Merged 36890 - 1-1466515221

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 41
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Case No. 1:16-CV-461 (ABJ)
Defendants.
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES

CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, the Republican National Committee (RNC), moves for summary judgment under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The grounds for this motion are set out in the RNCs
accompanying memorandum.
Dated: June 20, 2016

/s/ Edward T. Kang
Edward T. Kang (D.C. Bar 1011251)
edward.kang@alston.com
Kelley Barnaby (D.C. Bar. No. 998757)
kelley.barnaby@alston.com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 239-3300
/s/ Brian D. Boone

Brian D. Boone (D.C. Bar No. 987633)
brian.boone@alston.com
D. Andrew Hatchett (D.D.C. Bar No. GA0004)
andrew.hatchett@alston.com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
101 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
John R. Phillippe
jphillippe@gop.com
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
310 First Street, SE
Telephone: (202) 863-8638
Counsel for Plaintiff Republican National Committee


Plaintiff,
v.

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
COMMITTEES CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F. Street, NW
Telephone: (202) 239-3300

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
101 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
John R. Phillippe
jphillippe@gop.com
Telephone: (202) 863-8638
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 7
STANDARD OF REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 11
ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................ 12
I.
This Court must independently evaluate each of the RNCs three

outstanding FOIA requests. .................................................................................. 13
II.
The RNCs remaining requests are reasonable..................................................... 15
III.
The State Departments supporting declaration does not support the

Governments claim that the RNCs requests are unduly burdensome. ............... 18
CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 21
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Am. Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
655 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011) .....................................................................................................12
Am. Federation of Govt Employees, Local 2782 (AFGE) v. U.S. Dept of
Commerce,
907 F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ...........................................................................................16, 17
Banks v. Dept of Justice,
605 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D.D.C. 2009) .....................................................................................4, 14
Charles v. Office of Armed Forces Med. Examr,
730 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D.D.C. 2010) .........................................................................................11
Cuban v. S.E.C.,
795 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011) .....................................................................................19, 21
Davenport v. C.I.R.,
No. 85 C 8612, 1986 WL 8965 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 1986).......................................................20
Dept of Air Force v. Rose,
425 U.S. 352 (1976)...........................................................................................................12, 13
Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn,
532 U.S. 1 (2001).....................................................................................................................11
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Brock,
778 F.2d 834 (D.C. Cir. 1985) .................................................................................................14
Hainey v. U.S. Dept of the Interior,
925 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D.D.C. 2013) ...........................................................................................17
Inst. for Policy Studies v. C.I.A.,
885 F. Supp. 2d 120 (D.D.C. 2012) ...................................................................................11, 12
Intl Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Dept of Defense,
723 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2010) ...........................................................................................17
King v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
830 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 1987) .....................................................................................13, 19, 20
Milner v. Dept of Navy,
562 U.S. 562 (2011)...........................................................................................................11, 13
iii
N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,

437 U.S. 214 (1978).............................................................................................................6, 21
Natl Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish,
541 U.S. 157 (2004).............................................................................................................6, 21
Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv.,
71 F.3d 885 (D.C. Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................12, 19, 20
Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States,
837 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................6
Pinson v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
80 F. Supp. 3d 211 (D.D.C. 2015) .....................................................................................12, 15
U.S. Dept of Justice v. Tax Analysts,
492 U.S. 136 (1989).................................................................................................................11
Vietnam Veterans of America Connecticut Greater Hartford Chapter 120 v.
Department of Homeland Security,
8 F. Supp. 3d 188 (D. Conn. 2014)..........................................................................................16
Weisberg v. U.S. Dept of Justice,
627 F.2d 365 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ...........................................................................................19, 20
Wolf v. C.I.A.,
569 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2008) .............................................................................................17
STATUTES
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) .................................................................................................4, 13, 17, 18
5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(D) .................................................................................................................13
5 U.S.C. 552(d) ...........................................................................................................................13
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Adam Goldman, Justice Dept. Grants Immunity to Staffer Who Set Up Clinton
Email Server, Wash. Post (Mar. 2, 2016) ..................................................................................2
Byron Tau, Estimate of 75 Years to Release Clinton Aides Email Not an
Outlandish Estimation, Wall St. J. Blog (June 7, 2016),
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/07/estimate-of-75-years-to-processclinton-aides-email-not-an-outlandish-estimation. ..................................................................13
Carol D. Leonnig & Rosalind S. Helderman, State Department Gave
Inaccurate Answer on Clinton Email Use, Review Says, Wash. Post (Jan. 6,
2016) ..........................................................................................................................................1
iv
Chris Egan & Glen Homer, Achieve Savings By Predicting and Controlling Total
Discovery Cost, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (Dec. 1, 2008)....................................11
David Degnan, Accounting for the Costs of Electronic Discovery, 12 Minn. J.L.
Sci. & Tech. 151 (2011).............................................................................................................4
Editorial Board, Clintons Inexcusable, Willful Disregard for the Rules, Wash.
Post (May 25, 2016)...................................................................................................................3
Editorial Board, Hillary Clinton Broke the Rules: Our View, USA Today (June 1,
2016) ..........................................................................................................................................3
Eric Lichtblau & Matt Flegenheimer, Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Wont Be
Rushed, F.B.I. Chief Says, N.Y..................................................................................................3
Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hard Choices (2015).............................................................................18
Josh Gerstein, State Department Claims It Cant Find Any Clinton Texts or Email
File for IT Aide, Politico (May 9, 2016) ....................................................................................9
Josh Gerstein & Rachael Bade, State Dept. Releases Final Haul of Clinton
Emails, Politico (Feb. 29, 2016),
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret219988......................................................................................................................................17
Peter Boberg & Andrew Dick, Findings From the Second Request Compliance
Burden Survey, The Threshold, Volume XIV, No. 3, A.B.A. Section of
Antitrust Law (Summer 2014) ...................................................................................................5
Spencer S. Hsu, Clinton Staffer Who Set Up Private Email Server Invokes 5th
Amendment In Case, Wash. Post (June 1, 2016) .......................................................................2
Spencer S. Hsu, U.S. Judge Delays Deposition, Directs Clinton Aide to Detail
Immunity Deal in Email Probe, Wash. Post (June 3, 2016) ......................................................2
U.S. Dept of Justice, Celebrating James Madison and the Freedom of
Information Act (Mar. 13, 2008)..............................................................................................12
U.S. Dept of State Office of Inspector General, Office of the Secretary:
Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements
(May 2016).................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION
Here is some of what has transpired over the last month:
1.
On May 25, 2016, the State Departments Office of Inspector General released a
report about its investigation into information-handling practices at the State Department. The
Inspector General found that, among other things, Secretary Clinton violated numerous
departmental policies (all promulgated to ensure compliance with federal law) by using a private
email server to conduct State Department business (see U.S. Dept of State Office of Inspector
General, Office of the Secretary: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity
Requirements 2325 (May 2016)1); Secretary Clinton and certain of her staffers refused to sit for
interviews with the Inspector Generals Office (id. at 2 n.7); Secretary Clinton and certain of her
staffers (including Mr. Pagliano) knew that hackers had repeatedly tried to access her private server
(id. at 40); and it appears that Secretary Clinton and her staffers used a private email server in part
to avoid FOIAs public-disclosure requirements. Id. at 3839.
2.
At her May 27, 2016 deposition in a separate FOIA case, Cheryl Mills (Clintons
former Chief of Staff) refused to answer certain questions relating to Clintons private email server.
See generally Transcript of Cheryl Mills May 27, 2016 Dep.; Byron Tau, Clinton Aide Declines
to Answer Questions About Email Server Setup Wall St. J. (May 31, 2016).2 This occurred after
an earlier article reported that Ms. Millss mishandling of FOIA responses resulted in the State
Departments failing to disclose the private email server. See Carol D. Leonnig & Rosalind S.
Helderman, State Department Gave Inaccurate Answer on Clinton Email Use, Review Says,
Wash. Post (Jan. 6, 2016).
3.
On June 1, 2016, Bryan Paglianothrough his legal counselannounced that he
would plead the Fifth Amendment at his scheduled June 6 deposition in a separate FOIA case. See
Spencer S. Hsu, Clinton Staffer Who Set Up Private Email Server Invokes 5th Amendment In Case,
1
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-aide-declines-to-answer-questions-about-email-serversetup-1464734286.
2
Wash. Post (June 1, 2016).3 The announcement came as a surprise because Mr. Pagliano had
already accepted an immunity deal with the FBI. See Adam Goldman, Justice Dept. Grants
Immunity to Staffer Who Set Up Clinton Email Server, Wash. Post (Mar. 2, 2016).4
4.
On June 3, 2016, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan postponed Mr. Paglianos
June 6 deposition and ordered Mr. Paglianos counsel to file a brief disclosing the details of Mr.
Paglianos immunity deal with the Government and explaining why Mr. Pagliano is entitled to
invoke the Fifth Amendment in the civil FOIA litigation. See Spencer S. Hsu, U.S. Judge Delays
Deposition, Directs Clinton Aide to Detail Immunity Deal in Email Probe, Wash. Post (June 3,
2016);5 June 3 Minute Order, Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 13-cv-1363 (D.D.C.).
5.
On June 7, 2016, Mr. Pagliano filed his immunity agreement with the Court, asking
the Court to keep it under seal. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 13-cv-1363
(D.D.C.), Dkt. No. 88. He also filed a brief contending that he is entitled to invoke the Fifth
Amendment in the civil FOIA litigation because his prospective deposition will inevitably cover
matters that might furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute. Judicial Watch,
Inc. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 13-cv-1363 (D.D.C.), Dkt. No. 89 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
6.
On June 14, 2016, Judge Sullivan ordered Mr. Paglianos deposition to go forward.
Judge Sullivan also denied Mr. Paglianos motion to prevent Judicial Watch (the FOIA plaintiff)
from videotaping the deposition. The Court ordered the parties to keep any deposition video under
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/clinton-staffer-who-set-up-private-email-serverinvokes-5th-amendment-in-case/2016/06/01/4d33cd00-2842-11e6-a3c40724e8e24f3f_story.html.
4
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigationjustice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39ee0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html.
5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-judge-delays-deposition-directs-clinton-aideto-detail-immunity-deal-in-email-probe/2016/06/03/9c8a9edc-29a6-11e6-a3c40724e8e24f3f_story.html.
seal until further notice. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 13-cv-1363 (D.D.C.),
June 14, 2016 minute order.
7.
The FBI continues to investigate whether Secretary Clinton or her staffers violated
federal law by using a private email server to conduct State Department business. See Eric
Lichtblau & Matt Flegenheimer, Hillary Clinton Email Inquiry Wont Be Rushed, F.B.I. Chief
Says, N.Y. Times (May 11, 2016).6
Those most-recent revelations have reverberated through the press, raising even more
questions about Secretary Clintons tenure at the State Department and what it says about her
fitness to serve as President of the United States. From the Washington Posts Editorial Board:
Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as
to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She
ignored them. Editorial Board, Clintons Inexcusable, Willful Disregard for the Rules, Wash. Post
(May 25, 2016).7 And from USA Todays Editorial Board: [A] new report by States inspector
general makes clear that within two years, Clintons bad decision had turned into something far
worse: a threat to national security, one that she repeatedly ignored despite multiple warnings.
Editorial Board, Hillary Clinton Broke the Rules: Our View, USA Today (June 1, 2016).8
***
It is against that backdrop that the State Department now moves for summary judgment
against the RNC. Election Day is fast approaching, but the Government seeks to shield from public
view facts about Secretary Clintons actions during her tenure at the State Departmentor at least
to delay their disclosure until after the election. The Government does not claim any exemption
from FOIAs disclosure requirements; on the contrary, it has acknowledged that only a small
6
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-jamescomey.html?_r=0.
7
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clintons-inexcusable-willful-disregard-for-the-rules/
2016/05/25/0089e942-22ae-11e6-9e7f-57890b612299_story.html.
8
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/05/30/hillary-clinton-email-server-inspectorgeneral-editorials-debates/85159948.
fraction of the documents contain classified information, and it has never asserted that any
particular document is exempt from disclosure. See Republican National Committees
Supplemental Statement of Material Facts (RNCs SMF) 9; June 20, 2016 Declaration of
Edward T. Kang (Kang Decl.) 7 & Ex. C. Instead, the State Department argues that the RNCs
five separate FOIA requests collectively pose an unreasonable burden on the Agency because they
encompass hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. See Def.s Br. 4, 8. That is too heavy a
load, the Government contends, because the State Department can review only about 500 pages a
month (id. at 4)or about as many pages as a typical contract attorney reviews in a day. See David
Degnan, Accounting for the Costs of Electronic Discovery, 12 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 151, 165
(2011) (Industry standards suggest that document reviewers can read, understand, and mark 50
documents [not pages] per hour or 400 documents per day. (emphasis added)).
There are at least three problems with the Governments argument. First, this Court may
not combine the RNCs separate FOIA requests to judge their reasonableness in the aggregate. It
must judge the reasonableness of each request separately. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) (each
agency, upon any request for records . . . . (emphasis added)); id. 552(a)(3)(D) (government
must search for documents responsive to a request) (emphasis added). The RNC could have
filed a separate lawsuit for each FOIA request that the State Department ignored, but it instead
chose to save everyone time and money by consolidating several requests in a single complaint.
The requests are separate and must be evaluated as such. The Government cannot evade its
statutory disclosure obligations by lumping distinct FOIA requests together. See Banks v. Dept of
Justice, 605 F. Supp. 2d 131, 142 (D.D.C. 2009) (If the requests are indeed separate, then
analysis of one will have no impact on the others.).
Second, the Governments argument strains credulity. Whether judged separately or
collectively, the RNCs FOIA requests are reasonable. Each request reasonably describes the
records sought (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A)), specifying the subject matter and date range. And each
yields a manageable universe of documents (the Governments arguments notwithstanding). As
narrowed during this litigation, the RNCs requests seek a subset of emails from just three
custodians: Patrick Kennedy (11,000 emails), Cheryl Mills (64,000 emails), and Bryan Pagliano
(the State Department has not yet identified how many emails are responsive to the Pagliano
request). See RNCs SMF 14; Kang Decl. 14; Stein Decl. (Dkt. No. 19-2) 1920; Def.s
Statement of Material Facts (Def.s SMF) (Dkt. No. 19) 30.
The Governments argument that a document production totaling just under 20,000 pages
for one custodian (Mr. Kennedy) and just over one-hundred thousand pages for another (Ms. Mills)
is unreasonably burdensome is an argument of convenience and nothing more. We do not live in
the era of quill pens or stagecoaches; just like private parties, the Government has access to
sophisticated electronic search tools that make it possible to search large document sets with
relative ease. Indeed, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Government does not hesitate to
demand production of millions upon millions of documents. In the merger context, for instance,
the Governments discovery requests on average require private parties to review 47 GB of emails
and other electronic documents using review tools, which translates to around 4.8 million pages
(including attachments). Peter Boberg & Andrew Dick, Findings From the Second Request
Compliance Burden Survey, The Threshold, Volume XIV, No. 3, A.B.A. Section of Antitrust Law
at 3132 (Summer 2014).9 And those private parties dont have decades to produce the
documentswhich is how long the Government claims that it would take it to produce the
documents in this case. Def.s Br. 2. On average, private parties in merger review have about 5.9
months to meet the Governments demands for documents, which is about as long as this lawsuit
has been on the books. Id. at 28. That is one example from one corner of the Government. No
doubt there are others.
If a private party in litigation with the Government argued that producing 19,000 pages
(the size of the narrowed request for Patrick Kennedy (see Stein Decl. 19)) or even 103,000 pages
(the size of the narrowed request for Cheryl Mills) posed an unreasonable burden, the Government
would reject that argument out of handwhile pressing hard to force disclosure. That the
http://www.crai.com/sites/default/files/publications/Threshold-Summer-2014-Issue.pdf.
Government argues for a different standard here exposes the Governments unreasonable-burden
arguments for what they are: part of a not-so-subtle strategy to delay.
That strategy has become more palpable in recent days. At a June 7, 2016 press briefing,
the State Departments deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, could not help but grin when asked about
the Agencys claim that it would take up to 75 years to respond to the RNC requests at issue in
this case. Toner admitted that 75 years is an incredible number. The video of Toners response
is revealing. See video of Toners response, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPDjpi_IKc8.10
Third, the Governments argument, if accepted, would make it far too easy for government
agencies to avoid FOIAs disclosure requirements. In enacting the statute, Congress wanted to
ensure an informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society, needed to check
against corruption and to hold governors accountable to the governed. N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire
& Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214, 242 (1978). Those values are always important, but they reach their
apex in the days and months leading up to a presidential election. Secretary Clinton is now the
Democratic Partys presumptive nominee for President. How she carried out her duties as a
Cabinet Secretary, and the possibility that she and her top aides flouted State Department
policiespotentially exposing sensitive government information to hackers or jeopardizing
American livesis germane to the publics assessment of her candidacy to lead this Country.
Public scrutiny of her tenure at the State Department is a structural necessity in a real democracy.
Natl Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 172 (2004).
That scrutiny must take place before the American people cast their ballots. As a general
matter, [s]tale information is of little value. Payne Enters., Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486,
10
The RNC highlights the Governments 75-years estimate because it has caught the presss
skeptical eye. In reality, the Governments true years estimate is hard to pin down because many
of the figures in the Governments brief take into account non-responsive records or withdrawn
requests. At last count, the Government appears to claim that it will take more than 17 years to
review the Mills emails, more than 3 years to review the Kennedy emails, and an astonishing 104
years to review the collection of Mr. Paglianos emails (many of which may not even be responsive
to the RNCs request). In any event, the Government contends that processing the responsive
records would take decades, an assertion that is itself incredible. Def.s Br. 2.
494 (D.C. Cir. 1988). In an election year, stale information is of no value at all. If there were ever
a case for enforcing the public-disclosure laws that Congress enacted, it is this one. The American
people should not have to wait decades to learn the truth about Secretary Clintons tenure at the
State Department. They are entitled to know the truth before voting in November.
BACKGROUND
Last October, the RNC submitted four separate FOIA requests seeking emails sent to or by
select State Department staffersCheryl Mills, Jacob Sullivan, Patrick Kennedy, and Bryan
Paglianoeach of whom has been linked to the Clinton email saga. Compl. Exs. 1-4 (Dkt. Nos.
1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4). The RNC also submitted a fifth request seeking text messages and BlackBerry
Messenger messages sent to or by Secretary Clinton. Compl. Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 1-5). In November
2015, the State Department sent five separate letters acknowledging each of the requests and
assigning each a separate Case Control Number. Compl. Ex. 6 (Dkt. No. 1-6). That was the last
that the RNC heard from the State Department until after the RNC filed this lawsuit.
When it became clear that the Government had ignored the RNCs FOIA requests, the RNC
filed this suit on March 9, 2016, nearly five months after it first made the requests. Dkt. No. 1.
After the State Department answered the Complaint, the parties negotiated to narrow the scope of
the RNCs requests. When those negotiations concluded (just before the State Department filed its
motion for summary judgment), the RNCs five FOIA requests had been narrowed as follows:
Request 1Cheryl Mills E-Mails: The RNC originally sought all e-mails sent to, or
sent by, Cheryl Mills from January 21, 2009 to October 31, 2013. See Compl. Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 11); Def.s MSJ Ex. 2 (Dkt. No. 19-3). On May 23, 2016, the RNC narrowed the Mills request by
providing the State Department with three sets of search terms, each to be applied to a designated
period. RNCs SMF 10; Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s Ex. 14 (Dkt. No. 19-15) at 35. Those
search terms focus on the Clinton email and server issues and other areas of controversy, as well
as certain of Secretary Clintons signature policy actions while at the State Department. In
addition, the RNC agreed that the State Department could exclude any blast emails sent by
OpsNewsTicker@state.gov and OpsAlert@state.gov. Id. Applying those May 23 search terms and
time restrictions, the State Department identified 64,000 emails responsive to the Mills request,
which the State Department equates to 103,000 pages. Def.s SMF 30; Stein Decl. 20.
Request 2Jacob Sullivan E-Mails: The RNC originally sought all e-mails sent to, or
sent by, Jacob Sullivan from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. See Compl. Ex. 2 (Dkt. No.
1-2); Def.s MSJ Ex. 3 (Dkt. No. 19-4). During negotiations, the RNC agreed that it would
withdraw its request for Jacob Sullivans emails. RNCs SMF 11; Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s
MSJ Ex. 15 (Dkt. No. 19-16); Stein Decl. 21; Def.s SMF 27.11
Request 3Patrick Kennedy E-Mails: The RNC originally sought all e-mails sent to,
or sent by, Patrick Kennedy from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013, and from August 1, 2014
until the State Department received the RNCs FOIA request. See Compl. Ex. 3 (Dkt. No. 1-3);
Def.s MSJ Ex. 4 (Dkt. No. 19-5). On May 23, 2016, the RNC narrowed that request by providing
the State Department with two sets of search terms for Patrick Kennedys emails, the first to be
applied during Secretary Clintons tenure (January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013), and a second,
shorter list to be applied after August 1, 2014. RNCs SMF 10; Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s
Ex. 14 (Dkt. No. 19-15) at 23. As with the Mills request, the RNC excluded emails from
OpsNewsTicker@state.gov and OpsAlert@state.gov. Applying those search terms, the State
Department identified 11,000 emails responsive to the Kennedy request, which the State
Department estimates to encompass around 19,000 pages. Def.s SMF 30; Stein Decl. 19.
Request 4Bryan Pagliano E-Mails: The RNCs FOIA request originally sought all emails sent to, or sent by, Bryan Pagliano from May 1, 2009 to February 1, 2013. See Compl. Ex.
4 (Dkt. No. 1-4); Def.s MSJ Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 19-6). The State Department initially told the RNC
during an April 21, 2016 phone call that there were no responsive records for Mr. Pagliano. RNCs
SMF 2; Kang Decl. 2. On May 10, 2016after the press raised questions about Mr. Paglianos
11
If there was any doubt on that score, the RNC can confirm that it has withdrawn its request for
Sullivans records.
records12the State Department reversed course and disclosed that it had found some emails
related to Mr. Pagliano. RNCs SMF 5; Kang Decl. 12 & Ex. C. Then later, on May 23, 2016,
the State Department disclosed for the first time that, [i]n a different context, it had compiled
email accounts of other individuals that may have been reasonably likely to have corresponded
with or about Mr. Pagliano. RNCs SMF 12; Kang Decl. 13 & Ex. G; Def.s Ex. 12 (Dkt. No.
19-13) (emphasis added); Stein Decl. 9. According to the State Department, that compilation
contained approximately 392,000 emails. Id.
In a follow-up email, the RNC inquired whether the 392,000 Pagliano-related emails were
all responsive to its request for emails sent or received by Pagliano. RNCs SMF 13; Kang Decl.
13 & Ex. G. The State Department again confirmed that the compiled Pagliano records are much
broader than what the RNC had requested; they include all messages from individuals who may
have been reasonably likely to have corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano, and thus contain
emails which would not be responsive to the RNCs request. RNCs SMF 13; Kang Decl. 13
& Ex. G. To date, the State Department has not told the RNC how many of the 392,000 emails are
responsive to the RNCs FOIA request, nor has it provided any other concrete information about
those records. RNCs SMF 14; Kang Decl. 14.
Request 5Secretary Clinton Text Messages and BBM Messages: The RNC originally
sought all text messages or Blackberry Messenger messages (BBMs) sent to, or sent by, Hillary
Clinton from May 1, 2009 to February 1, 2013. See Compl. Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 1-5); Def.s MSJ Ex.
6 (Dkt. No. 19-7). During an April 21, 2016 phone call, the State Department informed the RNC
that it had searched but not located any responsive records. RNCs SMF 2; Kang Decl. 2. The
RNC has not pressed the request further.
To summarize, the RNC has three outstanding FOIA requests, one each for Cheryl Mills,
Patrick Kennedy, and Bryan Pagliano. As narrowed, the Mills request encompasses 64,000 emails,
12
Josh Gerstein, State Department Claims It Cant Find Any Clinton Texts or Email File for IT
Aide, Politico (May 9, 2016), http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/05/hillaryclinton-texts-bryan-pagliano-emails-222973.
the Kennedy request 11,000 emails; and the Pagliano request an unknown number of documents
(because the Government has not disclosed how many are responsive). In a good-faith effort to
expedite the State Departments productions on the other requests, the RNC withdrew its request
for Jacob Sullivan documents in its entirety.
For the requests still at issue, the State Department has already determined whether the
documents contain classified information. Early in the parties negotiationsbefore the RNC
withdrew its request for Mr. Sullivans emails and further limited its requests for Ms. Millss and
Mr. Kennedys emailsthe State Department informed the RNC that less than ten percent of
the documents sought include classified material. RNCs SMF 9; Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C. At
the time, the requests for Ms. Mills, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Sullivan totaled 450,000 pages; the
page count for the now-narrowed requests is one-quarter of that amount, or approximately 120,000
pages, so the percentage of classified material may now be even lower. Compare id. with Def.s
SMF 30.
Despite that, the Government contends that producing the identified records would
impose an unreasonable burden on the agency. Def.s Br. 2. According to the State Department,
and as set out in its supporting declaration, it can review records for releasability at a rate no faster
than 500 pages per month. Stein Decl. 12; see also id. 19, 20; Def.s Br. 4. Using the agencys
figures, that is about 14 emails per work day.13
According to the agency, it must move at that snails pace regardless of whether the
responsive emails reveal classified material or contain only a one-line lunch order or YouTube
forward. Indeed, the agencys supporting declaration concludeswithout any analysisthat the
review must proceed at a dawdling pace because Ms. Mills and Mr. Kennedy are high-ranking
officials (Stein Decl. 12) and because the Department has other active FOIA cases. Id. 11. The
State Department does not discuss whether it can expedite review by segregating classified
13
The State Department claims it can review 500 pages (not documents) per month, which,
applying the agencys estimate of 1.6 pages per email (see Stein Decl. 9 n.1), comes to 312.5
emails per month. 312.5 emails divided by 22 average calendar work days equals 14.2 emails per
work day.
10
materials; does not explain why, for non-confidential materials, its reviewers can go no faster than
two pages an hour; and does not explain why its reviewers are uniquely (indeed, historically) slow
when compared to the average document reviewer.14
In addition to proposing a tortoise-like review, the Government uses an illusion to
exaggerate the purported burden created by the RNCs requests. Both in its negotiations with the
RNC and now in its briefing to this Court, the State Department repeatedly lumps together the
RNCs requests to complain about the global challenges they impose. See, e.g., Kang Decl. Ex. C
(in an email sent by counsel for the State Department, suggesting that the combined requests for
Ms. Mills, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Sullivanbefore the Mills and Kennedy requests were further
narrowed and the Sullivan request was withdrawnencompassed 450,000 pages and would take
75 years to produce at 500 pages per month); Stein Decl. 14 (same); Def.s Br. 45 (same).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Time and again, the Supreme Court has noted [FOIAs] goal of broad disclosure. Milner
v. Dept of Navy, 562 U.S. 562, 565 (2011); U.S. Dept of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136,
151 (1989); Dept of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Assn, 532 U.S. 1, 78 (2001).
FOIA affords the public access to virtually any federal government record that FOIA itself does
not specifically exempt from disclosure. Charles v. Office of Armed Forces Med. Examr, 730 F.
Supp. 2d 205, 211 (D.D.C. 2010).
FOIA cases are typically and appropriately decided on motions for summary judgment.
Inst. for Policy Studies v. C.I.A., 885 F. Supp. 2d 120, 132 (D.D.C. 2012). Summary judgment
should be granted against a party who . . . fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the
14
See Chris Egan & Glen Homer, Achieve Savings By Predicting and Controlling Total Discovery
Cost,
The
Metropolitan
Corporate
Counsel
(Dec.
1,
2008),
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/pdf/2008/December/08.pdf (For a typical linear review, an
industry-recognized standard is approximately 50 documents per hour, per reviewer. For a
conceptual review product, our historical data shows an average of 200 documents per hour, per
reviewer.).
11
existence of an element essential to that partys case, and on which that party will bear the burden
of proof at trial. Id. at 132.
The State Department argues that it may withhold records responsive to the RNCs requests
because producing them would impose an unreasonable burden on the agency. Def.s Br. 2. It
is the agencys burden . . . to provide sufficient explanation as to why [responding to a FOIA
request] would be unreasonably burdensome. Pinson v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 80 F. Supp. 3d 211,
216 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting Nation Magazine, Washington Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d
885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). The Government has failed to carry that burden, so the RNC is entitled
to summary judgment in its favor.
ARGUMENT
James Madison said that a popular government without popular information or the means
of acquiring it is but a prologue to farce or tragedy or perhaps both. See U.S. Dept of Justice,
Celebrating James Madison and the Freedom of Information Act (Mar. 13, 2008) (With
Madisons views on the importance of an informed citizenry in mind, the occasion of James
Madisons birthday is an excellent opportunity for federal agencies to review their FOIA
operations to ensure that this vital government function is receiving the attention it deserves.).15
In the American legal system, FOIA is one check against opacity in government. Congress enacted
the statute to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of
public scrutiny. Dept of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976); Am. Civil Liberties Union
v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 655 F.3d 1, 5 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
Of course, FOIAs effectiveness depends in large part on courts enforcing the statutes
requirements. Here, that means ordering the State Department to produce the records that the RNC
seeks. The RNCs requestsin addition to being potentially vital to ensuring an informed
electorate this Novemberare modest in size and scope, and the Governments arguments to the
15
https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2008-celebrating-james-madison-and-freedominformation-act.
12
contrary have been met with public derision16 and should enjoy no better reception in court. There
is no basis in the record or the Governments supporting affidavit to credit the Governments
outlandish claim that it would take the State Department decades to respond to the RNCs requests.
See King v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 830 F.2d 210, 223 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (in FOIA case, rejecting
affidavit that was wholly lacking in that specificity of description that is necessary to ensure
meaningful review of an agencys claim to withhold information subject to a FOIA request).
I.
THIS COURT MUST INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE EACH OF THE RNCS

