Judicial Watch v. DOJ, No. 13-1344, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156405 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2017) (Leon, J.)

Judicial Watch v. DOJ, No. 13-1344, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156405 (D.D.C. Sept. 24, 2017) (Leon, J.)

Re:  Request for records concerning settlement discussions between DOJ and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in separate litigation between those entities

Disposition:  Granting defendant's second motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment

• Procedural Requirements:  The court finds that "the Department properly withheld the eight settlement-related documents requested by [plaintiff]."  The court first "hold[s] that the eight settlement-related documents sought by Judicial Watch are protected by Local Civil Rule 84.9, [and] must also determine whether the Rule 'resolve[s] the FOIA question.'"  The court relates that "[t]he parties agree that 'the proper test for determining whether an agency improperly withholds records [subject to a local rule] is whether the [rule], like an injunction, prohibits the agency from disclosing the records.'"  The court explains that "Local Civil Rule 84.9 unambiguously 'prohibits . . . all counsel and parties . . . from disclosing any written or oral communications made in connection with . . . any mediation session.'"  "The Rule further provides, subject to six exceptions not relevant here, that '[i]nformation acquired through mediation shall not be used for any purpose, including impeachment, in any pending or future proceeding in this or any other court or forum.'"  The court finds that "[t]hese broad prohibitions are therefore binding on the Department."  "Because a district court's local rules 'have the force of law,' . . . 'the [Department] – like all lawyers and litigants – is duty bound to comply with them. ''"