Case 1:12-cv-02034-RBW Document 73 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
JUDICIAL WATCH, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-2034 (RBW)
)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, )
)
Defendant. )
)

ORDER

The plaintiff, Judicial Watch, Inc., brings this civil action against the defendant, the

United States Department of State, under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §

552 (2018), seeking records related to a video advertisement entitled “A Message from the

President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Complaint

¶ 5. On June 21, 2016, the Court issued a stay of this case pending the completion of discovery

in two similar cases pending before other members of this Court, see generally Judicial Watch,

Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, Civil Action Nos. 13-1363 (EGS); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t

of State, Civil Action No. 14-1242 (RCL), in order “[t]o avoid duplicative discovery and

unnecessary expenditure of public funds[.]” See Order at 2–3 (June 21, 2016), ECF No. 40. On

January 31, 2020, the Court lifted the stay in this case, see Order at 1 (Jan. 31, 2020), ECF No.

65, in light of the parties’ representations that Civil Action No. 13-1363 had “been dismissed by

joint stipulation of the parties” and that in Civil Action No. 14-1242 “discovery [was] largely

completed except for a small number of requests [that were still] pending[,]” Joint Status Report

at 1 (Jan. 30, 2020), ECF No. 64. Also on January 31, 2020, the Court ordered the defendant to

“file its motion for summary judgment on or before March 10, 2020,” Order at 1 (Jan. 31, 2020),
 Case 1:12-cv-02034-RBW Document 73 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 4

ECF No. 65, which the defendant timely filed, see generally Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (“Def.’s Mot.”).

On March 31, 2020, the plaintiff filed a motion for discovery, asserting that “before the

Court can consider summary judgment, discovery is necessary [in this case] to determine

whether the [defendant] satisfied its record preservation obligations,” Plaintiff’s Motion for

Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 10, and whether the

defendant intentionally mislead the plaintiff or the Court when it represented to the Court that

“Secretary Clinton exclusively used her ‘clintonemail.com’ email account to conduct official

business or that she took the account with her when she left the department on February 1,

2013,” id. at 12. The plaintiff argues that this case “presents a factual circumstance not present

in” Civil Action Nos. 13-1363 or 14-1242 because this suit was filed before Secretary Clinton

resigned as Secretary and before the subsequent revelation that Secretary Clinton used a non-

“state.gov” email account. Id. at 6–7. Specifically, the plaintiff insists that in the other two

cases—which also involve the defendant’s handling of the former Secretary’s emails—allowed

discovery into the defendant’s “purposeful evasion” of the FOIA, but the plaintiff’s proposed

discovery in this case targets “wrongful removal” of information that occurred in conjunction

with Secretary Clinton’s departure. Id. at 7 (quoting Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom

of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 155 n. 9 (1980)). The defendant responds that, regardless of any

purported legal obligation to do so, “[the] State [Department] has already obtained and searched

all of Secretary Clinton’s emails.” Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery

Pursuant to Rule 56(d) at 12 (citing Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Pompeo, 744 F. App’x 3 (D.C. Cir.

2018)).

2
 Case 1:12-cv-02034-RBW Document 73 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 4

In FOIA cases, “[d]iscovery is only appropriate when an agency has not taken adequate

steps to uncover responsive documents.” Schrecker v. Dep’t of Justice, 217 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35

(D.D.C. 2002) (citing SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1202 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).

“Discovery in FOIA [cases] is rare and should be denied where an agency’s declarations are

reasonably detailed, submitted in good faith[,] and the [C]ourt is satisfied that no factual dispute

remains.” Id. “When allowed, the scope of discovery is usually limited to the adequacy of the

agency’s search and similar matters.” Voinche v. FBI, 412 F. Supp. 2d 60, 71 (D.D.C. 2006).

“An exception to limiting the scope of discovery is made if the plaintiff has made a sufficient

showing that the agency acted in bad faith.” Id. at 72. A presumption of good faith by the

agency “cannot be rebutted by ‘purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability

of other documents.’” SafeCard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200 (quoting Ground Saucer Watch,

Inc. v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 692 F.2d 770, 771 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). “Discovery is not

warranted ‘when it appears that discovery would only . . . afford [the plaintiff] an opportunity to

pursue a bare hope of falling upon something that might impugn the affidavits[.]’” Jarvik v.

Cent. Intelligence Agency, 741 F. Supp. 2d 106, 122 (D.D.C. 2010) (alterations in original)

(quoting Military Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F.2d 724, 751–52 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).

Here, the plaintiff’s assertions are insufficient to support a finding of bad faith. See

Jarvik, 741 F. Supp. 2d at 122. “Where an agency’s affidavits regarding its search are sufficient,

the judge has broad discretion to forgo discovery.” Id. (citing Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942,

960–61(D.C. Cir. 1986)). After reviewing the defendant’s declaration, see generally Def.’s Mot.,

Exhibit 2 (Decl. of Eric F. Stein), and finding it reasonably detailed and submitted in good faith,

the Court concludes the plaintiff’s alleged need for discovery is speculative and insufficient to

delay summary judgment briefing any further. Accordingly, it is hereby

3
 Case 1:12-cv-02034-RBW Document 73 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 4

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is DENIED. It is further

ORDERED that on or before August 14, 2020, the plaintiff shall file its opposition to the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It is further

ORDERED that on or before September 4, 2020, the defendant shall file its reply in

support of its motion for summary judgment. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference on

December 4, 2020, at 11:00 a.m., which will serve as a target date for the resolution of the

parties’ summary judgment motions. In the event that the Court is unable to resolve the motions

by this date, the parties will be advised in advance that the status conference will be continued to

a later date.

SO ORDERED this 17th day of July, 2020.

REGGIE B. WALTON
United States District Judge