Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleJUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
DistrictDistrict of Columbia
CityWashington, DC
Case Number1:2014cv00724
Date Filed2014-04-25
Date Closed2015-01-13
JudgeJudge James E. Boasberg
PlaintiffJUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Case DescriptionJudicial 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

DefendantUNITED 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)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2014-04-251COMPLAINT against UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3696432) filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons U.S. Attorney, # 3 Summons OSC, # 4 Summons U.S. Attorney General)(Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
2014-04-252LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
2014-04-25Case Assigned to Judge James E. Boasberg. (md, ) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
2014-04-283SUMMONS (3) ISSUED ELECTRONICALLY as to UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons 2nd, # 2 Summons 3rd, # 3 Notice of Consent, # 4 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
2014-05-134RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 5/5/2014. ( Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 6/4/2014.), RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 05/05/2014., RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL served on 4/30/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of C. Rotaru)(Bekesha, Michael) (Entered: 05/13/2014)
2014-06-025NOTICE of Appearance by Benton Gregory Peterson on behalf of All Defendants (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
2014-06-036MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Answer by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
2014-06-03MINUTE ORDER: If Plaintiff opposes Defendant's Motion for Extension, the Court ORDERS that it shall file such Opposition by June 5, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/3/2014. (lcjeb4) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
2014-06-03Set/Reset Deadline: Plaintiff's opposition due by 6/05/2014. (ad) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
2014-06-057RESPONSE re 6 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Answer filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
2014-06-06MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Upon consideration of the unopposed Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint by August 11, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 6/6/2014. (lcjeb4) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
2014-06-06Set/Reset Deadline: Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint by 8/11/2014. (ad) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
2014-08-088Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
2014-08-08MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Upon consideration of the unopposed Motion, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion is GRANTED; and it is FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint by September 22, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 8/8/14. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
2014-08-08Set/Reset Deadline: Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Complaint by 9/22/2014. (ad) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
2014-09-229MOTION for Summary Judgment by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL (Attachments: # 1 Statement of Facts, # 2 Declaration ex 1, # 3 Declaration ex 2, # 4 Exhibit ex 3, # 5 Exhibit ex 4, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
2014-09-2910ERRATA by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
2014-10-0211First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
2014-10-03MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court ORDERS that 1) Plaintiff shall file its Opposition by October 27, 2014, and 2) Defendant shall file its Reply by November 13, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/03/14. (lcjeb3) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
2014-10-03Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff shall file its Opposition by 10/27/2014, and Defendant shall file its Reply by 11/13/2014. (ad) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
2014-10-2712Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
2014-10-28MINUTE ORDER GRANTING 12 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff shall file its Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment by November 6, 2014. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 10/28/14. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-10-28Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment due by 11/6/2014. (tg, ) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
2014-11-0613Memorandum in opposition to re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 -- Letter of June 15, 2010., # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 -- Letter of May 23, 2013., # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 -- Letter of May 30, 2013.)(Aldrich, Jason) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
2014-11-1714REPLY to opposition to motion re 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL. (Peterson, Benton) (Entered: 11/17/2014)
2015-01-1315ORDER: The Court ORDERS that: 1) Defendant's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; and 2) Judgment is ENTERED in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/13/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
2015-01-1316MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 15 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/13/15. (lcjeb2) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar