UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN OVERSIGHT, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 18-cv-0319 (CRC) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION In November 2017, American Oversight filed a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request that sought records of any guidance Department of Justice (“DOJ”) officials had provided to United States Attorney John W. Huber in his investigation of certain issues related to the 2016 presidential election. Rather than immediately conduct an electronic search for documents, DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (“OIP”) staff reached out to a liaison in the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) to communicate the request. This liaison subsequently discussed the FOIA request with senior leadership within OAG and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (“ODAG”), and eventually with Huber himself. Exactly what was said in these conversations is unknown, but they led to an initial determination that no responsive records existed—largely because the individuals interviewed maintained that the guidance American Oversight sought was never reduced to writing but was instead communicated orally. And yet, when Huber finally saw for himself the reply brief DOJ was set to file in this case—and presumably the actual text of American Oversight’s request—he readily located a responsive email record. DOJ thereafter conducted a supplemental email search, which did not turn up any additional responsive documents. The agency now claims it has fulfilled its FOIA obligations and moves for summary judgment. American Oversight says the agency’s search was inadequate in several ways. It further contends that the DOJ’s initial person-to-person search was carried out in bad faith, and asks the Court’s permission to conduct limited discovery, unusual as it may be in FOIA cases, to better examine the agency’s search efforts. After careful review of the parties’ submissions, and for the reasons that follow, the Court will grant DOJ’s motion for summary judgment and deny American Oversight’s cross-motion for summary judgment and its request for discovery. I. Background In July 2017, twenty members of the House Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Robert Goodlatte, sent a letter to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein asking them “to appoint a second special counsel to investigate a plethora of matters connected to the 2016 election and its aftermath.” Declaration of Vanessa R. Brinkmann (“First Brinkmann Decl.”), Ex. A, ECF No. 16-3, at 12. Congressman Goodlatte and his cosigners expressed the view that the then-existing special counsel investigation into the 2016 election focused too narrowly on “Russian influence on the election and connections with the Trump campaign.” Id. at 12. To correct for this purported “[p]olitical gamesmanship,” they asked that a second special counsel be appointed to investigate “actions taken by previously public figures like Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James Comey, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” Id. Congressman Goodlatte and 13 other House Judiciary members followed up with a second, similar letter in September 2017. Id. at 19. In November 2017, the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Stephen E. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals