Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
______________________________
)
JUDICIAL WATCH,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
) Civil Action No. 13-1363
v.
)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
)
)
Defendant.
)
______________________________)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

Background
This case presents a narrow legal question: did the United

States Department of State (“State Department”), in good faith,
conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents in response to Plaintiff Judicial Watch’s (“Judicial
Watch”) Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request? As the
Court ruled during the February 23, 2016 hearing on Judicial
Watch’s Motion for Discovery under Rule 56(d), questions
surrounding the creation, purpose and use of the
clintonemail.com server must be explored through limited
discovery before the Court can decide, as a matter of law,
whether the Government has conducted an adequate search in
response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(d); Hr’g Tr., Docket No. 59 at 78: 9-25.

1

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 2 of 15

A. The FOIA request at issue.
The FOIA request at issue focuses on employment records of Ms.
Huma Abedin, one of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s
(“Secretary Clinton” or “Mrs. Clinton”) closest advisors.
Designated as a “special government employee,” Ms. Abedin was
allowed to engage in private sector work while also working at
the State Department. Pl.’s Mot. Discovery, Docket No. 48 at 15.
Specifically, Ms. Abedin served as a consultant to Teneo
Holdings and the Clinton Foundation. Id. Teneo is led by a longtime advisor to former President Bill Clinton. Id.
On November 10, 2013, Judicial Watch filed this lawsuit
seeking the production of the following documents:
•

Any and all SF-50 (notification of personnel action) forms
for Ms. Huma Abedin;

•

Any and all contracts (including, but not limited to,
personal service contracts) between the Department of State
and Ms. Huma Abedin; and

•

Any and all records regarding, concerning or related to the
authorization for Ms. Huma Abedin to represent individual
clients and/or otherwise engage in outside employment while
employed by and/or engaged in a contractual relationship
with State.

Compl., Docket No. 1. Judicial Watch’s request covered the time
period of January 2010 to May 21, 2013. Id.
B. Procedural history.
The State Department acknowledged receipt of Judicial Watch’s
FOIA request by letter on June 5, 2013, but did not
2

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 3 of 15

substantively respond until after this lawsuit was filed. Compl.
¶ 6-8. In response to this lawsuit, the State Department
searched the records of the Bureau of Human Resources, the
Office of the Executive Secretariat, the Office of the Legal
Advisor and the Central Foreign Policy Records. Def.’s Mot.
Summ. J., Docket 47 at 3-4. The State Department produced eight
non-exempt records to Judicial Watch. Id. The parties stipulated
to dismissal of this case on March 14, 2014. Docket No. 12.
In June 2015, following the revelation by the New York Times
of the clintonemail.com server, the parties agreed that the case
should be re-opened. See Pl.’s Mot. Discovery, Docket No. 48 at
2; see also June 19, 2015 Minute Order. Pursuant to a Court
order, the State Department collected and searched federal
records that were voluntarily produced by Mrs. Clinton, Ms.
Abedin and Ms. Cheryl Mills. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J., Docket 47 at
10. The State Department also searched the four offices listed
above for a second time. Id. For the first time, however, the
Office of the Under Secretary for Management was also searched.
Id. Search terms agreed upon by the parties were used to
complete these searches, which resulted in a rolling production
of 48 pages on September 18, 2015; 15 pages on October 13, 2015;
re-release of three documents on November 12, 2015; and rerelease of two documents in full and re-release in part of one
document previously withheld on November 13, 2015. Id. at 10 and
3

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 4 of 15

13. The State Department withheld two Office of Government
Ethics Form 540s under FOIA exemption 3. Id.
On November 13, 2015, the State Department filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. See Docket No. 47. Judicial Watch responded
with a Motion for Discovery under Rule 56(d), arguing that
limited discovery is necessary before it can respond to the
State Department’s claim that it conducted an adequate search.
Pl.’s Mot. Discovery, Docket No. 48. The parties’ briefing on
Judicial Watch’s Motion for Discovery was finalized by the end
of January 2016, and on February 23, 2016, the Court heard oral
argument on the motion. See Hr’g Tr., Docket No. 59. The Court
granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery in open court and
directed the parties to submit narrowly tailored discovery
proposals for the Court’s consideration. Id. On March 16, 2016,
the State Department’s Motion for Summary Judgment was denied
without prejudice in light of the Court’s consideration of the
parties’ discovery proposals. See March 16, 2016 Minute Order.
Although the State Department has not waived it’s objection to
discovery, the parties were able to reach an agreement on the
relevant scope of discovery. See Docket No. 65. The Court
applauds the parties’ cooperative efforts and approves their
joint proposal for limited discovery. The purpose of this
Memorandum and Order is to explain in more detail the basis for

