Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv00724 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-04-25 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-01-13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge James E. Boasberg | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Office of Special Counsel for records concerning a complaint it filed in June 2010 with the Hatch Act Unit concerning Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after the agency failed to respond within the statutory time limits, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: conduct adequate search, disclosure of all non-exempt records by date certain, production of Vaughn index, attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [16] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge James Boasberg has ruled that the Office of Special Counsel conducted an adequate search for records concerning Judicial Watch's 2010 complaint to the agency that White House officials Jim Messina and Rahm Emanuel violated the Hatch Act. After hearing nothing about their complaint in three years, Judicial Watch sent a letter to OSC asking about the investigation. They were told that because neither Messina nor Emanuel still worked for the federal government the complaints have been closed without further action. Judicial Watch then submitted a FOIA request for records pertaining to its Hatch Act complaint against Messina and Emanuel. Judicial Watch filed suit a year later, but before OSC had responded to its request. During the litigation, OSC identified 645 pages of responsive records, withholding 260 in full, 233 in part, and releasing 152 pages in full. Judicial Watch did not challenge any of agency's exemption claims, but argued that its search was inadequate because it did not produce certain records that Judicial Watch contended were required to be created pursuant to a Hatch Act violation investigation. Having found the agency's search sufficient, Boasberg turned to Judicial Watch's specific claim that the agency was required to keep Judicial Watch updated about the investigation. But Boasberg noted that because the pertinent provision in the Hatch Act was discretionary, OSC was not required to create such records if it chose not to. He noted that "laid bare, Plaintiff's argument is nothing more than a red herring. An agency's failure to release documents it was never required to generate tells the Court nothing about the adequacy of its search. In fact, it seems rather unlikely that these documents ever existed since Judicial Watch received no updates in response to its Hatch Act allegations." He pointed out that "Judicial Watch cannot use a FOIA suit to enforce its interpretation of OSC's obligations under the Hatch Act. Even if Defendant had been required to create these records in 2010 and did so, moreover, this would still not make Plaintiff's case. Generally, identifying a handful of documents that an agency failed to uncover does not, in itself, demonstrate that a search was inadequate."
Issues: Adequacy - Search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
