Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
| Decision Date | 21 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Civil Case No. 13–01344 RJL |
| Citation | 65 F.Supp.3d 50 |
| Parties | Judicial Watch, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Justice, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Michael Bekesha, Paul J. Orfanedes, Judicial Watch, Inc., Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Nathan Michael Swinton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
[Dkt. ## 15, 17]
Plaintiff Judicial Watch (“plaintiff”) filed this action against the United States Department of Justice (“defendant” or “DOJ”) on September 5, 2013, challenging DOJ's denial of plaintiff's request for records pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552. See Complaint (“Compl.”) [Dkt. # 1]. Now before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.See Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.'s Mot.”) [Dkt. # 15]; Plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.'s Mot.”) [Dkt. # 17]. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, relevant law, and the entire record in this case, the Court GRANTS defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES plaintiff's Cross–Motion for Summary Judgment.
This case involves a challenge to defendant's denial of plaintiff's request for documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). See Compl. ¶¶ 5–6. In August 2012, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (“House Committee”) sued Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce a congressional subpoena for documents related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “Fast and Furious” operation. See Def.'s Mot. at 1; Pl.'s Mot. at 2; Comm. on Oversight and Gov't Reform v. Holder, No. 12–1332–ABJ, 2012 WL 3264300 (D.D.C. filed Aug. 13, 2012) (“Holder ”). Although the litigation is ongoing, DOJ and the House Committee have endeavored to resolve the subpoena dispute out of court. See Def.'s Mot. at 1; Pl.'s Mot. at 2. As of the writing of this Opinion, settlement discussions remain ongoing, and have included at least three court-ordered mediation sessions. See Defendant's Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute (“Def.'s Facts”) ¶ 13 [Dkt. # 15–2]; Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Pl.'s Facts”) ¶ 13 [Dkt. # 16].
Within months of the complaint in Holder, the parties began discussing the possibility of resolving the case outside of litigation. The parties met in early December 2012 and then exchanged correspondence in late December and early January 2013 regarding potential settlement of the case. See 1/7/2013 Joint Status Report at 4–5, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012), ECF No. 32. During a January 10, 2013 status conference before Judge Amy Berman Jackson, Judge Jackson indicated that she did not want the substance of the parties' settlement discussions made public. See Tr. of 1/10/2013 Status Conf. at 8:16, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012), ECF No. 39 ( ). The parties continued their settlement negotiations, exchanging more letters and draft settlement agreements.
See 3/15/2013 Joint Status Report at 1–2, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012), ECF No. 40.
On March 15, 2013, in an effort to speed up the pace of negotiations, DOJ requested that Judge Jackson refer the case to Visiting Senior Judge Barbara Rothstein1 for mediation. See id. at 4; see also 3/18/2013 Order at 1, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012), ECF No. 41. Pursuant to an order from Judge Rothstein, the parties submitted memoranda “outlining the current status of the case, including a summary of ... the settlement history to date, including a summary of any issues that prevented settlement,” prior to commencement of the first mediation session. See 3/18/2013 Minute Order, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012). DOJ's memorandum contained substantive summaries of the parties' settlement negotiations and attached copies of two letters and two draft settlement agreements exchanged by the parties. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 12; Declaration of John Tyler (“Tyler Decl.”) ¶ 5 [Dkt. # 15–4]. Following the conclusion of the first mediation session on April 22, 2013—with the parties failing to reach a settlement—Judge Jackson ordered the parties back to mediation on October 30, 2013, and again on January 15, 2014.See 10/30/2013 Minute Order, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012) ; 1/15/2014 Minute Order, Holder, No. 12–cv–1332 (D.D.C.2012).
Declaration of James M. Kovakas (“Kovakas Decl.”), Ex. A [Dkt. # 15–3]; see also Def.'s Facts ¶ 2; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2. The time period covered by the request was October 1, 2012 to March 20, 2013. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 2; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 2; Kovakas Decl., Ex. A.