THREE OUTSTANDING FOIA REQUESTS.
Throughout its summary judgment brief, the Government invokes number after number
1,000,000 pages (Def.s Br. 2), decades to process (id.), 22,000 pending FOIA requests (id.
at 3), 300% increase in FOIA requests (id.), 1,500,000 pages of potentially responsive records
(id. at 4), 75 years in total to produce (id. at 5), 392,000 documents, or approximately 627,000
pages (id. at 6), 104 years to process. Id. The Government seems to hope that the barrage of
numbers will overload this Courts senses, overwhelming it into thinking that the RNCs requests
are unduly burdensome. The numbers are a parlor trick.
FOIA requires each agency to review and produce documents upon any request for
records. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) (emphasis added). [N]othing in the Act should be read to
authorize withholding of information or limit the availability of records to the public, except as
specifically stated . . . . Rose, 425 U.S. at 361 (quoting 5 U.S.C. 552(d)). What that means is
that an agency must review and respond to each individual request as it comes in (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(3)(D) (agency must search for documents responsive to a request (emphasis added)));
the agency may refuse to produce a record only if it falls within one of the statutes narrow
exemptions. 5 U.S.C. 552(d); Milner, 562 U.S. at 571 (We have often noted [FOIAs] goal of
16
Byron Tau, Estimate of 75 Years to Release Clinton Aides Email Not an Outlandish
Estimation, Wall St. J. Blog (June 7, 2016), http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/07/estimateof-75-years-to-process-clinton-aides-email-not-an-outlandish-estimation.
13
broad disclosure and insisted that the exemptions be given a narrow compass. (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The State Department would have this Court ignore the statutes call for an independent
review of each FOIA request in favor of an approach whereby the court would lump all the requests
together and then would judge their reasonableness collectively. Recognizing that the aggregate is
far more striking than the individual, the Government tries to blur the lines between the RNCs
five (now three) FOIA requests to distort their scope. It does so by using cumulative page counts
for the combined (and pre-narrowed) requests (Def.s Br. 4) and repeatedly emphasizing the total
number of years (purportedly) needed to process everything. Id. at 5; Stein Decl. 14. But those
numbers are not accurate: Even accepting the Governments unsupported suggestion that its FOIA
reviewers can clear no more than two pages an hour, the decades-to-process position still factors
in troves of records that the RNC is no longer seekingincluding all of Sullivans emails and
emails for the Kennedy and Mills requests that have been eliminated through narrowed search
criteria.
But putting that aside for a moment, it is fundamentally incorrect that the Court can look
to the aggregate burden created by multiple requests in determining whether the Government is
obliged to respond. If the requests are indeed separateand the RNCs arethen the courts
analysis of one should have no impact on the others. Banks v. Dept of Justice, 605 F. Supp. 2d
131, 142 (D.D.C. 2009). [E]ach FOIA request must be evaluated independently . . . . Gulf Oil
Corp. v. Brock, 778 F.2d 834, 841 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (describing interrelationship between FOIA
and the Trade Secrets Act).
The RNC filed five separate FOIA requests consolidated in one lawsuit. Two of those
requestsRequest 2 for Jacob Sullivans emails and Request 5 for Secretary Clintons mobile
device messagesare now off the table. This Court must evaluate each of the three remaining
requestsfor Kennedy, Mills, and Pagliano emailsindependently. Those (now-narrowed)
requests are reasonable on their face, and the Government has provided no credible basis for
denying or delaying production.
14
II.
THE RNCS REMAINING REQUESTS ARE REASONABLE.

