dispute with the scope of the 1 Complaint, and (d) proposing a schedule for proceeding in this action. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on October 11, 2011.(lcckk3) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
2011-11-15	9	STATUS REPORT , Joint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Metha Dec)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 11/15/2011)
2011-11-22		MINUTE ORDER (paperless): Pursuant to the Joint Status Report filed by the parties on November 15, 2011, the Court will grant the parties request to submit a joint status report and proposed scheduling order on or before December 16, 2011. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on November 22, 2011. (SM) (Entered: 11/22/2011)
2011-12-16	10	STATUS REPORT (Joint) & Proposed Briefing Schedule by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2011-12-16	11	SCHEDULING AND PROCEDURES ORDER. Upon consideration of the parties' 10 Joint Status Report and Proposed Scheduling Order dated December 16, 2011, and in order to administer this action under the Freedom of Information Act in a manner fair to the litigants and consistent with the parties' interest in completing this litigation in the shortest possible time and at the least possible cost, the parties are directed to comply with each of the directives set forth in this Order. In addition, the parties shall adhere to the following schedule: (a) the parties shall promptly meet and confer and, by no later than December 27, 2011, file a Joint Status Report with the Court indicating whether all parties consent to the assignment of this action to a magistrate judge for all purposes, with any appeal to be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the district court (the parties are strongly encouraged to consider this option, which may very well result in a more prompt and efficient final resolution of the matters that remain in dispute; however, the parties are free to withhold consent without adverse substantive consequences); and (b) by no later than January 20, 2012, Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment; by no later than February 10, 2012, Plaintiff shall file its opposition to Defendant's motion for summary judgment; and by no later than February 24, 2012, Defendant shall file its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. The dates identified above are firm; the Court has given the parties the schedule that they have requested and expects that they will adhere to that schedule. No extensions shall be granted absent compelling circumstances. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on December 16, 2011. (lcckk3) (Entered: 12/16/2011)
2011-12-22	12	STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 12/22/2011)
2011-12-28	13	ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR ALL PURPOSES. This civil action is REFERRED to a magistrate judge, who shall be designated by random assignment by the Clerk of the Court, for ALL PURPOSES, with any appeal to be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of the district court. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a Form 299 in connection with this referral. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on December 28, 2011. (lcckk3) (Entered: 12/28/2011)
2011-12-28	14	Case Random Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Alan Kay. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly no longer assigned to the case. (ls, ) (Entered: 01/05/2012)
2012-01-20	15	MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Walther Dec, # 2 Walther Dec exhibits, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
2012-02-10	16	Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
2012-02-17	17	REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 W52)(Fields, Rhonda) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
2012-07-12	18	ORDER granting 15 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/12/2012. (lcak1) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
2012-07-12	19	MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 15 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Alan Kay on 07/12/2012. (lcak1) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
Hide Docket Events