'Unquestionably Private': DOJ Contends FBI's Kavanaugh File Must Remain Confidential
The character of the information in the FBI supplemental background investigation "is highly personal and could subject Judge Kavanaugh and others to harassment or embarrassment in their private lives," Justice Department lawyers said in responding to a FOIA lawsuit.
October 28, 2019 at 11:26 AM
5 minute read
Emails and other records detailing the FBI background investigation of Brett Kavanaugh focused on misconduct claims that arose during his U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearing must remain confidential to protect agency communication and the privacy of the now-justice and others appearing in the material, the U.S. Justice Department told a Washington federal judge Friday.
The Justice Department was responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that seeks to force the public disclosure of the FBI's supplemental background investigation.
The FBI was directed by the Trump White House to reopen its background review after decades-old claims of sexual misconduct arose during Kavanaugh's confirmation proceedings. Kavanaugh strongly denied the allegations, which included a claim he sexually assaulted a fellow Maryland high school student in the 1980s. Kavanaugh, a former federal appeals judge, was confirmed narrowly to the Supreme Court about a year ago.
The government asserts in the case, pending before Chief Judge Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the requested records "fall squarely within the presidential communications privilege."
"The supplemental background investigation file consists of information solicited and relied upon by the president and his advisors to aid and inform a constitutional matter of presidential decision-making: nominating a Supreme Court Justice," U.S. Justice Department lawyer Cristen Handley of the federal programs branch wrote in Friday's court filing. "As such, that file is squarely exempt from disclosure by the presidential communications privilege, and the FBI has therefore properly withheld it in full."
Loevy & Loevy lawyers Matthew Topic and Merrick Wayne represent plaintiff BuzzFeed News in the lawsuit. "We disagree with the government's efforts to withhold important information about the Kavanaugh investigation, and will continue to fight them in court," Topic said in an email.
The scope of the FBI's supplemental background investigation of Kavanaugh drew criticism at the time, as some observers questioned the thoroughness of the review. Lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford, who alleged Kavanaugh assaulted her as a teenager at a party in Maryland, said last year the Trump administration was "not interested in seeking the truth."
"The Federal Bureau of Investigation failed to interview our client, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, in connection with its supplemental background investigation of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh," Ford's lawyers said in a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray. "It also declined to interview witnesses whose names we provided to the FBI as possessing information highly relevant to Dr. Ford's allegations."
The material at the center of the public records suit include notes, emails, witness reports, exhibits and other administrative documents. The Senate Judiciary Committee said in October 2018 that the FBI's supplemental background investigation did not provide corroboration to the allegations against Kavanaugh arising during his confirmation hearing.
Trump could have relied on the FBI supplemental report to withdraw Kavanaugh's nomination, Handley wrote. "Of course, the president did not withdraw Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, meaning that disclosing the file would reveal information that the president and his advisors relied upon in the president's decision to move forward with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination," Handley said in court papers.
Justice Department lawyers also asserted that any disclosure of the Kavanaugh supplemental report would unfairly invade Kavanaugh's privacy and that of others appearing in the documents.
"Here, the supplemental background investigation was specifically created in response to allegations about alcohol consumption and sexual behavior," Handley said in court papers. "Moreover, much of the information requested by plaintiffs—both in the supplemental background investigation file and the tip records—relates to Judge Kavanaugh's alleged conduct as a teenager and young adult—decades before his distinguished career in public service began—and does not concern the performance of his public duties."
Handley said the character of the information in the FBI supplemental background investigation "is highly personal and could subject Judge Kavanaugh and others to harassment or embarrassment in their private lives." She called the information "unquestionably private."
"The FBI concluded that disclosure of this information 'could reasonably be expected to subject Judge Kavanaugh to further derogatory inferences and criticism,' and 'cause undue attention and embarrassment to his family,'" Handley wrote.
|Read more:
Barr's Justice Dept. Honors Kavanaugh Team at Private Ceremony
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250