Given the barrage of numbers in the Governments brief, it would be easy to lose sight of
what is really at issue in this litigation. Through a series of negotiations with the State Department,
the RNC narrowed its FOIA requests. It now maintains three active requests, each seeking a subset
of emails from three separate custodians (Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Mills, and Mr. Pagliano). For Patrick
Kennedy, the RNC seeks just 11,000 emails totaling approximately 19,000 pages. See Stein Decl.
19; Def.s SMF 30. For Cheryl Mills, the RNC seeks 64,000 emails totaling approximately
103,000 pages. See Stein Decl. 20; Def.s SMF 30.
And then there is the request for Bryan Pagliano. Apparently lacking a repository for Mr.
Paglianos emails, the Government has compiled emails for all individuals who may have been
reasonably likely to have corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano. RNCs SMF 12; Kang
Decl. 13 & Ex. G; Def.s Ex. 12 (Dkt. No. 19-13) (emphasis added). It is simply not plausible
that the United States Government lacks the technological capacity to determine how many of
those emails were sent or received by Mr. Pagliano, the plain language of the RNCs request which
the State Department has had in its possession since last November. Regardless, the Government
still has not told the RNC or this Court how many Pagliano records are responsive to the RNCs
request. RNCs SMF 14; Kang Decl. 14. Because the Government has not reasonably identified
the universe of material responsive to the Pagliano request, the RNC is per se entitled to summary
judgment on that request. At the very least, the Government is per se not entitled to summary
judgment on that request. See Pinson, 80 F. Supp. 3d at 216 (D.D.C. 2015) (It is the agencys
burden . . . to provide sufficient explanation as to why [responding to a FOIA request] would be
unreasonably burdensome.). The Governments request for summary judgment must be denied
for Mr. Paglianos records.
But the Pagliano request is not the only one where the State Department fails to carry its
burden; the Governments arguments about processing burdens are equally unfounded for Ms.
Mills and Mr. Kennedy. In support of its claims about unreasonable burdens, the State Department
15
offers nothing but a conclusory declaration (more on that later) and its own just-trust-me
assurances. But the fact is, the RNCs requests are miniscule compared to what the Government
routinely demands from private parties in civil and criminal litigation. The Government is doing
nothing more than stalling.
The cases that the Government cites do not compel a different conclusion. For instance,
the State Department relies on American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2782
(AFGE) v. U.S. Department of Commerce, 907 F.2d 203, 209 (D.C. Cir. 1990), for the sweeping
proposition that an agency need not comply with a FOIA request that would require the agency
to locate, review, redact, and arrange for inspection a vast quantity of material. Def.s Br. 2; see
also id. at 7, 8 n.2, 9. The Government misapplies AFGE: The decision certainly does not stand
for the proposition that an agency can shirk FOIAs requirements whenever a request requires an
expansive review; if it did, the FOIA statute would have ceased to have meaning upon the dawning
of the email age. Beyond that, AFGEs facts are not comparable to this case. There, the Court held
that a FOIA request was unreasonably burdensome because it sought inspection of literally every
chronological office file and correspondent file, internal and external, for every branch office, staff
office, assistant division chief office, division chief office, assistant directors office, deputy
directors office, and directors office of the Census Bureau. AFGE, 907 F.2d at 205, 20809. In
other words, the requester wanted to look at every single office file for every single employee in
every single office for an entire governmental agency. That, of course, is a far cry from a request
for a subset of emails from a single employee, particularly when the request has been narrowed by
search terms and date limitations.
The other cases cited by the State Department are just as inapposite. Consider Vietnam
Veterans of America Connecticut Greater Hartford Chapter 120 v. Department of Homeland
Security, 8 F. Supp. 3d 188 (D. Conn. 2014), cited on pages 7 and 9 of the Governments brief.
There, the court analyzed a request for between 26,000 and 31,000 50-page separation packets
from the Army, Navy, and other branches of the military. That single request encompassed more
16
than 1.3 million pages of material, and nearly every page contained personally identifying
information that had to be redacted before release. Id. at 203.
The RNCs requests are nothing like that. Take the RNCs request for Patrick Kennedys
emails: According to the State Department, there are only 11,000 responsive emails, totaling
approximately 19,000 pages (Def.s SMF 30; Stein Decl. 19), and it has admitted that the
overwhelming majority of those messages contain non-sensitive information that can be released
without redaction.17 RNCs SMF 9; Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C. The same applies for the 103,000
pages of Cheryl Mills records. There are no legitimate grounds for the State Department to
withhold non-exempted emails. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A); id. 552(d) (records can be withheld
only as specifically stated in the statute).
Similar distinctions can be drawn for each of the Governments remaining cases, and not
just because none discusses the burden of producing (as opposed to searching for) readily
identifiable materials:
In Hainey v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 925 F. Supp. 2d 34, 45 (D.D.C. 2013), the
FOIA request would have required a search of every email sent or received by 25 different
employees just to locate responsive material.
The FOIA request in International Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Department of Defense, 723 F.
Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2010) would have required a manual review of hundreds of thousands
of video and still images to identify responsive material, all by people familiar with the
images of the detainees, and the governments affidavit in the case indicated that the
materials were in a digital format on inaccessible drives and would have to be recovered
and reloaded. See Intl Counsel Bureau v. U.S. Dept of Defense, No. 08-cv-1063 (D.D.C.),
ECF 41-2 at 5.
In Wolf v. C.I.A., 569 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D.C. 2008), the court held that the CIA had
already performed a reasonably calculated search and did not need to review 1940s-era
unsorted microfilm files to search for responsive records.
17
It is not surprising that Patrick Kennedys or Bryan Paglianos emails contain very little
classified material considering that the State Department classified less than five percent of the
50,000 plus emails recovered from Secretary Clinton. See Josh Gerstein & Rachael Bade, State
Dept. Releases Final Haul of Clinton Emails, Politico (Feb. 29, 2016),
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-emails-top-secret-219988.
17
We could go on, but this is not principally about discrediting the Governments cases. What is
most important is that the RNCs three remaining FOIA requests are reasonable by any measure.
Each reasonably describes the records sought (5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A)), and the Government
has had no difficulty identifying those records. It is only because the RNCs requests leave no
doubt about the universe of responsive material that the State Department now argues about
processing burdens.
Regardless, the Governments claims about processing burdens are just another stall tactic.
The RNC is not trying to expose State secrets; it has no interest in agency records that will
jeopardize foreign diplomatic relations or put American lives at risk. The RNCs requests have a
much different aim: to educate the American people about the character and fitness of a
presumptive presidential nominee through the illuminating lens of her actions while Secretary of
State. Secretary Clinton has written a 500-page book defining on her own terms her tenure at the
State Department (see Hillary Rodham Clinton, Hard Choices (2015)), and yet critical questions
remain about how she conducted herself in that high office. For instance, the revelations about
Secretary Clintons private email server have raised serious questions about whether she
knowingly, and with her staffs knowledge or consent, violated federal law. And even more, the
State Department Inspector Generals Report suggests that she may have done so in part to evade
FOIA scrutiny. See IG Rep. at 3839. Before November comes, the American people deserve to
know, to the greatest extent possible, the uncensored truth about Secretary Clintons time at the
State Department. The RNC carefully calibrated its search terms to capture records that will
provide those important answers.
III.
THE STATE DEPARTMENTS SUPPORTING DECLARATION DOES NOT

SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENTS CLAIM THAT THE RNCS REQUESTS ARE
UNDULY BURDENSOME.
The numbers game that the Government plays in its summary judgment brief extends to
the State Departments supporting declaration. The agency packs its declaration with numbers and
figures hoping to lull the Court into believing that the Governments claim about processing
18
burdens is more than posturing. It is not. The Governments declaration is a smokescreenand

not a very good one at that.
The critical issue in this litigation is not how many documents (or pages) come within the
RNCs requests. The central question is twofold: First, can the State Department reasonably
identify the records that the RNC seeks (it admits that it can), and second, can the State Department
process and produce those records without unduly burdening government operations. On the latter
question, the Governments declaration provides nothing but vague and sweeping conclusions
(King, 830 F.2d at 219) that the agency can process documents at a rate no faster than 500 pages
per month. Stein Decl. 12. The Government provides no detailnoneto support that claim.
The law in this Circuit is clear: [A]ffidavits cannot support summary judgment if they are
conclusory, merely reciting statutory standards, or if they are too vague or sweeping. King, 830
F.2d at 219. An agencys affidavit must contain sufficient information and be reasonably
detailed about the reasons why the Government cannot comply with FOIAs mandate. Nation
Magazine, Washington Bureau v. U.S. Customs Serv., 71 F.3d 885, 890 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
Conclusory statements . . . are insufficient to support summary judgment. Id. (reversing order
granting summary judgment for the government because the agency did not submit sufficiently
detailed affidavits to allow [the Court] to review the adequacy of [its] search); Weisberg v. U.S.
Dept of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (To justify [confidence in agency affidavit]
. . . , supporting affidavits must be relatively detailed and nonconclusory and must be submitted
in good faith. (citation omitted)); see also Cuban v. S.E.C., 795 F. Supp. 2d 43, 51 (D.D.C. 2011).
The Governments declaration fails those standards. In a single sentence, the Agencys
declarant (Eric Stein) estimate[s] that the Department [can] review records for releasability at a
rate no faster than 500 pages per month. Stein Decl. 12. Then, assuming that piddling pace,
Stein calculates how long it will take the Agency to process each of the RNCs requests. When he
finally reaches the requests that remain at issue in the litigationparagraphs 13 through 18 discuss
requests that have since been narrowed or droppedStein concludes that it will take 38 months,
or 3 years to process Patrick Kennedys emails (Stein Decl. 19) and 206 months, or 17 years
19
for Cheryl Mills. Id. 20. His calculation for Mr. Pagliano (an astonishing 104 years) is of no
value because it does not address how many of the Pagliano documents are actually responsive to
the RNCs request. Id. 22.
The overarching problem is that the cornerstone for all those numbersfor the entire
declaration, reallyis the Governments estimate that it can process only 500 pages per month.
But for that figure, the declaration provides no analysis, no facts, no foundation to explain how the
Government arrived at that number. It has done no more than baldly assert (Davenport v. C.I.R.,
No. 85 C 8612, 1986 WL 8965, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 13, 1986)) that two of the custodians (Ms.
Mills and Mr. Kennedy) are or were some of the highest-ranking officials of the Department and
that the Department [has] current commitments to FOIA plaintiffs in other cases. Stein Decl.
12. That, of course, is no explanation for the Governments purported calculations.
The Government has not disclosed, for example, how quickly its reviewers move in a
typical review, nor does it explain what is so unique about this case that will bog the process down
to two pages per hour. The Government also fails to acknowledge that most of the documents in
question are non-classified (Kang Decl. Ex. C) and does not discuss the possibility of segregating
non-classified and plainly releasable materials for immediate or rolling production. As best we can
tell, the Government pulled the 500-pages-per-month figure out of thin air. The Governments
declaration is, in a word, inadequatewholly lacking in that specificity of description [that courts
in this Circuit have] repeatedly warned is necessary to ensure meaningful review of an agencys
claim to withhold information subject to a FOIA request. King, 830 F.2d at 223; see also
Weisberg, 627 F.2d at 370 (finding insufficient an agency affidavit that [did] not provide
information specific enough to enable [the plaintiff] to challenge the procedures utilized).
FOIA was conceived in a spirit of skepticism towards facile claims of the need for
complete government secrecy. Davenport, 1986 WL 8965, at *2. The Governments declaration
gives credence to that skepticism. It contains nothing more than [c]onclusory statements (Nation
Magazine, 71 F.3d at 890) that are woefully lacking of the detail necessary for the Court to assess
the Agencys claims. Cuban, 795 F. Supp. 2d at 51.
20
CONCLUSION
There are FOIA requests, and then there are FOIA requests. A citizen curious about the
brand of pencils that the State Department orders is entitled to submit a FOIA request asking for
those records, but transparency about such lesser matters is not a structural necessity in a real
democracy. Favish, 541 U.S. at 172. At the far opposite end of the spectrum lies the RNCs
requests. They go to the heart of one of the most serious matters in our democracy: a presidential
candidates fitness to serve in the Oval Office. Accountability to the public on that question
before Election Dayis indeed a structural necessity in our Country.
This case is not about burdens or capacity or overbroad requests. It is about one
government agencys efforts to keep information from public view long enough to prevent it from
influencing the coming election. It is here that FOIA serves its basic purposeto ensure an
informed citizenry, vital to the functioning of a democratic society has a check against
corruption and the ability to hold the governors accountable to the governed. See Robbins Tire,
437 U.S. at 242.
For all those reasons, this Court should deny the Governments motion for summary
judgment and should grant the RNCs cross-motion for summary judgment.
Respectfully submitted June 20, 2016.
/s/ Edward T. Kang
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F. Street, NW
Telephone: (202) 239-3300
/s/ Brian D. Boone

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
101 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
John R. Phillippe
jphillippe@gop.com
Telephone: (202) 863-8638
21


Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES

STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS AND
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF FACTS
1)
Undisputed.
2)
Undisputed but Incomplete. The full text of the request is contained in Ex. 2 to
the Governments Statement of Material Facts.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Undisputed.
8)
Undisputed.
9)
Undisputed.
10)
Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Justin

Sandberg (counsel for the State Department) advised Edward Kang (counsel for the
RNC) that the State Department had identified approximately 103,000 emails for
Cheryl Mills. See June 20, 2016 Declaration of Edward T. Kang (Kang Decl.)
2.
The number of emails responsive to the Mills request has changed over time
as the RNC has provided additional search terms to narrow the scope of its request.
According to the Governments representations, which the RNC cannot
independently verify, the number of responsive documents now stands at 64,000.
Def.s Statement of Material Facts (SMF) 30; Stein Decl. (Dkt. 19-2) 20.
11)
Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Sandberg

advised Attorney Kang that the State Department had identified approximately
463,000 emails responsive to the Sullivan request. Kang Decl. 2.
The number of documents responsive to the Sullivan request changed over
time as the parties negotiated additional limitations. See Def.s SMF 19, 21, 24,
27. On May 23, 2016, the RNC withdrew its FOIA request for Jacob Sullivan in a
good faith compromise to expedite the Governments production on the RNCs
other requests. Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s MSJ Ex. 15 (Dkt. 19-16); Stein
Decl. 21; Def.s SMF 27.
12)
Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Sandberg

advised Attorney Kang that the State Department had identified approximately
77,000 emails responsive to the Patrick Kennedy request. Kang Decl. 2.
The number of responsive emails for the Kennedy request has changed over
time as the RNC has provided additional search terms to narrow the requests scope.
According to the Governments representations, which the RNC cannot
independently verify, the number of responsive documents now stands at 11,000.
Def.s SMF 30; Stein Decl. 19.
13)
Disputed in part. The RNC has no way to independently verify whether the State
Department has a single, unitary collection of emails sent and received by Mr.
Pagliano during the relevant time period. Def.s SMF 13. During an April 21,
2016 telephone conference, Attorney Sandberg advised Attorney Kang that the
agency had not identified any emails responsive to the Pagliano request. Kang Decl.
2. Later, on May 10, Attorney Sandberg said that the agency had found some
emails related to Mr. Pagliano. Kang Decl. 12 & Ex. C. Then, on May 23, the
State Department disclosed that, [i]n a different context, it had compiled email
accounts of other individuals that may have been reasonably likely to have
corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano, and the total number of emails in that
collection was 392,000, totaling approximately 627,000 pages. Kang Decl. 13 &
Ex. G (emphasis added). The RNC believes that the State Department has the
technical ability to determine how many of those emails are in fact responsive to
its requestthat is, how many were either sent or received by Mr. Paglianobut
the State Department has not yet provided that number. Kang Decl. 14.
14)
Disputed in part. As stated in responses 10 through 13, the RNC disputes the State
Departments estimation of the total number of e-mails responsive to the RNCs
requests.
In addition, the RNC rejects as a point of law the State Departments

aggregation of responsive records for the RNCs separate FOIA requests for Ms.
Mills, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Pagliano in the aggregate; those requests
must be analyzed independently. See RNC Br. 1314; Banks v. Dept of Justice,
605 F. Supp. 2d 131, 142 (D.D.C. 2009) (If the requests are indeed separate, then
analysis of one will have no impact on the others.).
The RNC lacks sufficient knowledge to assess the truth of the State
Departments claim that the agency cannot accurately count how many pages are
responsive to the RNCs requests.
15)
Disputed. The RNC lacks sufficient knowledge to assess the veracity of the State
Departments claims about its FOIA workload and the year-over-year increase in
FOIA requests directed at the agency.
16)
Disputed in part. The RNC disputes that the Kennedy, Sullivan, and Mills requests
are complex. Each request reasonably describes the records sought (5 U.S.C.
552(a)(3)(A)), and the Government has had no difficulty identifying those records.
Further, in prior communications with the RNC, the State Department has
acknowledged that only a small fraction of the Kennedy, Mills, and Sullivan
documents contain classified information. See Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C.
17)
Disputed. The RNC disputes on several grounds the State Departments claim that
it will take 250 years to process the RNCs requests for the Mills, Sullivan,
Kennedy, and Pagliano emails:
First, that estimation assumes that the State Department can review records
at a rate no faster than 500 pages per month (Stein Decl. 12 (emphasis added)),
an absurd figure considering that the industry-standard for document reviewers is

at least 400 documents per reviewer per day. See David Degnan, Accounting for the
Costs of Electronic Discovery, 12 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 151, 165 (2011)
(Industry standards suggest that document reviewers can read, understand, and
mark 50 documents [not pages] per hour or 400 documents per day. (emphasis
added)); see also Chris Egan & Glen Homer, Achieve Savings By Predicting And
Controlling Total Discovery Cost, The Metro Corp. Counsel (Dec. 1, 2008),
http://www.metrocorpcounsel.com/pdf/2008/December/08.pdf (For a typical
linear review, an industry-recognized standard is approximately 50 documents per
hour, per reviewer. For a conceptual review product, our historical data shows an
average of 200 documents per hour, per reviewer.).
Second, the 250-years-to-process estimation is based on wildly inaccurate
numbers. It assumes the RNCs request covers 924,000 documents, when in fact
the number is closer to 75,000 documents: 64,000 documents for Mills (Def.s SMF
30; Stein Decl. 20), and 11,000 documents for Kennedy (Def.s SMF 30; Stein
Decl. 20). It also includes a full 392,000 documents for Bryan Pagliano even
though the Government admits that not all of those documents are responsive to the
RNCs request. Kang Decl. 13 & Ex. G.
Third, the RNC again objects to the State Departments repeated attempt to
view its requests in the aggregate rather than analyzing the actual number of
documents at issue for each individual request. See Response 14.
18)
Undisputed. The RNC does not dispute that the State Department has taken the
position that the RNCs requests are unduly burdensome. The RNC, of course,
disputes the merits of the State Departments contention.
19)
Undisputed. The RNC does not dispute that it provided search terms for the
Kennedy and Sullivan requests and otherwise narrowed those requests in a goodfaith attempt to compromise with the Government. The RNC provided an initial set
of limitations on May 8, 2016, and provided further limitations on May 23, 2016.
Kang Decl. 5, 8 & Exs. B, D.
20)
Undisputed but Incomplete. Paragraph 20 accurately describes the first set of

search limitations provided by the RNC on May 8, 2016. The RNC provided
additional search limitations for Kennedy emails on May 23, 2016. Kang Decl. 8
& Ex. D.
21)
Undisputed but Incomplete. The RNC does not dispute that it provided a list of
43 search terms for Jacob Sullivan on May 8, 2016. In a good-faith effort to
expedite the State Departments productions on the other requests, the RNC
withdrew its request for Jacob Sullivan documents in its entirety on May 23, 2016.
Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s MSJ Ex. 15 (Dkt. 19-16); Stein Decl. 21; Def.s
SMF 27.
22)
Undisputed but Incomplete. The State Department accurately describes the

RNCs May 13, 2016 proposed limitations for Cheryl Mills emails. On May 23,
2016, the RNC provided additional limitations for the Mills requests, including
three sets of search terms to be applied respectively to the periods January 21, 2009
to March 18, 2009, March 19, 2009 to January 11, 2010, and January 12, 2010 to
February 2, 2013. Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D; Def.s Ex. 14 (Dkt. 19-15) at 35.
23)
Disputed. The RNC does not know what the State Department means when it says
that the agency lacks the technical ability to alter the scope of the [RNCs]
requests. As a general matter, the RNC believes the Governments technical
abilities are more developed than the Government claims. But given its uncertainty
about the Governments assertion in paragraph 23, and because it lacks general
awareness about the Governments systems, the RNC cannot adequately assess the
veracity of the Governments statement.
24)
Disputed in part. The State Department claims in paragraph 24 that the RNCs
revised requests yielded 93,000 documents . . . potentially responsive to the
Kennedy request. The State Department has never provided that number (93,000)
to the RNC. After the RNC provided its initial set of search terms for the Kennedy
emails, the State Department told the RNC that it had identified 95,000 (not 93,000
emails). Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C. On May 23, 2016, the RNC provided additional
search limitations for the Kennedy emails, reducing the Governments number of
responsive emails to 11,000. Def.s SMF 30; Stein Decl. 19.
The RNC does not dispute that on May 19, 2016, the State Department told
the RNC that it had identified approximately 120,000 documents for Sullivan and
66,000 documents for Mills. Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C. But those numbers have been
reduced (or in the case of Sullivan, eliminated) based on continuing negotiations.
The RNC has no way to independently verify the accuracy of the

