Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2015cv00688
Date Filed2015-05-06
Date Closed2018-03-29
JudgeJudge Rudolph Contreras
PlaintiffJUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Case DescriptionJudicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning policies put in place by the State Department to avoid conflicts of interest between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's personal and official interests towards foreign governments or foreign leaders as well as those pertaining to the Clinton Foundation. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after it failed to respond within the statutory time limits, Judicial Watch filed suit.
Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees

DefendantU.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Complaint attachment 2
Complaint attachment 3
Complaint attachment 4
Opinion/Order [37]
FOIA Project Annotation: In another of a remaining avalanche of cases concerning various aspects of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails, Judge Rudolph Contreras has explored some interesting questions about when cabinet nominees are considered part of the deliberative process of the agency they intend to lead, as well as the privacy of domain email addresses when individual identifiers are redacted. The case involved a request from Judicial Watch, which by now has more than a dozen cases against the Department of State, for all records relating to State Department review of donations to the Clinton Foundation for potential conflicts of interest. The agency searched its Office of Legal Adviser, the Office of the Executive Secretariat, and the Retired Records Inventory Management System. The agency found 16 responsive documents. It released six documents in full, five documents in part, and withheld five documents in full under Exemption 5 (privileges) and Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy). Judicial Watch challenged the agency's search, particularly its decision to search the email accounts of Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan, but not Huma Abedin. Judicial Watch questioned the agency decision to search both the records management content server in the Office of the Legal Adviser, as well as why it searched the individual files of the Assistant Legal Adviser but not those of other employees. Contreras found State had explained its decision in its opposition, noting that "the content server is not a repository of all records generated within the Office of the Legal Adviser�"it only includes files specifically uploaded. Thus, it was reasonable for State to search both the 'state-of-the-art' content server and other locations that might reasonably have contained documents that were not uploaded to the content server." The agency's opposition also explained that the Assistant Legal Adviser managed the department's ethics program and would have been the most likely staffer to have responsive records. Judicial Watch also contended the agency had used different keyword searches in searching the content server as opposed to the Assistant Legal Adviser's files. But Contreras pointed out that State's search of the content server was broader than that used for the Assistant Legal Adviser's files. He observed that "there is no reason for the Court to believe that a broader search than that agreed upon by the parties would be less likely to produce responsive documents." Judicial Watch also challenged the agency's decision not to search its email archival system. Contreras, however, accepted State's explanation that employees in the Office of the Secretary did not use that system. Judicial Watch strenuously objected to State's decision to search the emails of Mills and Sullivan, but not Abedin. State explained that "the subject matter of this FOIA request�"which concerned potential conflicts of interest between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation�"falls outside the scope of other staffers' job responsibilities." Judicial Watch argued that since Abedin had been given permission to work both at State and the Clinton Foundation it was highly likely that her emails might involve conflicts of interest issues. As to Abedin alone, Contreras agreed with Judicial Watch, noting that "with respect to Ms. Abedin, State has failed to show that it is not reasonably likely that Ms. Abedin's emails contain responsive materials. Although Ms. Abedin did not have any particular ethics training, she was simultaneously involved in both Clinton Foundation and State Department business. It is reasonable to expect that someone who had a role in both organizations would discuss the subject matter of potential ethical issues. Accordingly, the Court will order State to conduct a search of the records turned over by Huma Abedin." Turning to the exemption claims, Judicial Watch challenged the agency's decision to withhold discussions concerning Clinton's Senate confirmation hearings under the deliberative process privilege because they involved individuals who were not agency employees at that time. State responded that "these communications were made by the equivalent of State Department consultants, and pertained to the Department's decision-making process." Contreras noted that "Judicial Watch raises serious questions as to whether the documents withheld by State relating to officials' nominations fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege." He indicated that the records concerned Clinton's ethical obligations if she became Secretary, as well as email exchanges between Mills, Sullivan, and Philippe Reines, none of whom were State employees at the time. Contreras found that "State has not adequately responded to Judicial Watch's legal contentions. Specifically, State does not adequately address whether, in its legal opinion, the subject-matter of these documents can fairly be said to relate to State Department policies and goals. The documents primarily relate to then-Senator Clinton's Senate confirmation hearings, many of them promulgated for the purpose of informing then-Senator Clinton's answers during her confirmation hearings. The Court queries whether the issues a prospective official is facing in her pursuit of public office fall within the gamut of an agency's policies such that deliberation of them is shielded by Exemption 5." Judicial Watch also contended that the records contained non-exempt factual material that should be released. State argued that disclosure of such material would chill candor in deliberations. Contreras disagreed with the agency's claims. He noted that "State's conclusory argument that, at times, factual material can reveal an agency's deliberative process does not show that it would in this case. Nor does State's chilling-effect argument hold water. Although it may be true that the possible revelation of the source of ethical questions may have a chilling effect on employees' willingness to bring those questions to the Department, it would not have chilling effects on the Department's deliberations about them. Presumably, when presented with such a potential conflict, State has a duty to assess the conflict; it cannot be chilled from doing so. Judicial Watch seeks only certain raw factual information that the State Department deliberated upon; there is nothing about the sources of potential ethical conflicts that would chill ethics lawyers' candid discussion of them. State does not argue that either the submitter