Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 05 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 19-957 (RBW),Civil Action No. 19-810 (RBW) |
| Parties | ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. Jason Leopold & Buzzfeed, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Justice, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Alan Jay Butler, Marc Rotenberg, John L. Davisson, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Washington, DC, Joshua Hart Burday, Matthew Topic, Loevy & Loevy, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Courtney Danielle Enlow, Elizabeth J. Shapiro, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge The above-captioned matters concern requests made by the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") and Jason Leopold and Buzzfeed, Inc. (the "Leopold plaintiffs") (collectively, the "plaintiffs") to the United States Department of Justice (the "Department") pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2018), seeking, inter alia, the release of an unredacted version of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III ("Special Counsel Mueller") regarding his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election (the "Mueller Report"). See Complaint ¶¶ 2, 43, Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civ. Action No. 19-810 ("EPIC Compl."); Complaint ¶ 1, Leopold v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civ. Action No. 19-957 (" "). Currently pending before the Court are (1) the Department of Justice's Motion for Summary Judgment in Leopold v. Department of Justice and Partial Summary Judgment in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice ("Def.'s Mot." or the "Department's motion"); (2) the Plaintiff's Combined Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and Motion for In Camera Review of the "Mueller Report" ("EPIC's Mot." or "EPIC's motion"); and (3) Plaintiffs Jason Leopold's and Buzzfeed Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment ( . Upon careful consideration of the parties' submissions,1 the Court concludes for the following reasons that it must deny without prejudice the Department's motion, grant in part and deny without prejudice in part EPIC's motion, and grant in part and deny without prejudice in part the Leopold plaintiffs' motion.
On May 17, 2017, "to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election," then-Acting Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein appointed Special Counsel Mueller to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" (the "Trump campaign"). Def.'s Mot., Exhibit ("Ex.") 3 (Order No. 3915-2017 – Appointment of Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Interference with the 2016 Presidential Election and Related Matters ("Appointment Order")).
In March 2019, Special Counsel Mueller concluded his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election, and on Friday, March 22, 2019, he provided Attorney General William P. Barr ("Attorney General Barr") with the Mueller Report. See Def.'s Mot., Ex. 4 (). On that same day, Attorney General Barr advised members of the United States Congress by letter that he was "reviewing the [Mueller] [R]eport and anticipate[d] that [he] may be in a position to advise [the members of Congress] of [ ] Special Counsel[ ] [Mueller's] principal conclusions as soon as th[at] weekend." Id., Ex. 4 (March 22, 2019 Letter). Attorney General Barr "disclose[d] [the March 22, 2019] letter to the public after delivering it to [members of Congress]." Id., Ex. 4 (March 22, 2019 Letter).
On Sunday, March 24, 2019, Attorney General Barr supplemented his March 22, 2019 letter to Congress, "advis[ing] [certain members of Congress] of the principal conclusions reached by Special Counsel [Mueller]." Id., Ex. 5 () at 1. However, neither an unredacted or a redacted version of the Mueller Report accompanied Attorney General Barr's March 24, 2019 letter for congressional or public consumption. According to Attorney General Barr, "Special Counsel[ ] [Mueller's] investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 [United States] presidential election." Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 2; see also id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 2 (); id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 2 (). Furthermore, Attorney General Barr represented that, with respect to Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice in connection with Special Counsel Mueller's investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election, Special Counsel Mueller "determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" and "did not draw a conclusion—one way or the other—as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction," thereby leaving "it to [ ] Attorney General [Barr] to determine whether the conduct described in the [Mueller] [R]eport constitutes a crime." Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 3. Noting that Special Counsel Mueller "recognized that ‘the evidence does not establish that [ ] President [Trump] was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,’ " Attorney General Barr ultimately determined that "the evidence developed during [ ] Special Counsel[ ] [Mueller's] investigation is not sufficient to establish that [ ] President [Trump] committed an obstruction-of-justice offense," and that, "while not determinative, the absence of such evidence bears upon [ ] President[ ] [Trump's] intent with respect to obstruction." Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 3. According to Attorney General Barr, "the [Mueller] [R]eport identifies no actions that, in [his] judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent[.]" Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 3.
Attorney General Barr also indicated in his March 24, 2019 letter that he intended to "move forward expeditiously in determining what [information in the Mueller Report] can be released in light of applicable law, regulations, and Departmental policies." Id., Ex. 5 (March 24, 2019 Letter) at 4.
On March 27, 2019, Special Counsel Mueller stated in a letter to Attorney General Barr that the representations made by Attorney General Barr in his March 24, 2019 letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of th[e] [Special Counsel's] Office's work and conclusions." EPIC's Mot., Ex. 4 (Letter from Robert S. Mueller III, Special Counsel, to William P. Barr, Attorney General (Mar. 27, 2019) ("March 27, 2019 Letter")) at 1. And, according to Special Counsel Mueller, as a result of Attorney General Barr's March 24, 2019 letter, "[t]here [was] now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of [his] investigation," which Special Counsel Mueller noted "threaten[ed] to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed [ ] Special Counsel [Mueller]: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." Id., Ex. 4 (March 27, 2019 Letter) at 1.
On March 29, 2019, Attorney General Barr, in a letter addressed to members of Congress, represented that "some media reports and other public statements mischaracter[ed] [his] March 24, 2019 [letter] [ ] as a ‘summary’ of [ ] Special Counsel[ ] [Mueller's] investigation and [the Mueller] [R]eport," and that his "March 24[, 2019] letter was not, and did not purport to be, an exhaustive recounting of [ ] Special Counsel[ ] [Mueller's] investigation or [the Mueller] [R]eport." Def.'s Mot., Ex. 6 () at 1–2. Attorney General Barr stated:
As my [March 24, 2019] letter made clear, my notification to Congress and the pubic provided, pending release of the [Mueller] [R]eport, a summary of its "principal conclusions"—that is, its bottom line.... Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own. I do not believe it would be in the public's interest for me to attempt to summarize the full report or to release it in serial or piecemeal fashion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 19-810 (RBW)
...of Justice's Motion for Summary Judgment in Leopold v. Department of Justice and Partial Summary Judgment in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice ("Def.’s Mot."). Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed their cross-motions for summary judgment. See Plaintiff's Combined Op......
- Las Ams. Immigrant Advocacy Ctr. v. Wolf
-
Am. Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs & Border Patrol
...appropriate when," among other things, "the number of withheld documents is relatively small." Elec. Priv. Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Just. , 442 F. Supp. 3d 37, 47 (D.D.C. 2020) (quoting Spirko v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 147 F.3d 992, 996 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ). Similarly, given the relatively sm......
-
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
...concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report." EPIC , 442 F. Supp. 3d at 48. The district court in the EPIC case undertook a close comparison of the Attorney General's March 24 pronouncements and the redacted ve......