Governments representations about the number of responsive documents for each
of the RNCs independent requests.
25)
Disputed. For many of the same reasons stated in Response 17, the RNC disputes
the State Departments estimates for how long it would take to process the RNCs
requests for Mills, Kennedy, and Sullivan emails. The State Departments estimates
are again based on the agencys unfounded and implausible 500-pages-per-month
review rate. They are also based on a pre-narrowed and no longer accurate estimate
of records responsive to the RNCs requests. See Response 17.
26)
Undisputed. The RNC does not dispute that the State Department has taken the
position that the RNCs requests are unduly burdensome. The RNC, of course,
disputes the merits of that position.
27)
Undisputed.
28)
Undisputed.
29)
Undisputed.
30)
Disputed in part. The RNC does not dispute that the State Department has
represented that, based on its application of the RNCs most-recent search criteria,
the agency has identified 11,000 emails responsive to the Kennedy request and
64,000 emails responsive to the Mills request. The RNC lacks the ability to
independently verify the Governments estimates.
The RNC has reasonable doubts, and therefore disputes, the Governments
calculation of the number of emails responsive to the narrowed Mills request. The
RNC provided additional search-term limitations for the Mills emails on May 23,
2016. Before those search terms were provided, the State Department had
represented that there were 66,000 documents responsive to the Mills request. After
the May 23, 2016 search terms were provided and applied, the new number of
responsive documents became 64,000 emailsa decrease of only 2,000 emails. It
seems unlikely that a proper application of the RNCs search terms would reduce
that document set by only three percent, but the RNC has no way to verify whether
the search terms were accurately applied.
31)
Disputed in part. The RNC does not dispute that is has not offered search terms
for the Pagliano emails. But that is because the State Department has not yet told
the RNC how many emails are actually responsive to the Pagliano request. Kang
Decl. 13, 14. The State Departments 392,000-document estimate represents a
collection of records that far exceedslikely in the order of magnitudesthe
RNCs request for Pagliano emails. Id. Until the State Department tells the RNC
how many of those records are responsive, there is no use in providing search-term
limitations. Id.
32)
Disputed. For the reasons provided in Response to paragraphs 17 and 25, the RNC
again disputes the State Departments estimate for how long it will take to process
the RNCs requests for Mills, Kennedy, and Pagliano. The State Departments
estimate for all three custodians is improperly based on its unfounded and
implausible 500-pages-per-month estimated review pace. In addition, the estimate
for Pagliano is not at all probative of the agencys burden regarding the RNCs
requests because it assumes a review of an enormous swath of records that were
not requested by the RNC.
33)
Undisputed. Although the RNC has no way to independently verify the State
Departments assertion that it conducted a search for Secretary Clintons text and
BlackBerry Messenger messages, the RNC does not dispute the Governments
claim that it did.
34)
Undisputed. The RNC lacks the ability to independently verify the truth of the
Governments claim that it found no records responsive to the RNCs request for
Secretary Clintons mobile device messages, but it does not dispute the State
Departments claim.
35)
Undisputed. Although the RNC lacks the ability to verify some of the claims in
paragraph 35, it does not dispute them.
THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES SUPPLEMENTAL

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
1.
The RNC submitted five FOIA requests on October 29, 2015. Compl. Exs 1-5;
Def.s MSJ Exs. 2-6. The State Department acknowledged receipt of those requests
in separate letters in November 2015. Compl. Ex. 6; Def.s MSJ Ex. 7. The State
Department did not again contact the RNC about its requests until after the RNC
filed this lawsuit on March 9, 2016.
2.
On April 21, 2016, counsel for the State Department (Jason Sandberg) and counsel
for the RNC (Edward Kang) held a phone conference to discuss the RNCs requests
and the pending litigation. During that call, Attorney Sandberg provided the State
Departments initial assessment about the number documents potentially
responsive to the RNCs requests:
10
a. Cheryl Mills: The State Department represented that it had identified

approximately 103,000 emails responsive to the Mills request, of which
approximately 36,000 were classified.
b. Patrick Kennedy: The State Department represented that it had identified
approximately 77,000 emails responsive to Kennedy request, of which

approximately 7,000 were classified.
c. Jacob Sullivan: The State Department represented that it had identified 463,000
emails responsive to the Sullivan request, of which approximately 20,000 were
classified.
d. Bryan Pagliano: The State Department represented that it had not found any
emails responsive to the Pagliano request during the relevant time period.
e. Secretary Clinton BlackBerry Messenger Messages (BBMs) and Text
Messages: The State Department represented that it had not found any BBMs
or text messages responsive to the Secretary Clinton request during the
relevant time period.
Kang Decl. 2. All told, the Governments report indicated that it had identified
approximately 643,000 responsive emails.
3.
During the April 21, 2016 telephone conference, the Government took the position
that it would be unreasonably burdensome to produce all of the documents that it
had identified. Kang Decl. 3.
4.
On May 2, 2016, the Government asked whether the RNC would provide search
terms to potentially narrow the scope of the FOIA requests. Kang Decl. 4 & Ex.
A.
11
5.
On May 6, 2016, the Government and RNC conferred about a possible joint motion
to extend the time for filing a production schedule or dispositive motion. As part of
its proposed edits to the Governments draft motion, the RNC communicated its
understanding about the Governments position that no documents existed that
were responsive to the Pagliano request. Kang Decl. 9 & Ex. E. The Government
did not indicate at that time that the RNCs understanding was incorrect or that the
State Department had identified (or was potentially able to identify) emails
responsive to the Pagliano request. Kang Decl. 10 & Ex. F. On May 10, 2016,
one day after several news outlets published articles about the State Departments
representation that it could not identify any emails for Bryan Pagliano, the
Government informed the RNC that it had found some emails related to Mr.
Pagliano. Kang Decl. 12 & Ex. C.
6.
On May 8, 2016, the RNC provided proposed search terms for the Kennedy and
Sullivan FOIA requests. Kang Decl. 5 & Ex. B.
7.
On May 13, 2016, the RNC provided proposed limitations to narrow the number of
responsive emails for the Mills request. Kang Decl. 6 & Ex. C.
8.
On May 18, 2016, the Government represented that, after applying the RNCs
initial search limitations for Kennedy, Mills, and Sullivan, it had identified a total
of 450,000 responsive emails. Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C.
9.
On May 19, 2016, in response to a question posed by the RNCs counsel, the
Government represented that less than ten percent of the estimated 450,000
responsive pages were classified. Kang Decl. 7 & Ex. C. In that same exchange,
the Government broke down the 450,000 document estimate and represented that
12
120,000 of those emails belonged to Jacob Sullivan, 95,000 belonged to Patrick

Kennedy, and 66,000 belonged to Cheryl Mills. Id.
10.
On May 23, 2016, the RNC proposed additional search-term limitations for Patrick
Kennedy and Cheryl Mills. Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D. For Cheryl Mills, the RNC
provided three lists of search terms, each to be applied to a designated period. For
Patrick Kennedy, the RNC provided two sets of search terms, the first to be applied
during Secretary Clintons tenure (January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013), and a
second, shorter list to be applied after August 1, 2014. Additionally, the RNC
informed the Government that it could exclude any blast emails sent by
OpsNewsTicker@state.gov and OpsAlert@state.gov to Mills and Kennedys
emails. Id.
11.
Along with its narrowed search terms for Mills and Kennedy, on May 23, 2016, the
RNC proposed to withdraw its request for Jacob Sullivans emails in its entirety
without prejudice. Kang Decl. 8 & Ex. D.
12.
On May 23, 2016, the Government disclosed for the first time that, [i]n a different
context, it had compiled email accounts of other individuals that may have been
reasonably likely to have corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano. Kang Decl.
13 & Ex. G (emphasis added). According to the Government, that compilation
contained approximately 392,000 emails, totaling approximately 627,000 pages. Id.
13.
In response to a question posed by the RNCs counsel, on May 24, 2016, the
Government confirmed that the 392,000 Pagliano documents included more than
just emails sent or received by Pagliano (as requested by the RNC); instead, the
Pagliano compilation included all messages from individuals who may have been
13
reasonably likely to have corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano, and thus
contain emails which would not be responsive to the RNCs request. Kang Decl.
13 & Ex. G.
14.
The State Department has not informed the RNC how many of the 392,000 emails
are responsive to the RNCs FOIA request. Kang Decl. 14.
Dated: June 20, 2016

/s/ Edward T. Kang
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F. Street, NW
Telephone: (202) 239-3300
/s/ Brian D. Boone

ALSTON & BIRD LLP
101 S. Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28280
Telephone: (704) 444-1000
John R. Phillippe
jphillippe@gop.com
Telephone: (202) 863-8638
14
Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20-1 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 5
Exhibit A
Hatchett, Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sandberg, Justin (CIV) <Justin.Sandberg@usdoj.gov>

Monday, May 2, 2016 3:30 PM
Kang, Edward; Sierra, Laura; Barnaby, Kelley
RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461
Ted: Good afternoon. Did you get any more information about whether or how your client would be interested in
narrowing the request? Were not comfortable with defining the request (i.e., saying that we will search X number of
Mills emails). But if youre interested in the last 3 months, or 6 months, or year of Cheryl Mills emails (or whatever),
then I can ask my client if those are searches that they are willing to do based on the volume of documents. That said, a
subject-matter based limitation would seem to be a better way to limit the documents and get what youre interested
in.
Given the current May 9 deadline for filing a schedule or dispositive motion, Id appreciate if you could get back to me
ASAP. I look forward to hearing from you. Justin
From: Kang, Edward [mailto:Edward.Kang@alston.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:19 AM
To: Sandberg, Justin (CIV); Sierra, Laura; Barnaby, Kelley
Cc: Jason Torchinsky
Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461
Very sorry Justin. Can we move our call to this afternoon? Im free between 1-2:30. And yes, we can use the dial-in
below.
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
Alston + Bird LLP I 950 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
http://www.alston.com/professionals/edward-kang/
From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [mailto:Justin.Sandberg@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 10:17 AM
To: Kang, Edward <Edward.Kang@alston.com>; Sierra, Laura <Laura.Sierra@alston.com>; Barnaby, Kelley
<Kelley.Barnaby@alston.com>
Cc: Jason Torchinsky <jtorchinsky@hvjt.law>
Ted: Good morning. Were using the number and code below for todays call, correct? Talk to you at 11. Best, Justin
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Sandberg, Justin (CIV); Sierra, Laura; Barnaby, Kelley
Cc: Jason Torchinsky
That works. Lets use the dial-in below:

Dial-in: 888-525-7866
1
Exhibit B

Barnaby, Kelley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kang, Edward
Sunday, May 8, 2016 1:59 PM
Sandberg, Justin (CIV)
Barnaby, Kelley
RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion
FOIA Search Terms - Kennedy Clinton Tenure- Batch 2.docx; FOIA Search Terms Kennedy Post Clinton - Batch 2.docx; FOIA Search Terms - Sullivan - Batch 2.docx
Hi Justin. Attached please find our clients proposed search terms for the Kennedy and Sullivan emails. Please note that
for the Kennedy emails, we have two groups of search terms one group for when Clinton was at the State Department
and another group for after she left that position. Thanks very much, and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 4:31 PM
To: Kang, Edward <Edward.Kang@alston.com>
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley <Kelley.Barnaby@alston.com>
Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion
Ted: No problem. We cannot incorporate these edits. Accordingly, in our motion for an extension, we will note your
clients lack of consent. Best, Justin
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:06 AM
To: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Justin,
Thank you for sending this over. Attached are our suggested edits. If accepted, we would not oppose the motion. If our
edits cannot be incorporated, our client does not consent to the motion, but we do not object to your representation
that the parties have met and conferred on this issue. Much appreciated.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
1

202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 4:27 PM
Ted: Here is the motion that we intend to file tomorrow. Please let me know your position by noon tomorrow, if at all
possible. Best, Justin
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Lets use the dial-in again:

Dial: 888-525-7866
Code: 202-239-3728
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Okay. Should I call you in your office? Best, J
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
We could do 2:30.
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
2

Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2016 11:23 AM
3?
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Yes, what time works with you?