of the ethics inquiry or the third party subject to that inquiry has a privacy interest in not having his or her potential speech or action disclosed. Taken to its logical extreme, State's argument would justify the shielding of all factual material that is the subject of deliberations by agency officials." State had redacted non-government email extensions other than those associated with Hillary Clinton. Judicial Watch argued that there was a public interest in knowing where these emails originated. Noting a specific problem, Contreras pointed out that since State had identified the personal email prefixes of three individuals, to now release their domain extensions as well would invade their privacy. Contreras rejected Judicial Watch's claim of public interest in the domain extensions. He observed that "the mere use of private email addresses by outsiders of the State Department does not show much of anything, much less a pattern." Regardless of the lack of a public interest, Contreras found that "mere domain extensions, however, do not trigger a substantial third-party privacy interest." Ordering the agency to disclose non-identifying domain extensions, Contreras added that "State does not show, however, that the email domain extensions contained within the documents where the email prefixes are still redacted are the types of 'bits of information' that 'can be identified as applying to that individual,' any more than the redactions themselves can be attributed to the unredacted identities of the authors."
Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search, Exemption 5 - Consultant privilege, Exemption 6 - Invasion of privacy
Opinion/Order [52]
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2015-05-061COMPLAINT against U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-4081976) filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons for U.S. Attorney for DC, # 3 Summons for U.S. Attorney General, # 4 Summons for U.S. State Department)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
2015-05-062LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
2015-05-06Case Assigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras. (rd) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
2015-05-063SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Consent Form, # 2 Notice of Consent)(rd) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
2015-05-124RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 5/11/2015. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 6/10/2015.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 05/11/2015., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE served on 5/11/2015 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of David Rothstein)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
2015-06-105NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Riess on behalf of All Defendants (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
2015-06-106ANSWER to Complaint by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
2015-06-11MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet, confer, and submit a proposed briefing schedule on or before June 25, 2015. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/11/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
2015-06-257STATUS REPORT (Jointly Filed) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
2015-06-29MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 7 the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference on July 9, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/29/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
2015-06-30Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 7/9/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (gdf) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
2015-07-098SCHEDULING ORDER: See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 7/9/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
2015-07-09Set/Reset Deadlines: Attorney Meet and Confer Conference due by 7/23/2015. Status Report due by 8/17/2015 (tj) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
2015-07-09Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 7/9/2015. Parties advise the court of the status of this action. Order to be issued by the court. (Court Reporter: Annette Montalvo.) (tj) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
2015-07-099TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE before Judge Rudolph Contreras held on 7-9-2015; Page Numbers: 1-18. Date of Issuance:7-9-2015. Court Reporter/Transcriber Annette M. Montalvo, Telephone number 202-354-3111, Court Reporter Email Address : annette.montalvo@gmail.com.<P></P>For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi-page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.<P> NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty-one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.<P></P> Redaction Request due 7/30/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/9/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/7/2015.(Montalvo, Annette) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
2015-07-2310STATUS REPORT (Jointly Filed) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
2015-07-23MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 10 the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and, on or before August 6, 2015, submit a proposed schedule for searching, processing, and producing documents using the agreed upon search terms. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 7/23/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
2015-08-0611STATUS REPORT (Parties' Proposed Schedules -- Jointly Filed) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
2015-08-11MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 11 the parties' joint status report, it is hereby ORDERED that, using the agreed upon search terms, Defendant shall complete its search for responsive documents in the approximately 55,000 pages of e-mails provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton and shall report to the Court the volume of potentially responsive records on or before August 27, 2015. Thereafter, based on the results of those searches using the agreed upon search terms, the parties shall meet and confer and, on or before September 10, 2015, submit an agreed upon proposed schedule for processing and producing non-exempt records or, if the parties are unable to agree upon a schedule, each side's respective proposed schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 8/11/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 08/11/2015)
2015-08-1712STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 08/17/2015)
2015-08-21MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 12 Defendant's status report indicating that the responsive records falling outside of the approximately 55,000 pages of emails provided to the State Department by former Secretary Clinton amount to approximately 300 pages, and in accordance with the Court's Scheduling Order of July 9, 2015, it is hereby ORDERED that on or before October 23, 2015, Defendant shall complete its processing of the approximately 300 pages in this category of documents and produce any non-exempt, responsive documents to Plaintiff. It is FURTHER ORDERED that on or before November 6, 2015, the parties shall meet and confer and shall file a joint status report regarding whether the parties believe that further briefing is necessary as to this category of documents and, if so, proposing a briefing schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 8/21/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 08/21/2015)
