Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 12-2034, 2021 WL 2227234 (D.D.C. June 2, 2021) (Walton, J.)

Jud. Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 12-2034, 2021 WL 2227234 (D.D.C. June 2, 2021) (Walton, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning advertisement produced by U.S. embassy in Islamabad, entitled "A Message from the President of the United States Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton," intended to air in Pakistan                                                                  

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment

• Litigation Considerations:  The court relates that "plaintiff argues that the reopening of this case permits it to challenge the sufficiency of the Department's search conducted prior to the 2014 dismissal with prejudice of this case (the 'pre-dismissal search')."  "The Court agrees that, due to the nature of the dismissal and the reason this case was reopened – and upon consideration of the parties' joint status reports, the stipulation of dismissal, and the joint motion to reopen the case – the plaintiff waived its right to challenge the sufficiency of the Department's pre-dismissal search."  "The Court agrees [with defendant] that the plaintiff's representations through the parties' joint status reports lean in favor of waiver."  "The plaintiff routinely emphasized its potential challenges to redactions made to documents produced through the pre-dismissal search, rather than the sufficiency of the underlying searches themselves."  "The Court also agrees with the Department that the plaintiff's waiver is supported by the plaintiff's decision to 'voluntarily decline[] to raise any challenges to the scope of the [ ] Department's [pre-dismissal] search[] when this case settled in 2014.'"  "As the parties' joint motion demonstrates in several respects, this case was plainly reopened for the explicit purpose of reviewing new potential sources of information relevant to the plaintiff's underlying FOIA request."  "These circumstances all indicate that the plaintiff was aware that the case would be reopened for the limited purpose of a new search for records, not to relitigate already settled matters."  Additionally, the court finds that "[plaintiff's] purported reservation – expressed while the parties were drafting their joint motion – was made well-after the parties stipulated to dismiss this case with prejudice."  Furthermore, "[a]llowing such a challenge would inevitably chill the government's willingness to jointly agree to dismiss or reopen cases when similar circumstances arise."
   
• Litigation Considerations, Adequacy of Search:  The court relates that," [h]aving concluded that it need only consider the Department's search for records that was conducted following the reopening of this case, the Court will now address the sole remaining issue in this case, namely, whether that search was adequate."  "The Court concludes that the Department's 'declaration sufficiently explains the type of searches conducted, the search terms used, and explains that all files likely to contain responsive materials were located and searched.'"