DOJ identified and contacted ten Civil Division attorneys and one staff member who were likely to have records responsive to the request. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 4; Kovakas Decl. ¶ 4. Following searches of the attorneys' and staff member's records, DOJ was able to locate eight responsive documents—32 pages in total—consisting of communications related to potential settlement between DOJ and the House Committee. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 4; Kovakas Decl. ¶ 5. In a letter dated May 3, 2013, DOJ informed plaintiff that “[a]ll of the information responsive to your request is withheld in full.” See Kovakas Decl., Ex. C; Def.'s Facts ¶ 5; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 5. DOJ explained that it was withholding all internal communications pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) and all external communications pursuant to “court-imposed non-disclosure requirements.” See Def.'s Facts ¶ 5; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 5; Kovakas Decl., Ex. C.
Defendant appealed DOJ's determination on May 20, 2013, clarifying that its FOIA request did not seek disclosure of any internal DOJ communications. See Def.'s Facts ¶ 6; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 6; Kovakas Decl., Ex. D. On June 19, 2013, DOJ's Office of Information Policy affirmed the Civil Division's determination, informing plaintiff that “the records responsive to your request are subject to court-imposed, non-disclosure requirements under the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.” See Def.'s Facts ¶ 7; Pl.'s Facts ¶ 7; Kovakas Decl., Ex. E.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence in the record demonstrates that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). When evaluating cross-motions for summary judgment, “the court shall grant summary judgment only if one of the moving parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law upon material facts that are not genuinely disputed.” Select Specialty Hosp.–Bloomington, Inc. v. Sebelius, 774 F.Supp.2d 332, 338 (D.D.C.2011) (citation omitted). The court must accept as true the evidence of, and draw “all justifiable inferences” in favor of, the party opposing summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists only where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.”Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
Although FOIA generally favors agency disclosure of responsive documents, an agency is entitled to summary judgment on a FOIA claim where it shows that the documents withheld are “wholly exempt from the Act's inspection requirements.” Exxon Corp. v. FTC, 663 F.2d 120, 126 (D.C.Cir.1980) (citing Nat'l Cable Television Ass'n v. FCC, 479 F.2d 183, 186 (D.C.Cir.1973). Moreover, agency records that are subject to a court order or rule preventing their public disclosure are properly withheld under FOIA. See GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Consumers Union of the U.S., 445 U.S. 375, 387, 100 S.Ct. 1194, 63 L.Ed.2d 467 (1980). The court reviews the agency's justification for withholding responsive documents de novo. See Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 926 (D.C.Cir.2003). In determining whether responsive documents were properly withheld, the court “shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning the agency's determination,” so long as the affidavit is relatively detailed, demonstrates that the documents are logically withheld, and is submitted in good faith. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) ; see also Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 738 (D.C.Cir.1981).
This case requires a determination as to whether documents responsive to plaintiffs FOIA request were improperly withheld. Indeed, the FOIA statute only confers jurisdiction on this Court to compel the production of agency documents that are “improperly withheld.” GTE Sylvania, 445 U.S. at 384, 100 S.Ct. 1194 ; see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). When there is “no discretion for the agency to exercise,” the withholding of responsive documents cannot be said to be improper.
GTE Sylvania, 445 U.S. at 386, 100 S.Ct. 1194. Here, there appear to be two applicable bars to the production of responsive documents: Judge Jackson's admonition that the parties not disclose the substance of their settlement communications, and the prohibition on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Spelman v. McHugh
-
Agility Pub. Warehousing Co. K.S.C. v. Nat'l Sec. Agency
...e.g., GTE Sylvania, 445 U.S. at 386, 100 S.Ct. 1194 (injunction); Morgan, 923 F.2d at 197 (sealing order); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 65 F.Supp.3d 50, 52 (D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 84.9) ; Wagar v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 846 F.2d 1040, 1046–47 (6th Cir.1988) (consent order......
-
Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
...the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, and I ruled in favor of the Department. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice , 65 F.Supp.3d 50, 55 (D.D.C. 2014) (" Judicial Watch I ").My decision was based on two grounds. First, I held that the eight responsive documents were pro......
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Justice