4

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 5 of 15

the Court’s February 28, 2016 decision to grant Judicial Watch’s
request for discovery.
C. Key facts related to the clintonemail.com server.
Critical facts related to the clintonemail.com server
preclude a legal analysis, at this time, of whether the State
Department conducted an adequate search under FOIA. First, the
clintonemail.com server was established eight days prior to Mrs.
Clinton being sworn in as Secretary of State. Hr’g Tr. 23:20 –
24:1. Mrs. Clinton used clintonemail.com email for personal and
professional purposes throughout her tenure as Secretary of
State. See Clinton Decl., Docket No. 22. No state.gov email or
electronic device was ever issued to Mrs. Clinton from the State
Department. Pl.’s Mot. Discovery, Docket No. 48 at 12.
Ms. Abedin was assigned an email account on the
clintonemail.com server as well as one at state.gov. Id. at 11.
It is unknown whether any other State Department staff had an
email account on the clintonemail.com server. Hr’g Tr. 22: 1-13.
However, email communications from January 2009, just several
weeks after Mrs. Clinton was sworn in, confirm that senior State
Department staff had knowledge of the clintonemail.com server.
See Docket No. 52 at 2-4; see also Hr’g Tr. 49: 12-16 (Mr.
Myers, counsel for the State Department: “I think it’s
undisputed that former Secretary Clinton was using the e-mail
account to correspond with some people who were in senior
5

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 6 of 15

positions at the State Department, and that they were
necessarily aware of the address from which she was sending emails.”). Notably, the process by which the State Department
took possession of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin’s federal records
from the clintonemail.com server was through self-selection by
Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin, Ms. Mills and their private counsel.
Clinton Decl.; see also Docket No. 20 (letters between State
Department and private counsel for Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and
Ms. Mills).
In late January 2009, there was communication among several
State Department staff about setting up a computer “off network”
so that then Secretary Clinton could check her email at the
State Department. See January 24, 2009 email chain, Docket No.
52. In August 2011 communication difficulties experienced by
Secretary Clinton prompted discussion among State Department
staff about whether issuing a State Department blackberry might
solve the problem. Pl.’s Reply, Docket No. 51, Exhibit C.
Stephen Mull, Executive Secretary of the State Department at the
time, noted that if Secretary Clinton used a State issued
blackberry, her identity “would be secret” but that the
state.gov email account “would be subject to FOIA requests.” Id.
Ms. Abedin responded “let’s discuss the state blackberry,
doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.” Id.

6

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 7 of 15

Finally, and critically, the January 2016 Office of
Inspector General report, “Evaluation of the Department of
State’s FOIA Process for Requests Involving the Office of the
Secretary” (“OIG Report”) notes that although dozens of State
Department staff communicated with Mrs. Clinton through the
clintonemail.com server, there is no evidence that personnel
involved in responding to FOIA requests were aware of Mrs.
Clinton’s clintonemail.com email address. OIG Report at 14-15,
available at https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-01.pdf.
The OIG Report also notes that at least one State Department
lawyer reported his or her belief that the State Department was
not responding to FOIA requests adequately because Mrs.
Clinton’s emails were excluded from FOIA searches. Id. at 15, fn
64.
II.

Discussion

A. The purpose of FOIA.
FOIA was designed by Congress to “pierce the veil of
administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of
public scrutiny.” Morley v. C.I.A., 508 F.3d 1108, 1114 (D.C.
Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). FOIA requires federal
agencies to disclose all requested agency records, unless one of
nine statutory exemptions applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) and (b).
Because disclosure rather than secrecy is the “dominate
objective of the Act,” the statutory exemptions are “narrowly
7

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 8 of 15

construed.” See McKneely v. United States Dept. of Justice, 2015
WL 5675515 at *2 (D.D.C. 2015) (internal citations omitted).
B. Standard for an adequate search under FOIA.
A recurring question in FOIA cases is whether the agency
conducted a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
documents. Asarco Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2009 WL 1138830 at *1 (D.D.C. 2009). The defending agency must
show “beyond material doubt” that it conducted a reasonable
search. Weisberg v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351
(D.C. Cir. 1983). The adequacy of an agency’s search for
responsive records is measured by “the reasonableness of the
effort in light of the specific request.” McKinley v. FCIC, 807
F. Supp. 2d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2001) (quoting Larson v. Dep’t of
State, 565 F.3d. 857, 869 (D.C. Cir. 2009). An agency is not
required to search every record system. See Meeropol v. Messe,
790 F.2d 942, 952-53 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (noting a search is not
presumed unreasonable simply because it fails to produce all
relevant material); see also Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 128
(D.C. Cir. 1982) (holding an agency need not demonstrate that
all responsive documents were found and that no other relevant
documents could possibly exist).
C. Standard for discovery in a FOIA case.
Discovery is rare in FOIA cases. Thomas v. FDA, 587 F.
Supp. 2d 114, 115 (D.D.C. 2008) (Huvelle, J.)(noting that
8

