Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2016cv01888 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2016-09-21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2017-10-25 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rosemary M. Collyer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records of interviews with Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and Valerie Jarrett pertaining to contacts made by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich inquiring about potential job appointments. Blagojevich was later convicted of various criminal charges, but some of those charges were ordered retried on appeal. The Supreme Court rejected Blagojevich's petition for certiorari and prosecutors decided not to retry him on any charges. In response to Judicial Watch's request, the FBI denied its request, citing Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding). Judicial Watch appealed the denial, but the Office of Information Policy upheld the agency's decision. Judicial Watch then filed suit. Complaint issues: Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 17-5283 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [22] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that three FD-302 forms prepared by the FBI during its investigation of corruption charges by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich are protected by Exemption 7(A) (interference with ongoing investigation or proceeding) because Blagojevich's certiorari petition of his conviction to the Supreme Court is still pending. Judicial Watch requested any interviews the FBI conducted with Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, or Valerie Jarrett concerning Blagojevich. Although Collyer never described the contents of the FD-302s, certainly an inference exists that the FD-302s pertain to Obama, Emanuel, and Jarrett. The agency denied access to the FD-302s, citing Exemption 7(A) and Exemption 5 (privileges). Since Collyer found the FD-302s were entirely protected by Exemption 7(A), she did not analyze whether Exemption 5 applied as well. Judicial Watch argued that Blagojevich's cert petition to the Supreme Court was too attenuated to show that the case was still ongoing. Collyer disagreed. She noted that "the fact remains that (1) the FD-302s are records contained in a law enforcement investigative file that (2) is currently being directly appealed. That appeal may be very short-lived, but it is not the Court's role to guess how or when Rod Blagojevich's appeal may be resolved. Until that appeal is fully exhausted, disclosure of investigative materials could be reasonably expected to interfere with whatever occurs going forward. Rod Blagojevich has not exhausted his options for appeal before the courts, and, until that time at least, the government is entitled to preserve the strategies, theories, and impressions found in its investigative files." Collyer expressed concern that some of the investigative file could have entered the public domain during Blagojevich's trial. She pointed out that, here, that did not appear to be a concern, explaining that "had DOJ withheld its entire file, it may have been appropriate for it to detail which, if any, records had passed into the public domain as a result of the trial. However, in this instance, only three records are at issue, none of which is alleged to have been introduced as an exhibit, or otherwise passed into the public domain."
Opinion/Order [29]Issues: Exemption 7(A) - Interference with ongoing investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