2015-08-2713STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 08/27/2015)
2015-09-0314NOTICE Regarding Motion for Designation of Coordinating Judge by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
2015-09-0315MOTION to Stay Pending Resolution of Motion for Designation of Coordinating Judge by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 09/03/2015)
2015-09-0416NOTICE of Court Order in Miscellaneous Case Number 15-1188 by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Order, Misc. No. 15-1188)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
2015-09-1017Joint STATUS REPORT by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 09/10/2015)
2015-09-2118Memorandum in opposition to re 15 MOTION to Stay Pending Resolution of Motion for Designation of Coordinating Judge filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits 1 to 3, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
2015-10-0119REPLY to opposition to motion re 15 MOTION to Stay Pending Resolution of Motion for Designation of Coordinating Judge filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Guantanamo Coordination Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
2015-10-09MINUTE ORDER denying 15 Defendant's Motion to Stay: In light of the October 8, 2015 Order, ECF No. 41, in Case No. 15-mc-01188, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay is denied. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 10/9/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
2015-11-0520Joint STATUS REPORT by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2015-11-05SCHEDULING MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of 20 the parties' Joint Status Report, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be filed on or before January 15, 2016; that Plaintiff's Consolidated Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition shall be filed on or before February 29, 2016; that Defendant's Consolidated Opposition and Reply shall be filed on or before March 31, 2016; and that Plaintiff's Reply shall be filed on or before April 22, 2016. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/5/2015. (lcrc1) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2015-11-05Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 2/29/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 3/31/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 4/22/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 1/15/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 2/29/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 3/31/2016. (tj) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
2016-01-1421MOTION to Stay Briefing Schedule by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2016)
2016-01-15MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion to Stay Briefing Schedule: It is hereby ORDERED that, on or before February 1, 2016, Defendant shall complete its additional search and file a status report (1) disclosing the volume of potentially responsive documents that must be reviewed, (2) containing a detailed description of how and when these files were located and why they had not been previously identified, and (3) proposing a revised schedule for the production of the non-exempt portions of responsive documents subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before February 5, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's proposed production schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/15/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/15/2016)
2016-01-2822Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Status Report by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
2016-01-28MINUTE ORDER granting 22 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that, on or before February 5, 2016, Defendant shall complete its additional search and file a status report (1) disclosing the volume of potentially responsive documents that must be reviewed, (2) containing a detailed description of how and when these files were located and why they had not been previously identified, and (3) proposing a revised schedule for the production of the non-exempt portions of responsive documents subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before February 10, 2016, Plaintiff shall file a response to Defendant's proposed production schedule. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/28/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 01/28/2016)
2016-01-29Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 2/10/2016 Status Report due by 2/5/2016 (tj) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
2016-02-0523STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
2016-02-1024RESPONSE re 23 Status Report filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from Fedeli to Riess, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 02/10/2016)
2016-02-23MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference at 3:30 PM on March 3, 2016, in Courtroom 14. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 02/23/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-02-23Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/3/2016 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 14 before Judge Rudolph Contreras. (tj) (Entered: 02/23/2016)
2016-03-03Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Rudolph Contreras: Status Conference held on 3/3/2016. Parties advise the court of the status of this action. Scheduling Order to follow. (Court Reporter:Crystal Pilgrim.) (tj) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
2016-03-0325SCHEDULING ORDER: See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 3/3/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
2016-04-0726Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 25 Order by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
2016-04-0727REVISED SCHEDULING ORDER granting 26 the parties' Joint Motion to Amend the 25 Scheduling Order: See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 4/7/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
2016-04-07Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 6/6/2016. Response to Cross Motions due by 7/6/2016. Reply to Cross Motions due by 7/20/2016. Summary Judgment motions due by 5/5/2016. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 6/6/2016. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/6/2016. (tj) (Entered: 04/07/2016)
2016-05-0528MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Eric F. Stein, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
2016-06-0629Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support Consolidated Memorandum in Support and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, # 2 Statement of Facts Consolidated Statement of Facts and Response to Defendant's Statement of Facts, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits 1 and 2, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 06/06/2016)
2016-06-0630Memorandum in opposition to re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (See Docket Entry 29 to view document). (znmw) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
2016-06-2431Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 29 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment , 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
