Case Detail
| Case Title | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 1:2015cv00690 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2015-05-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2016-04-06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Judge Rosemary M. Collyer | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | Judicial Watch submitted a FOIA request to the Department of State for records concerning anyone who used a non-government email address during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after it failed to respond within the statutory time limits, 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 STATE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Appeal | D.C. Circuit 16-5170 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [13] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Rosemary Collyer has ruled that the State Department conducted an adequate search in response to a request from Judicial Watch for all records identifying State Department staff that used personal email accounts to conduct agency business. The State Department searched more than half a dozen offices and found no records. Judicial Watch challenged the agency's interpretation of its request and the adequacy of the searches it conducted. Collyer, however, pointed out that "Plaintiff's FOIA request was actually a question posed as a request for records. The request for 'records that identify the number and names of all current and former' State Department Officials 'who used email addresses other than those assigned "state.gov" email addresses to conduct official State Department business' is really a question that asks 'who at the State Department used private emails for conducting official business?' A question is not a request for records under FOIA and an agency has no duty to answer a question posed as a FOIA request." She explained that "the State Department read Plaintiff's FOIA request precisely as it was written to mean that Plaintiff sought 'records that identify the number and names of all current and former officials' who used non-State Department email addresses to conduct official State Department business. Plaintiff complains that the State Department's interpretation of its request was unduly restrictive, and that it did not expect a search to reveal a single document listing the names of all State officials who used private email for official business. Instead, Plaintiff insists that the State Department should have construed the FOIA request more broadly. But it was the Plaintiff's responsibility to frame its own FOIA request with sufficient particularity and Plaintiff cannot now complain that it was looking for records that it did not describe." Although Judicial Watch and the State Department discussed the agency's interpretation of its request, Collyer pointed out that a suggested alternative interpretation "read out the word 'all' entirely out of Plaintiff's FOIA request. Since the State Department was not obligated to look beyond the four corners of the request, State was not required to interpret the request in this alternative manner." Judicial Watch argued that it had found references to two Inspector General reports mentioning the use of private email addresses at several embassies in a Google search and that State should have considered the IG reports responsive. Collyer rejected those claims, noting that "while Plaintiff alleges that a search in response to its request should have turned up the two OIG reports, it is not at all clear that this is the case. Plaintiff did not specify what parameters it used when conducting the Google search that located the OIG reports. In addition, the two OIG reports are not responsive to the FOIA request as written since the reports do not 'identify the number and names of all current and former officials" who used private email accounts.
Issues: Request - Specificity | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