__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Subject: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion
Good morning, Ted. Tomorrow, we plan to file an extension motion related to the May 9 deadline. Do you have time to
chat briefly this afternoon, so that I can get your position on it? Best, Justin
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:39 AM
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Lets use this dial in:

Dial: 888-525-7866
Code: 202-239-3728
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
3
P atrickKennedy Keyw ord ForT im efram eO f1/21/09 2/1/13

P agliano
O IG
IR M
InspectorGeneral
S w art
Geisel
S erver
S IGAR
P rivate
S IGIR
P ersonal
Abuse
Classified
M isconduct
S ensitive
W aste
S ecure
Allege
Clinton
Violation
Hack
M isconduct
Breach
Em barrass
W JC
Donate
HR C
Donor
S ecretary
Friend
Gutm an
M oney
Exceptionalcircum stance
Aw ard
4322
Contribute
June3,2011
Contribution
Brussels
Foundation
M anagem entIssue
CGI
FO IA
CHAI
Freedom ofInform ationAct
Giustra
S lim
Guantanam o
Band
GT M O
T eneo
Gitm o
Declan
Benghazi
U BS
S ubpoena
W allS treet
Chevron
Bank
Frack
Goldm an
Issa
Boeing
Chaffetz
R aytheon
Israel
S ym bion
W histleblow er
Contract
M SPB
Grant
FS GB
O P IC
T ripleCanopy
M ills
Appoint
Cheryl
S cheduleC
Hum a
Invest
Visa
FBI
J-1
P odesta
M enendez
M cL arty
P reval
O TI
Caracol
W aiver
Disclaim er:Keyw ordsareinclusiveofapartialappearance.Forexam ple,forthekeyw ord

w aste,
w astedandw astefulw ouldberesponsivetothatkeyw ord.
P atrickKennedy Keyw ord ForT im efram eO f8/1/14 DateR equestW asR eceived
Kendall
L inick
S am uelson
ICIG
IR M
Abuse
S w art
M isconduct
Connolly
W aste
P agliano
Allege
IR M
Violation
S erver
M isconduct
P rivate
Em barrass
P ersonal
Donate
Classified
Donor
S ensitive
CGI
S ecure
CHAI
Clinton
BHCCF
Hack
M ills
Breach
Cheryl
W JC
CDM
HR C
Hum a
S ecretary
Abedin
FO IA
M enendez
Freedom ofInform ationAct
Benghazi
O IG
S ubpoena
InspectorGeneral
Issa
Chaffetz
Chappaqua
Gow dy
Blum enthal
Invest
W ilkinson
FBI
R odriguez
Com ey
W hiteHouse
Baker
P latte
Coordinate
W arrant
Jacobs
Delete
A/GIS /IP S
W ipe
Hackett
T hum b
Fischer
Flash
Grafeld
Gm ail
N AR A
HFACC
W ade
Elias
Counsel
Attorney
L egalAdviser
S hannon
P saki
Frantz
Disclaim er:Keyw ordsareinclusiveofapartialappearance.Forexam ple,forthekeyw ord

w aste,
w astedandw astefulw ouldberesponsivetothatkeyw ord.
Ja c ob Sulliva n K e yw ord sForTim e fra m e O f1/21/09 2/1/13
Boko
De sa i
Ca ra c ol
Rose nb e rg e r
Gua nta na m o
Donor
GTM O
W JC
Gitm o
H RC
Re d line
CDM
Be rg d a hl
Ba nk
Ze la ya
La nny
Anvil
Ba lli
Che vron
UBS
She ll
Ab ort
Boe ing
Ta nd e n
Fra c k
Kha m e ne i
Contra c t
2016
Pod e sta
W e stBa nk
M c La rty
Se ttle m e nt
FSGB
SOFA
Pre va l
M a d uro
M a rte lly
M a g nitsky
OPIC
CSCC
Ba nd
Re se t
Te ne o
Disc la im e r:Ke yw ord sa re inc lusive ofa pa rtia la ppe a ra nc e .Fore xa m ple ,forthe ke yw ord
w a ste , wa ste d a nd w a ste fulw ould b e re sponsive totha tke yw ord .
Exhibit C
Hatchett, Andrew
Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:23 PM
Kang, Edward
Barnaby, Kelley
RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ted: Thanks for your email. Ive provided answers to your questions below. It is important to understand that the
document counts here are approximations, and the resulting page counts are based on an assumption of approximately
1.6 pages per document. The actual length could fluctuate considerably from one document to the next. Moreover,
because we werent in a position to open each attachment to an email, the estimate is based solely on parent
documents. Thus, the total number of pages, even after narrowing, is likely quite a bit higher than 450,000 pages.
Are the 450,000 pages that you identify below include classified material? If it does, what is the page count for only
non-classified?
This figure is, as we mentioned, a rough estimate. Of those approximately 450,000 pages, less than ten
percent were classified.
Can you break down the total page count by the three custodians at issue (Kennedy, Mills, Sullivan)?
Sullivan had approximately 120,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 200,000 pages, after
search criteria were applied.
Kennedy had approximately 95,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 150,000 pages, after
search criteria were applied.
Mills had approximately 66,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 100,000 pages, after search
criteria were applied.
Are you further able to break down the number of pages associated with each of the search terms that we sent
you?
The fact that the documents were in various formats and databases necessitated a variety of search
techniques to arrive at this estimate. As such, such a breakdown is not readily available.
I look forward to hearing from you. Justin
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing
Hi Justin. Thank you for the update. We have a few follow-up questions based on your email.
Are the 450,000 pages that you identify below include classified material? If it does, what is the page count for
only non-classified?
1
Can you break down the total page count by the three custodians at issue (Kennedy, Mills, Sullivan)?
Are you further able to break down the number of pages associated with each of the search terms that we sent
you?
Answers to these questions will better guide us on discussing next steps. Thanks very much.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:34 PM
Good evening, Ted.
We have assessed, to the extent possible given technological limitations, the effect of the search terms and date limits
on the universe of documents potentially responsive to your requests for the Mills, Sullivan, and Kennedy
records. Unfortunately, with respect to these three requests, there are approximately 450,000 total potentially
responsive pages. Given the Departments current workload and the complexity of the review required for these
documents, including interagency consultations, the Department cannot process more than 500 pages a month. Thus, it
would take about 75 years to process these requests. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that, even as
narrowed, each of these three requests would impose an unreasonable burden, and it will not gather or process
documents potentially responsive to them. Please let me know how you would like to proceed as to these requests, i.e.,
whether you would like to move to summary judgment briefing or would prefer to jointly seek an extension of the
upcoming deadline to allow the parties to negotiate more limited requests.
The Department continues to gather information regarding the requests related to Pagliano and Secretary Clinton, and I
hope to have more information to share with you tomorrow.
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Hi Justin. Here is what my client proposes on limitations for the Mills production. We look forward to your
response. Thank you.
Proposed limitations on Mills-related documents

2
1/21/09 1/11/10 can be dropped from the timeframe of our request.
For the period 1/12/10 2/2/13, please exclude all emails received from:
OpsNewsTicker@state.gov
OpsAlert@state.gov
For the period 2/3/13 10/31/13, the request remains unmodified (Produce these emails first)
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Good afternoon, Ted. Do you know when you will be able to send those search terms? Best, Justin
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:34 PM
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Justin,
Thank you for your email. We look forward to hearing from you about how much our Kennedy/Sullivan search terms
were able to limit the volume of documents please let us know as soon as possible once you have more
information. We will be providing you with search terms with respect to the Mills emails, and we will be providing you
with those terms later this week.
I also appreciate the update on the Pagliano records. While I dont recall being told that the information previously
provided was not final (I only recall being informed that there were no Pagliano and Clinton records that were
responsive to our requests), I am glad to hear that the State Department has been able to locate emails related to Mr.
Pagliano. We would request that those emails be produced as soon as possible.
Do you know if the State Department has similarly been able to locate any blackberry and/or text messages with respect
to Mrs. Clinton from the requested time period? Thank you very much.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
3

202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:21 PM
Ted: We are assessing whether the search terms that you have proposed for the Kennedy and Sullivan emails will
meaningfully reduce the volume of documents to a reasonable level. I take it that your client is declining to provide
search terms with respect to the Mills emails. Is that correct? Also, Ive been informed that the State Department has
some emails related to Mr. Pagliano, and Im in the process of gathering more information about those. Of course, as I
noted during our conversations, the information that I provided to you earlier was not final. I look forward to hearing
from you. Justin
Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 1:59 PM
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Hi Justin. Attached please find our clients proposed search terms for the Kennedy and Sullivan emails. Please note that
for the Kennedy emails, we have two groups of search terms one group for when Clinton was at the State Department
and another group for after she left that position. Thanks very much, and enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Exhibit D
Hatchett, Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kang, Edward
Monday, May 23, 2016 3:17 PM
Barnaby, Kelley
RE: RNC v. State Dep't, 16-461: Pending extension motion
5.23.2016 BATCH 2 Proposed Search Terms & Modifications.docx
Justin, as I mentioned, attached are our further search terms in an effort to narrow the scope of our requests. As you
will see, my client is willing to withdraw its request for Sullivan records in its entirety (without prejudice, of course) in an
effort to meet you halfway and get the process of document production started. Please let me know what your
thoughts and position are with respect to these terms. Much appreciated.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 12:14 PM
Subject: RNC v. State Dep't, 16-461: Pending extension motion
Good afternoon, Ted. If the judge hasnt ruled on our extension request by mid-afternoon, Ill probably call chambers to
alert them to the pending motion. Would you like to be on the call? I look forward to hearing from you. Justin
Proposed Search Terms and Other Modifications (No. 1-16-cv-00461)

