Case Detail
| Case Title | Proctor v. National Archives and Records Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Northern District of California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Oakland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 4:2018cv05672 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2018-09-17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2019-05-17 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Melanie Lea Proctor | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Melanie Proctor submitted a FOIA request to the National Archives and Records Administration for records concerning her deposition by the Office of the Independent Counsel in 1998. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request and denied Proctor's request under Exemption 3 (other statutes). Proctor filed an administrative appeal, which was also denied. Proctor then filed suit. Complaint issues: Litigation - Recovery of Costs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | National Archives and Records Administration | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Opinion/Order [19] Opinion/Order [24] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that the National Archives and Records Administration properly withheld under Exemption 3 (other statutes) almost all of Melanie Lea Proctor's deposition transcript when she was interviewed by the Office of the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation because she had worked at the Pentagon with Monica Lewinsky. The OIC requested interviews with fifteen Pentagon employees, including Proctor, as part of its investigation. After Proctor obtained pro bono counsel, OIC dropped its proposed interview and told Proctor that she could either appear before a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia or submit to a 'grand jury style" deposition at the OIC office, which would exclude her counsel. To avoid media outside the courthouse, Proctor agreed to the deposition. She was deposed by two OIC attorneys without the presence of her counsel. She later received a grand jury subpoena. In July 2018, Proctor submitted a FOIA request to NARA for records related to her. After finding out that it would take a year and a half to process 150 pages, Proctor narrowed her request to her eight-page deposition transcript. The agency denied her request under Exemption 3, citing Rule 6(e) on grand jury secrecy. Proctor argued that her deposition transcript would not reveal matters occurring before the grand jury. The court disagreed, noting that Proctor's deposition "was not collected for a purpose independent of the grand jury investigation." The court pointed out that "indeed, to focus solely on where testimony took place â€" i.e., in front of a grand jury vs. before grand jury investigators or prosecutors for the sole purpose of being presented to the grand jury â€" would result in the disclosure of records that would compromise the grand jury processes. Witnesses who, like Plaintiff, choose to submit to a deposition rather than testifying before a grand jury would have their testimony subject to disclosure, revealing their identities and the direction of the grand jury investigation. This would discourage both witness cooperation and accommodations by investigators, knowing that testimony obtained specifically for a grand jury would be subject to disclosure simply because the witness was not questioned in the grand jury room." But the court agreed with Proctor that the identities of the prosecutors, the court reporter, and herself would not reveal matters before the grand jury. Alternatively, Proctor argued that the court had inherent authority to disclose the record outside of FOIA. Recognizing that the empaneling court could order disclosure of grand jury material, the court noted that "the transcript was produced under the supervision of the Eastern District of Virginia district court and is the record of that court. The inherent authority to release those materials therefore rests with the Eastern District of Virginia â€" the empaneling court from whose power the grand jury was able to issue and enforce its subpoenas â€" not the Northern District of California."
Issues: Exemption 3 - Limited agency discretion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