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 9 of 15

“discovery is an extraordinary procedure in a FOIA action”).
Discovery should be permitted, however, when a plaintiff raises
a sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in
processing documents in response to a FOIA request. See, e.g.
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Dep’t of
Justice, 05-cv-2078, 2006 WL 1518964 (D.D.C. June 1, 2006)
(Sullivan, J.) (permitting discovery in a FOIA action where the
government engaged in extreme delay); see also Landmark Legal
Foundation v. E.P.A., 959 F. Supp. 2d 175 (2013) (ordering
discovery in a FOIA action on the question of whether senior
administrators used personal emails for official business and
whether the EPA excluded key officials from their initial
search); Landmark Legal Foundation v. E.P.A., 82 F. Supp. 3d
211, 220 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that the behavior of the EPA
following Landmarks August 2012 FOIA request raised a
“reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing, entitling Landmark
discovery on the possibility that “EPA may have purposefully
attempted to skirt disclosure under [] FOIA.”).
D. Judicial Watch has raised sufficient questions as to
whether the State Department processed its November 2013
FOIA request in good faith.
Relying on the facts discussed above, Judicial Watch raises
significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether
the State Department processed documents in good faith in

9

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 10 of 15

response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is
therefore entitled to limited discovery.
The State Department made two primary arguments in
opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery. First, the State
Department argued that it did not have possession and control of
the clintonemail.com server, and therefore could not be found to
have improperly withheld any documents. Def.’s Opp. Pl.’s Mot.
Discovery, Docket No. 49 at 14 (citing Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press v. Kissinger, 445 U.S. 136, 139 (1980)
(“even if a document requested under FOIA is wrongfully in the
possession of a party not an ‘agency,’ the agency which received
the document does not ‘improperly withhold’ those materials by
its refusal to institute a retrieval action.”). Because the
State Department did not possess or control Mrs. Clinton’s
server at the time Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was received,
the State Department argued it did not withhold any relevant
documents. Def.’s Opp. Pl.’s Mot. at 14 (“Plaintiff’s concession
that the State Department did not possess former Secretary
Clinton’s emails at the time Plaintiff submitted its FOIA
request, more than three months after she left the State
Department, should be dispositive.”).
The Court is unpersuaded by the State Department’s reliance
on Kissinger. The Kissinger Court explicitly did not address
whether the “withholding” standard must be measured from the
10

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 11 of 15

time a request is received under circumstances where it is
“shown that an agency purposefully routed a document out of
agency possession in order to circumvent a FOIA request.” Id. at
167, fn 9. Here, Judicial Watch alleges that the State
Department and Mrs. Clinton sought to “deliberately thwart FOIA”
through the creation and use of clintonemail.com. Pl.’s Mot.
Discovery, Docket No. 48 at 3. This allegation goes directly to
the type of circumstance Kissinger did not address.
Second, the State Department argued that it has done all
it is obligated to do under FOIA by searching the documents
returned by Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills. Hr’g Tr. 6162. In support of this argument, the State Department relied on
Judicial Watch v. John F. Kerry, a Federal Records Act (“FRA”)
case where the Court found Judicial Watch’s claims moot in light
of the efforts the State Department had taken to recover federal
records from Mrs. Clinton and other government officials. See
Civil Action No. 15-785 (JEB), Docket No. 21. However, the
relevant standards under the FRA and FOIA are different. Under
the FRA, a plaintiff’s right to compel referral to the Attorney
General is limited to situations where an agency has taken
either minimal or no action to remedy the removal or destruction
of federal records. Id. at 10 (citing Armstrong v. Bush, 924
F.2d 282, 296 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Although the State Department
has taken some action to recover federal records related to this
11

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 12 of 15

case, those efforts do not resolve the question of whether the
agency’s search in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request was
reasonable. As Judge Lamberth recently observed “[t]he State
Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily
turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other
officials hardly transforms such a search into an ‘adequate’ or
‘reasonable’ one.” See Civil Action No. 14-1242 (RCL), Docket
No. 39.
In sum, the circumstances surrounding approval of Mrs.
Clinton’s use of clintonemail.com for official government
business, as well as the manner in which it was operated, are
issues that need to be explored in discovery to enable the Court
to resolve, as a matter of law, the adequacy of the State
Department’s search of relevant records in response to Judicial
Watch’s FOIA request.
III.