Disclaimer: All keywords presented below are inclusive of a partial appearance (for example,
for the keyword waste, wasted and wasteful would be responsive to that keyword).
I. Global Exclusions
Exclude all emails received from:
1. OpsNewsTicker@state.gov; and
2. OpsAlert@state.gov
II. Jacob Sullivan Records
Drop in its entirety.
III. Patrick Kennedy Records
A. From January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013
Pagliano
4322.2
Swart
June 2, 2011
Server
June 3, 2011
WJC
Management Issue
HRC
Geisel
CDM
CGI
clintonemail.com
CHAI
Gutman
Teneo
Exceptional circumstance
Inspector General
FOIA
IG
B. From August 1, 2014 to Date the Department of State Received FOIA Request
Kendall
CDM
Samuelson
FBI
Pagliano
Chappaqua
clintonemail.com
Blumenthal
HRC
Wilkinson
CGI
Platte
CHAI
IV. Cheryl Mills Records
A. From January 21, 2009 to March 18, 2009
@clintonemail.com
hr15@att.blackberry.net
hr15@mycingular.blackberry.net
H2
NYU
B. From March 19, 2009 to January 11, 2010

hr15@att.blackberry.net
hr15@mycingular.blackberry.net
H2
C. From January 12, 2010 to February 2, 2013

HRC
4322.2
WJC
Geisel
Band
Merrigan
Teneo
Donate
Declan
Donor
Desai
Contract
McKenna
Contribute
Justin Cooper
Contribution
Roger Clinton
Diplomacy Center
Rodham
CGI
Podesta
CHAI
Terry Mcauliffe
Bernstein
Flournoy
Giustra
Lanny
UBS
Visa
Goldman
Joe Wilson
Caracol
Sbwhoeop
Warnholz
cheryl.mills@gmail.com
Whistleblower
SGE
MSPB
Pagliano
FSGB
Gutman
Kendall
June 2, 2011
FOIA
June 3, 2011
Freedom of Information Act
Chappaqua
Clintonhealthaccess.org
Marcum
CGEP
Chelseaoffice.com
FMS
presidentclinton.com
DSCA
OIG
Shanghai Expo
Clintonglobalinitiative.com
OPIC
D. From February 3, 2013 to October 31, 2013

All responsive records i.e., no modifications but for Global Exclusions listed above.
Exhibit E
Hatchett, Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kang, Edward
Friday, May 6, 2016 10:06 AM
Barnaby, Kelley
HRC 461 - Motion for Extension of Time to File Schedule May 2016_Alston & Bird
edits.DOCX
Justin,
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley

Dial: 888-525-7866
Code: 202-239-3728
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

____________________________________
)
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL
)
COMMITTEE,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
)
STATE,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
[UNOPPOSED] MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PRODUCTION
SCHEDULE OR DISPOSITIVE MOTION
In an April 12, 2016 order, the Court instructed the State Department to file a dispositive
motion or, in the alternative, a report setting forth the schedule for the completion of its
production of documents to plaintiff by May 9, 2016. ECF Dckt. No. 10. The State
Department and plaintiff are engaged in discussions related to the establishment of a production
schedule, and the State Departments goal is to reach an agreement on a schedule and, thereby,
potentially eliminate the need for the Court to decide a dispositive motion. Accordingly, the
State Department requests an extension of time until May 2316, 2016 to file a report setting forth
a schedule for the completion of its production or a proposed briefing schedule for a dispositive
motion. Plaintiff [does not oppose] this motion, but notes that with respect to the following two
FOIA requests in this case, the State Department has represented that no responsive records
exist:
. Any and all emails sent to, or sent by, Bryan Pagliano for the time period May 1, 2009
through February 1, 2013.
1
Any and all text messages or BlackBerry Messenger messages (BBMs) sent to, or sent
by, Hillary Clinton for the time period May 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013.
Based on the State Departments representation, Plaintiff submits that additional
discussion on a production schedule with respect to those two requests is not needed.
Dated: May QT, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
CHANNING PHILLIPS
United States Attorney
ELIZABETH J. SHAPIRO
Deputy Director, Federal Programs Branch,
Civil Division
/s/ Justin M. Sandberg
JUSTIN M. SANDBERG
(Ill. Bar No. 6278377)
Trial Attorney
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Division,
Federal Programs Branch
20 Mass. Ave., NW, Rm. 7302
(202) 514-5838 phone
(202) 616-8202 fax
justin.sandberg@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendant
Exhibit F

Barnaby, Kelley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Friday, May 6, 2016 4:31 PM
Kang, Edward
Barnaby, Kelley
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Justin,
Ted
__________________________________________________________
E d ward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
From :Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [mailto:Justin.Sandberg@usdoj.gov]
S ent:Thursday, May 5, 2016 4:27 PM
T o:Kang, Edward <Edward.Kang@alston.com>
Cc:Barnaby, Kelley <Kelley.Barnaby@alston.com>
S ubject:RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley

Dial: 888-525-7866
1

Code: 202-239-3728
__________________________________________________________
E d ward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
S ent:Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:07 PM
Okay. Should I call you in your office? Best, J
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
We could do 2:30.
__________________________________________________________
E d ward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
S ent:Thursday, May 5, 2016 11:23 AM
3?
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Yes, what time works with you?

__________________________________________________________
E d ward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
2

S ent:Thursday, May 5, 2016 10:33 AM
S ubject:Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion
Good morning, Ted. Tomorrow, we plan to file an extension motion related to the May 9 deadline. Do you have time to
chat briefly this afternoon, so that I can get your position on it? Best, Justin
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Lets use this dial in:

Dial: 888-525-7866
Code: 202-239-3728
__________________________________________________________
E d ward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
S ent:Wednesday, May 4, 2016 9:27 AM
Cc:Sierra, Laura <Laura.Sierra@alston.com>; Barnaby, Kelley <Kelley.Barnaby@alston.com>
S ubject:RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461
Yes.
-----Original Message----From: Kang, Edward [mailto:Edward.Kang@alston.com]
Cc: Sierra, Laura; Barnaby, Kelley
Subject: Re: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461
Justin, are you free for a call at 10?
Sent from my iPhone
On May 3, 2016, at 9:23 AM, Sandberg, Justin (CIV)
<Justin.Sandberg@usdoj.gov<mailto:Justin.Sandberg@usdoj.gov>> wrote:
Thanks, Ted.
3
Exhibit G
Hatchett, Andrew
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Thursday, May 26, 2016 1:34 PM
Kang, Edward
Barnaby, Kelley
RE: RNC v. State, 16-461: Pagliano Records, New Search Terms, Extension
Ted: Good afternoon. The Pagliano records were previously collected from the email accounts of other individuals who
may have been reasonably likely to have corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano on certain specific topics. Thus, they
would likely contain both emails with him, which would be responsive to your clients request, and potentially contain
emails with others about him, which would not be responsive. Please let me know how you want to proceed with
regard to the Pagliano-related request. Justin
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:41 AM
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Subject: RE: RNC v. State, 16-461: Pagliano Records, New Search Terms, Extension
Thanks Justin. We would consent to an extension until next Wednesday, June 1. We think that that should be sufficient
to run the search terms and negotiate the production schedule.
Regarding the Pagliano-related documents, can you clarify the 392,000 emails that you reference below? Based on your
explanation, it appears that these are not emails that were sent or received by Pagliano, but are emails of other
individuals that reference Mr. Paglianos name. Could you please confirm whether that understanding is accurate and if
so, what methodology was used to locate these emails? Thank you very much.
Ted
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Ted: Recognizing that Monday is Memorial Day, we would propose an extension until next Friday (June 3) to give us
time to run the terms and, if they narrow things enough, negotiate a production schedule with you all. Please let me
know what you think ASAP given tomorrows deadline. Best, Justin
From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)
To: 'Kang, Edward'
1

Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Ted: Thanks for your email. As I said, we wont know the effect of the search terms by tomorrow we would need an
extension. Ill get back to you ASAP on the proposed length. Best, J
Cc: Barnaby, Kelley
Thanks Justin. Yes, the more recent search terms are meant to replace the previous search terms. I will get back to you
on your request with respect to Pagliano, but in the meantime, please let us know how much our new search terms
narrow the scope of responsive documents on the other requests.
__________________________________________________________
Edward T. Kang
202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 C
Ted: Good morning. From our end, determining next steps and timing depends largely on whether the search terms
that you provided are meant to replace the previous search terms or whether they are just additions to the previous lists
(for the reasons mentioned below). Let me know. Justin
From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 3:42 PM
To: edward.kang@alston.com
Cc: kelley.barnaby@alston.com
Subject: RNC v. State, 16-461: Pagliano Records, New Search Terms, Extension
Ted:
Good afternoon. I write regarding several topics.
First, I have information regarding your request for emails sent to or by Mr. Pagliano. The State Department does not
have a single, unitary collection of emails sent and received by Mr. Pagliano for the relevant time period. In a different
context, the Department compiled the email accounts of other individuals that may have been reasonably likely to have
corresponded with or about Mr. Pagliano on certain specific topics. The compilation of those email accounts contains
approximately 392,000 documents, totaling approximately 627,000 pages, that are potentially responsive to your
clients request. Reviewing and redacting such a large volume of records would impose an unreasonable burden on the
agency. But if you are interested providing search terms to narrow this request, then we can discuss asking the Court for
time to continue negotiating with respect to this request and in light of your earlier email, the other requests as well.
One question on the new search terms: Are these replacements for the previous search terms? If so, then they might
lessen the load. But if not, then I think they would, if anything, sweep in more documents. Also, as I said, we would
2

need an additional extension to determine the efficacy of these search terms; Ill consult with my client about how long
they think they would need.
NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments may contain legally privileged and confidential information
intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that you may not read, copy, distribute or otherwise use this message or its attachments. If you have received
this message in error, please notify the sender by email and delete all copies of the message immediately.

Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
PROPOSED ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties cross-motions for summary judgment, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED;
(2) Plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment is GRANTED; and
(3) Judgement be entered in favor of Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: __________________
___________________________
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge

Merged 36890 - 1-1466515221

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Merged 36890 - 1-1466515221

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 1:16-CV-461 (ABJ)

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES

Dated: June 20, 2016

/s/ Brian D. Boone

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Case No. 1:16-CV-461 (ABJ)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENTS MOTION FOR

Edward T. Kang (D.C. Bar 1011251)

Brian D. Boone (D.C. Bar No. 987633)

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 41

This Court must independently evaluate each of the RNCs three

The RNCs remaining requests are reasonable..................................................... 15

The State Departments supporting declaration does not support the

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 41

N.L.R.B. v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co.,

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 41

On June 1, 2016, Bryan Paglianothrough his legal counselannounced that he

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 41

THIS COURT MUST INDEPENDENTLY EVALUATE EACH OF THE RNCS

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 41

THE RNCS REMAINING REQUESTS ARE REASONABLE.

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 41

THE STATE DEPARTMENTS SUPPORTING DECLARATION DOES NOT

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 41

burdens is more than posturing. It is not. The Governments declaration is a smokescreenand

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 41

/s/ Brian D. Boone

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Case No. 1:16-CV-461 (ABJ)

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEES

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 41

Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Justin

Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Sandberg

Disputed. During an April 21, 2016 telephone conference, Attorney Sandberg

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 41

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 31 of 41

In addition, the RNC rejects as a point of law the State Departments

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20 Filed 06/20/16 Page 32 of 41

an absurd figure considering that the industry-standard for document reviewers is