'This Is No Longer Secretary Clinton's State Department': Judges Wary of Her Deposition Over Emails
"If the question is whether there's been an adequate search, what difference does it make what the intent was or reasons for using a private server, or Hillary Clinton's or anyone else's understanding of State's record searching obligations?" Judge Robert Wilkins asked.
June 02, 2020 at 12:22 PM
4 minute read
A panel of federal appeals judges were doubtful Tuesday of what additional information could be gleaned about Hillary Clinton's emails if the former secretary of state were to sit for a deposition in a public records case.
Judges Thomas Griffith, Cornelia Pillard and Robert Wilkins of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard the arguments after U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth of the District of Columbia ruled last year that Clinton could be deposed in a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for records relating to the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton's lawyers at Williams & Connolly, led by David Kendall, intervened and petitioned the circuit to vacate Lamberth's order.
On Tuesday, Judicial Watch attorney Ramona Cotca told the court that the group had remaining questions over the handling of the emails. "The issue is identifying all sources where Clinton emails reside, and for the State Department to do an adequate search," she said.
"The State Department now has every incentive to get to the bottom of this if you have any questions, if that's the case," Pillard replied. "This is no longer Secretary Clinton's State Department, this is the Trump State Department."
"It doesn't matter who the administration is, but the issue is," Cotca began before Pillard cut her off. "It does in the sense of whether you think—from what I gather you're saying is that there's some kind of cover-up," the judge said. "And so I'm just trying to understand why you think this is relevant under FOIA, the claim you brought."
Cotca denied the group believes there was a cover-up over the handling of Clinton's emails. Rather, she argued, emails recently handed over to the State Department by the FBI raised fresh questions over whether all possibly relevant emails were searched.
Pillard in particular was skeptical of that claim, noting the State Department later found it had already possessed those same emails and found they were not relevant to Judicial Watch's records request.
The judges also questioned how the deposition fits into the public records law, which they and Clinton's legal team said only requires federal officials to do a fair and reasonable search for responsive documents.
"If the question is whether there's been an adequate search, what difference does it make what the intent was or reasons for using a private server, or Hillary Clinton's or anyone else's understanding of State's record searching obligations?" Wilkins asked. "How does that prove this search, which was conducted since Secretary Clinton left office, was adequate?"
And the judges also pressed a question they had presented to the parties ahead of the case, on whether it was moot due to another circuit decision over State Department records. Kendall said the case was moot, but Cotca and Justice Department attorney Mark Freeman, who also argued Tuesday, said it was not.
Kendall told the court the deposition could be harassing, saying footage of a video deposition could be used by Judicial Watch for political or fundraising needs. But Griffith questioned why the deposition would have to be filed in the first place, and asked if the footage could be sealed. Griffith also said that, if Kendall is right about his client not having much more information, "the line of questioning won't last very long."
"The purpose of this discovery, even if it was sealed, is simply harassment," Kendall said. "It's not authorized by the law, or the court, or other precedent."
Freeman, the DOJ attorney, said the federal government is not taking a position in the case. "The State Department's approach for all of these cases, from the beginning, has been to just get through them," he said of the Clinton FOIA litigation.
And he said DOJ was not backing Clinton's petition as the government itself had not sought the relief. "We chose in the interest of the executive branch, balancing pros and cons, not to do so here," Freeman said.
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 AllHigh Court Seems Wary of Telecom's Appeal in Whistleblower's False Claims Act Victory
Justices Will Hear Appeal of Jamaican Who Says He'll Be Killed If Deported
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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