Judge Blocks Further Inquiries in FOIA Case Questioning Hillary Clinton's Email Practices
"I find it hard from a practical perspective to believe that somehow [State Department officials] have not done their duty in trying to find records that relate to Secretary Clinton," U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said at a recent hearing in the public records case.
July 17, 2020 at 11:28 AM
5 minute read
A federal judge in Washington on Friday refused to further prolong a public-records case that has raised questions about Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her service as U.S. secretary of state during the Obama administration.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit had urged District Judge Reggie Walton to allow "discovery" in an effort to find any additional records that might be related to an advertisement that the U.S. embassy in Islamabad produced that was titled "A Message from the President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."
Walton's order on Friday said the demand for additional discovery by the plaintiffs—Judicial Watch, the conservative advocacy group, brought the suit in 2012—was "speculative and insufficient to delay summary judgment briefing any further."
At a court hearing last week in the case, Walton pointed to other cases involving Clinton-era State Department records and searches, and he noted that the State Department has asserted that it has "already obtained and searched all of Secretary Clinton's emails."
Walton said he could not imagine any effort at the Trump-led State Department to conceal records involving Clinton.
"Seems to me they would be readily prepared to produce them," Walton said. "I find it hard from a practical perspective to believe that somehow they have not done their duty in trying to find records that relate to Secretary Clinton, considering the political realities of who occupies now the White House and runs the State Department."
The Judicial Watch case is one of several pending public-records disputes focused on Clinton's leadership of the State Department.
A federal appeals court in Washington is tied up in one of those other cases, weighing whether to force Clinton to sit for a deposition about her email practices—the use of a private email server—during her tenure as secretary of state.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard arguments last month over the would-be Clinton deposition. The court did not seem inclined to uphold a trial judge's order requiring Clinton to sit for the deposition. Depositions of current or former Cabinet officials are rare.
The appeals court questioned, as Walton had in the case before him, whether there's anything left to find, and why the State Department, under the leadership of Trump appointees, would have any reason to impede the release of any records that haven't been previously released to the public.
"The State Department now has every incentive to get to the bottom of this if you have any questions, if that's the case," D.C. Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard said during one exchange. "This is no longer Secretary Clinton's State Department, this is the Trump State Department."
Justice Department lawyers, pointing to those other pending or resolved public-records cases, resisted Judicial Watch's effort to continue pressing State to search for any additional responsive records in the suit over the advertisement.
"In the almost four years since this case was stayed, Judicial Watch has conducted extensive discovery in two similar FOIA cases, and has the benefit of the facts and conclusions reached in investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, the Department of State, Office of Inspector General, and Congress, into former Secretary Clinton's email practices," Justice Department lawyers said in a court filing in April.
Judicial Watch lawyers had argued their request for additional discovery was not "unnecessary, duplicative, or burdensome."
"The State Department was still finding new batches of previously undisclosed emails from Secretary Clinton as recently as late last year, so defendant is in no position to assert with any confidence that it will not be finding additional new emails later this year," Judicial Watch lawyers told Walton in a court filing in May.
At the hearing last week in the advertisement case, Walton noted that discovery in Freedom of Information Act cases is rare and should only be allowed when there's "reasonable belief" that new searches would yield additional responsive documents.
"I'm hard pressed to include—in light of precedents regarding the propriety of conducting discovery in this type of litigation—to permit that discovery to occur," Walton said at the court hearing. "This is an old case. We need to at some point bring it to a final conclusion."
Walton set a status conference for December.
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 AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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