2016-06-24MINUTE ORDER granting 31 Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that, on or before July 11, 2016, Defendant shall file its reply in support of 28 its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to 29 Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, on or before July 22, 2016, Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of 29 its motion for summary judgment. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/24/2016. (lcrc1) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
2016-07-1132Memorandum in opposition to re 29 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Stein Declaration, # 2 Response to Statement of Facts)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
2016-07-1133REPLY to opposition to motion re 28 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Stein Declaration)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2016)
2016-07-2234REPLY to opposition to motion re 29 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh. 1 - Letter from State Dept.)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
2016-11-10MINUTE ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint status report by November 23, 2016, advising the Court of the status of this action and, in particular, whether the parties are willing to engage in mediation in an attempt to resolve this case prior to further action from the Court. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 11/10/2016. (lcrc2) (Entered: 11/10/2016)
2016-11-2235Joint STATUS REPORT by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 11/22/2016)
2017-02-0236ORDER granting in part and denying in part 28 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 29 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/2/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
2017-02-0237MEMORANDUM OPINION granting in part and denying in part 28 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 29 Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/2/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
2017-02-1638Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
2017-02-16MINUTE ORDER granting 38 Joint Motion for Extension of Time: It is hereby ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including February 28, 2017 to meet, confer, and (1) attempt to agree upon an appropriate method for Defendant to search any and all documents produced by Huma Abedin for responsive materials; and (2) submit a proposed schedule for the parties to file renewed motions for summary judgment with respect to Documents C05867882, C05892232, C05892233, C05892234, C05892235, and C05892237, as identified in the declaration of Eric F. Stein. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/16/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/16/2017)
2017-02-2739PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE re 36 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File,, (Joint) by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-02-27MINUTE ORDER adopting 39 Joint Proposed Schedule: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall complete its search and production by April 14, 2017; Plaintiff shall inform Defendant of any challenges to the search and production by May 15, 2017; Defendant's motion for summary judgment and/or reconsideration is due on June 15, 2017; Plaintiff's consolidated cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition is due on July 14, 2017; Defendant's consolidated opposition and reply is due August 15, 2017; Plaintiff's reply is due September 7, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 2/27/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-02-27Set/Reset Deadlines: Cross Motions due by 7/14/2017. Response to Cross Motions due by 8/15/2017. Reply to Cross Motions due by 9/7/2017. Summary Judgment motions due by 6/16/2017. Response to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 7/14/2017. Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 8/15/2017. (tj) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
2017-06-0940Unopposed MOTION to Modify Scheduling Order by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
2017-06-09MINUTE ORDER granting 40 unopposed motion to modify scheduling order: It is hereby ORDERED that the current briefing schedule shall be modified in the following ways: Defendant's motion for summary judgment and/or reconsideration shall be due June 29, 2017; Plaintiff's consolidated cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition shall be due August 10, 2017; Defendant's consolidated opposition and reply shall be due September 1, 2017; and Plaintiff's reply shall be due September 27, 2017. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 6/9/2017. (lcrc2) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
2017-06-2941Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration (Third) of Eric F. Stein, # 3 Statement of Facts, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 06/29/2017)
2017-08-0842Second MOTION for Summary Judgment by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Statement of Facts, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
2017-08-0843Memorandum in opposition to re 41 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts)(Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
2017-09-0144Memorandum in opposition to re 42 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Eric F. Stein, # 2 Response to Statement of Facts)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
2017-09-0145REPLY to opposition to motion re 41 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (Attachments: # 1 Fourth Declaration of Eric F. Stein)(Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 09/01/2017)
2017-09-2246REPLY to opposition to motion re 42 Second MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Fedeli, Chris) (Entered: 09/22/2017)
2018-01-1747ORDER directing Defendant to submit disputed records for in camera review. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on January 17, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 01/17/2018)
2018-01-2248WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NOTICE FILED 1/23/2018.....Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 47 Order (Deadline to Submit Documents in Camera) by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Riess, Daniel) Modified on 1/24/2018 (znmw). (Entered: 01/22/2018)
2018-01-2349NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE re 48 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 47 Order (Deadline to Submit Documents in Camera) (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
2018-01-2450NOTICE of Delivery for In Camera Inspection by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE (Riess, Daniel) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
2018-03-2951ORDER granting 41 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying 42 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 29, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
2018-03-2952MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 41 Defendant's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying 42 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. See document for details. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on March 29, 2018. (lcrc2) (Entered: 03/29/2018)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff