Judicial Watch v. Dep't of State, No. 15-689, 2017 WL 4402380 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Judicial Watch v. Dep't of State, No. 15-689, 2017 WL 4402380 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2017) (Moss, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of "'non-"state.gov"'" email address and "'clintonemail.com email server'"

Disposition:  Granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

• Exemption 7, Threshold:  "The Court . . . concludes that the State Department has demonstrated that [a Report of Investigation ("ROI")] was compiled for law enforcement purposes within the meaning of Exemption 7."  The court finds that "[i]t is well established that '[b]ackground investigations conducted to assess an applicant's qualifications, such as [an agency's] clearance and investigatory processes, inherently relate to law enforcement.'"
   
• Exemption 7(C):  "The Court . . . concludes that State properly withheld [the] ROI on the basis of Exemption 7(C)."  The court finds that "the privacy interest at stake is a weighty one."  "[The] ROI was produced after a 'security clearance investigation' that 'require[d] an intensely personal set of inquiries into [the individual's] life,' including an examination of his 'psychological conditions, alcohol consumption, [and] sexual behavior.'"  Against that, the court finds that "[plaintiff] . . . has offered little basis for the Court to conclude that 'the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one, [that it is] an interest more specific than having the information for its own sake' and that the requested disclosure 'is likely to advance that interest.'"  "Instead, it merely asserts that the 'public interest in knowing more about the . . . employee [who] . . . maintained and serviced the private email server system is enormous[.]'"  "After balancing these competing interests, the Court concludes that the scale tips in favor of the State Department's decision to withhold [the] ROI."
   
• Exemption 7(E):  "The Court . . . concludes that the State Department's reliance on Exemption 7(E) was also justified."  The court finds that "'[i]t is self-evident that information revealing security clearance procedures could render those procedures vulnerable and weaken their effectiveness at uncovering background information on potential candidates.'"
   
• Litigation Considerations, "Reasonably Segregable" Requirements:  The court finds that "[t]he State Department has met its burden here[]" because it "explains that the Department 'conducted a line-by-line review of the ROI and determined that no reasonably segregable, non-exempt material could be released.'"
   
• Exemption 5, Deliberative Process Privilege:  "After a review of the redacted email exchange [between Secretary Clinton and General Petraeus], . . . and [defendant's] declaration, . . . the Court concludes that the State Department appropriately redacted the documents pursuant to Exemption 5."  The court explains that "the exchange was between the Commander of the U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Secretary of State, and it involved 'suggested actions to be taken toward a particular foreign head of state' and 'potential personnel appointments in the Department' of State."  "That description represents precisely the type of predecisional 'agency[ ] group thinking' meant to 'work [ ] out' State's policy as to two of its key responsibilities – staffing itself and interacting with foreign dignitaries."
   
• Exemption 6:  "Based on this minimal record, the Court is unable to determine whether Exemption 6 covers the two redactions [of the names of potential appointees]."  The court explains that "[i]t is certainly an overstatement, on the one hand, to claim that the identity of those considered for appointment to public office – even eight years ago – is of no public interest."  "Yet, on the other hand, it is equally possible that the specific appointment discussed in the email exchange is, in fact, of no public interest."  "Nor can the Court assess the relevant privacy interests on the present record."  "[T]he Court . . . direct[s] that the Department file a supplemental declaration[.]"