Due to the lapse in appropriations, Department of Justice websites will not be regularly updated. The Department’s essential law enforcement and national security functions will continue. Please refer to the Department of Justice’s contingency plan for more information.

Freedom Watch v. BLM, No. 16-2320, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73458 (D.D.C. May 15, 2017) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Date: 
Monday, May 15, 2017

Freedom Watch v. BLM, No. 16-2320, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73458 (D.D.C. May 15, 2017) (Kollar-Kotelly, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning Cliven Bundy

Disposition:  Denying plaintiff's request for immediate production

  • Litigation Considerations:  "[T]he Court finds no basis in fact or law for granting this extraordinary relief."  "Plaintiff in each of its pleadings repeats or implies that the immediate release of the requested materials is necessary for the defense of Cliven Bundy."  "Importantly, however, neither Plaintiff nor its counsel represent Mr. Bundy in his criminal case[.]"  "Regardless of [plaintiff's] involvement in that case, however, as both this Court and Judge Jackson have previously held, the proper mechanism for Mr. Bundy to obtain potentially exculpatory evidence is through the criminal discovery process."  "Plaintiff also relies upon the public interest in the materials sought."  "Although the Court in no way doubts that the public has an interest, perhaps even a substantial one, in the requested materials, Plaintiff has done nothing to separate itself from the multitude of others FOIA requests made by other parties that likewise claim a substantial public interest in the materials they seek."  Therefore, "Plaintiff has not justified putting its requests above others."  Additionally, the court finds that "[b]ecause there has been no request for expediting the processing before the relevant agencies in this matter, there is no agency action for this Court to review with respect to expedited processing."
Topic: 
District Court
Litigation Considerations
Updated January 31, 2018