Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2021cv01216 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2021-05-04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2022-07-21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Royce C. Lamberth | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the FBI for records concerning communications between the agency and financial institutions pertaining to credit card charges in Washington, DC, Virginia, or Maryland on Jan. 6, 2021. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request but after hearing nothing further from the agency, Judicial Watch filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Adequacy - Search, Litigation - Vaughn index, Litigation - Attorney's fees | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 22-5209 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [21] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Royce Lamberth has ruled that the FBI properly responded to Judicial Watch's FOIA request for records concerning communications between the FBI and financial institutions about the violence at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 by invoking a Glomar response neither confirming nor denying the existence of records. The agency's initial response to Judicial Watch's request was to tell the organization that its FOIA request did not adequately describe the records to allow the agency to conduct a search. In response, Judicial Watch emailed a news article from Mail Online, which provided further details supplementing Judicial Watch's FOIA request. The FBI agreed to narrow the scope of the request to records of FBI communications seeking financial transaction records, identified by the dates and locations specified in Judicial Watch's FOIA request as part of the investigation into the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. The FBI then issued a Glomar response based on Exemption 7E) (investigative methods or techniques). Judicial Watch argued that the exemption claim was improper because DOJ had publicly acknowledged the use of financial records for the investigation into January 6. Judicial Watch argued that official acknowledgement came from documents filed in court cases against participants in the attack on the Capitol and the FBI's response to a FOIA request from Dan Heily. Lamberth also interpreted Judicial Watch's claim to include the Mail Online article as a source of public acknowledgement. Lamberth first noted that "the Mail Online article is not an official acknowledgement because there is no evidence that the information in it was endorsed or otherwise supplied by the government. A plaintiff cannot meet the burden of demonstrating prior disclosure when the prior disclosure of information was made by someone other than the agency from which the information is sought. No evidence indicates that the DOJ or the FBI provided Mail Online with the information in the article. Official acknowledgement cannot be based on mere public speculation, even if widespread." He next indicated that "the submitted statements by FBI agents in specific January 6 cases do not constitute an official acknowledgement. As the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly held, the key question is whether the existence of the specific information sought has already been disclosed." He noted that "Judicial Watch's official acknowledgement argument fails because the cited materials do not specifically acknowledge that the FBI has communicated with financial institutions to obtain financial records. The statements reference financial documents, but do not state that the FBI obtained them through communications with financial institutions. The statements only establish that the agency reviewed financial records related to the case." Judicial Watch argued that because the FBI did not invoke a Glomar response to Heily's broader request about investigations, that lack of invoking Glomar implicitly admitted that such records existed. Lamberth disagreed, noting instead that "this scope differs from Mr. Heily's requests, which were not tailored to any specific investigation." Having found that the Glomar responses were justified, Lamberth turned to whether Exemption 7(E) applied to the records. In opposing that claim Judicial Watch argued that the use of financial records was a publicly known technique. Lamberth indicated, however, that "public awareness that the FBI sometimes uses financial records as an investigative technique is not the same as public awareness about whether and how the technique is being used in a specific investigation." He pointed out that "even if a defendant knows that the FBI could generally seek financial information for its investigations, no confirmation one way or the other has been made for the January 6 investigation." Judicial Watch also argued that the agency's conduct was potentially illegal, which would support disclosure. Lambeth noted that Judicial Watch's allegations were based solely on an opinion piece from Fox News. He indicated that "therefore, the only factual support that Judicial Watch brings for its assertion of improper conduct comes from an opinion piece. But that article, with unclear sourcing, cannot overcome the presumption of good faith and regularity."
Issues: Determination - Glomar response | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