Conclusion

Having considered Plaintiff’s proposed plan, State’s
response, Plaintiff’s reply, and the parties’ jointly proposed
order, and recognizing that Defendant has not waived its
objection to discovery, it is hereby ORDERED that:
A.

The scope of permissible discovery shall be as follows:
the creation and operation of clintonemail.com for State
Department business, as well as the State Department’s
approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that
potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and
Ms. Abedin’s emails and State’s processing of the FOIA
request that is the subject of this action. Plaintiff is
12

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 13 of 15

not entitled to discovery on matters unrelated to
whether State conducted an adequate search in response
to
Plaintiff’s
FOIA
request,
including
without
limitation: the substantive information sought by
Plaintiff in its FOIA request in this case, which
involves the employment status of a single employee; the
storage, handling, transmission, or protection of
classified information, including cybersecurity issues;
and any pending FBI or law enforcement investigations.
B.

Plaintiff intends to take depositions of the following
individuals and designees:
1. Stephen D. Mull (Executive Secretary of the State
Department from June 2009 to October 2012 and suggested
that Mrs. Clinton be issued a State
Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity
and would also be subject to FOIA requests);
2. Lewis A. Lukens (Executive Director of the Executive
Secretariat from 2008 to 2011 and emailed with Patrick
Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for
Mrs. Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email
account);
3. Patrick F. Kennedy (Under Secretary for Management since
2007 and the Secretary of State’s principal advisor on
management issues, including technology and information
services);
4. 30(b)(6)
deposition(s)
of
Defendant
regarding
the
processing of FOIA requests, including Plaintiff’s FOIA
request, for emails of Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin both
during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State and
after;
5. Cheryl D. Mills (Mrs. Clinton’s Chief of Staff
throughout her four years as Secretary of State);

6. Huma Abedin (Mrs. Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff and a
senior advisor to Mrs. Clinton throughout her four years
as Secretary of State and also had an email account on
clintonemail.com);
7. Bryan Pagliano (State Department Schedule C employee who
has been reported to have serviced and maintained the

13

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 14 of 15

server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during
Mrs. Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State);
8. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek the Court’s
permission to take the deposition of Donald R. Reid at
a later time, and State reserves the right to object.
(Reid
is
Senior
Coordinator
for
Security
infrastructure, Bureau of Diplomatic Security since 2003
and was involved in early discussions about Mrs. Clinton
using her BlackBerry and other devices to conduct
official State Department business);and
9. Based on information learned during discovery, the
deposition of Mrs. Clinton may be necessary. If
Plaintiff believes Mrs.
Clinton’s testimony is
required, it will request permission from the Court at
the appropriate time.
C.

At the conclusion of a deposition State may elect in
good faith on the record to have a period of three
business days following the time that a deposition
transcript or audiovisual recording is made available to
the parties within which to review those portions of the
transcript or audiovisual recording that may contain
classified
information,
information
specifically
exempted from disclosure by statute, or information
about any pending FBI or law enforcement investigations,
and, if necessary, to seek an order precluding public
release, quotation or paraphrase of any inadvertently
disclosed
classified
information,
information
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute, or
information about any pending FBI or law enforcement
investigations. The decision to elect the threebusiness-day period is in State’s sole discretion and
may not be challenged.

D.

Discovery shall be conducted pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the scope and
limitations herein.

E.

Defendant shall serve its answers and any objections to
the four interrogatories set forth in Plaintiff’s
proposed discovery plan, ECF No. 58-1 (Mar. 15, 2016),
within 21 days of the Court’s order. Those
interrogatories include:

14

 Case 1:13-cv-01363-EGS Document 73 Filed 05/04/16 Page 15 of 15

1. Who was responsible for processing and/or responding to
record requests, including FOIA requests, concerning
emails of Mrs. Clinton and other employees of the Office
of the Secretary;
2. Who was responsible for the inventorying or other
accounting of Mrs. Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s emails,
records, and information;
3. Who was responsible for responding to Plaintiff’s FOIA
request from the date of submission to the present; and
4. Which State Department officials and employees had
and/or used an account on the clintonemail.com system to
conduct official government business.
F.

Discovery shall be completed within eight weeks of the
Court’s order. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek
additional time if necessary, and Defendant reserves the
right to object. Plaintiff must seek the Court’s
permission to conduct discovery beyond the depositions
and the interrogatories identified above, and Defendant
reserves the right to object.

SO ORDERED.
Emmet G. Sullivan
United States District Court
May 4, 2016.

15