Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2014cv01024 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2014-06-17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2015-07-31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Beryl A. Howell | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice for records from the Interactive Case Management System detailing the number of hours DOJ Attorney Barbara Bosserman spent on the investigation of the IRS for targeting conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. After the agency failed to respond within the 20-day time limit, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 15-5271 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [17] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Beryl Howell has ruled that time records of a DOJ attorney assigned to the investigation of whether the IRS improperly targeted conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status are protected by Exemption 5 (attorney work-product privilege). After DOJ identified Barbara Bosserman, a senior legal counsel in the Civil Rights Division, to Congress as one of the attorneys assigned to the IRS investigation, Judicial Watch filed a request for Bosserman's time records. After the agency failed to respond within the statutory time limit, Judicial Watch filed suit. DOJ initially told Judicial Watch that the records were protected by Exemption 6 (invasion of privacy) and Exemption 7(C) (invasion of privacy concerning law enforcement records), but indicated in its summary judgment motion that the records were also protected by Exemption 5 under the attorney work-product privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Howell found the records were completely covered by the attorney work-product privilege. She acknowledged that the attorney work-product privilege was generally limited to records created in anticipation of litigation, but pointed out that "although the DOJ's investigation into various IRS employees has yet to proceed to litigation, an investigation may suffice for purposes of the requirement that the legal work be done in anticipation of litigation." Howell found that "the clear weight of authorityâ€"including prior decisions by judges on this Courtâ€"holds that attorney time records while not per se protected by the work product privilege, may nonetheless contain protected work product." But, citing the Supreme Court's decision in FTC v. Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19 (1983), Howell observed that "it makes little difference whether a privilege is absolute or qualified in determining how it translates into a discrete category of documents that Congress intended to exempt from disclosure under Exemption 5. Whether its immunity from discovery is absolute or qualified, a protected document cannot be said to be subject to 'routine' disclosure." DOJ described Bosserman's time records as containing "accounts of the tasks as she performed them including notes about locations visited, persons consulted, staff briefings, and other case developments. This material was prepared in contemplation of an ongoing criminal investigation and provided to supervisors to assist them in overseeing the investigation and potential prosecution of certain IRS employees." Howell concluded that "consistent with the great weight of authority at both the federal and state level, the portions of Ms. Bosserman's time records detailing the locations visited, persons contacted, staff briefings, and other case developments are protected from disclosure as attorney work product. . .Accordingly, the defendant need not produce the requested time records even though the plaintiff seeks only the number of hours worked by Ms. Bosserman and not information relating to the activities performed."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
