Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE,

Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-00489-BAH
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF STATE,
Defendant.

JOINT SCHEDULING REPORT

Plaintiff Republican National Committee (RNC) and Defendant United States
Department of State (State) file the following joint scheduling report pursuant to paragraph
3.b.ii of the Courts Standing Order and the Courts minute order of August 17, 2016:
REQUEST 2 PRODUCTION
1.

Through its second request, the RNC seeks [a]ny and all records relating to

applications for, as well as approvals of, invitations to any function at a U.S. Department of State
Diplomatic Reception Room, as well as any and all guest lists for functions held at a U.S.
Department of State Diplomatic Reception Room. The period covered by this request is January
21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. See Compl., Exh. 2. Document production is ongoing with respect
to this request. It is unknown at this time whether the parties will have any disagreements with
regard to the documents produced in response to this request.
States Position Regarding Request 2
2.

As State has previously reported, there were well over 1500 functions in States

Diplomatic Reception Rooms during the timeframe of the request. See ECF No. 14, 5. In order

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 2 of 7

to provide RNC with information about the types of events that take place in the Diplomatic
Reception Rooms, and in the hopes that such information might facilitate the narrowing of RNCs
request, State agreed to complete processing the weekly schedules for the Diplomatic Reception
Rooms from the relevant timeframe and produced the nonexempt portions of these schedules on
July 25, 2016. See ECF No. 15, 6. States intent in providing the weekly schedules as an initial
matter was to provide RNC with some information about all the functions during the relevant
timeframe so that RNC might identify the specific functions for which it would like State to
process responsive documents, to the extent they exist. As planned, following States production
of the weekly schedules, the parties then entered into further negotiations concerning the scope of
the request and whether RNC would seek production of additional documents responsive to its
request.
3.

RNC has now advised State that it wishes production of all responsive records

related to all functions in the Diplomatic Reception rooms during the relevant timeframe in
addition to the weekly schedules already produced. State has identified approximately 1600 pages
of such additional potentially responsive records.
4.

State proposes to review and process 300 pages of potentially responsive records

each month and to produce all non-exempt portions of the responsive pages processed. See
Declaration of Eric Stein, Citizens United v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 16-00067 (July18, 2016)
(ECF No.14-1) (explaining why States current resources permit it to finalize no more than 300
pages per month); see Order, id. (ECF No. 17) (Given the Departments FOIA litigation burden and
its available resources, the Court declines to adopt Plaintiffs proposed production order of 2000 pages
per month. It will, however, hold the Department to its 300-page commitment.). Under States

proposed schedule, its first production will be on September 30, 2016, its second production on
2

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 3 of 7

October 31, 2016, and later productions every sixty days thereafter. State anticipates that
production will be complete at the end of February, 2017. State believes that its proposed
production schedule is reasonable in light of States current FOIA burden. In addition, State
provided RNC with information sufficient for RNC to narrow its broad request or, alternatively,
prioritize specific functions for which it seeks responsive records, to the extent that they exist, so
that RNC may get the information it seeks as quickly as possible. RNC has elected not to do so.
RNCs Position Regarding Request 2
5.

The RNC believes that States proposed 300-page-per-month processing rate is

unreasonably low. In fact, it is much lower than the processing rates set in many other FOIA cases
against State. See Republican Natl Comm. v. U.S. Dept of State, No. 16-cv-461-ABJ (D.D.C.),
ECF No. 29-2 (table filed by State Department showing court-ordered processing rates in ten
different matters with an average monthly page count of more than 750 pages per month). The
RNC is entitled to no worse a processing rate than those set in other cases. Moreover, States
completing the production by February 2017 would not get the information to the public before the
November election. The RNC believes that State should produce all the responsive documents no
later than October 15, 2016.
REQUEST 1 & 2 BRIEFING SCHEDULE
6.

Request 2 is described above. Through Request 1, the RNC seeks [a]ny and all

visitor logs or other records detailing any visitors to the Secretary of States formal quarters and/or
personal office located in the Harry S. Truman building. The timeframe for this request is from
January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. See Compl. (Dkt. No. 1), Exh. 1.
7.

As indicated in the parties July 12 scheduling report, State has advised the RNC

that it has located no records responsive to this request and has closed out the request. See ECF
3

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 4 of 7

No. 16. As further discussed in that report, the RNC disagrees with States interpretation of the
scope of the request and maintains that State has not produced all responsive records. Id.
Accordingly, the parties wish to file motions for summary judgment as to the issues outstanding
with regard to this request.
Defendants Position Regarding Briefing
8.

State agrees with the Court that proceedings should be conducted so as efficiently

to conserve both judicial and litigant resources and believes that the best way to do that is to
consolidate all dispositive motions with regard to the requests at issue in this case. Accordingly,
State proposes that the parties file dispositive motions with regard to Requests 1 and Request 2 (if
necessary) upon conclusion of the processing of Request 2. Accordingly, State proposes the
following schedule:

March 17, 2017 Plaintiff to advise State as to whether it intends to challenge the
search or any withholdings made with regard to Request 2

May 19, 2017 Defendant files motion for summary judgment as to any issues
outstanding with regard to Requests 1 and 2.

June 9, 2017 Plaintiff files opposition/cross motion for summary judgment.

June 23, 2017 Defendant files opposition/reply in support of motion for summary
judgment.

July 7, 2017 Plaintiff files reply in support of cross-motion for summary judgment

9.

State requests that the summary judgment motion previously filed by plaintiff

(Docket No. 19) be hereby considered withdrawn.

Plaintiffs Position Regarding Briefing
10.

Because time is of the essence, States proposed summary-judgment briefing

schedule is untenable, extending out as it does well past the November election. In recent months,
State has faced scrutiny in the press for purportedly delaying productions in FOIA litigation with
4

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 5 of 7

the Associated Press over calendar entries and schedules similar to those that the RNC seeks here.
See, e.g., Clintons State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries, Associated Press (June 24,
2016) (The AP first sought Clintons calendar and schedules from the State Department in
August 2013, but the agency would not acknowledge even that it had the material. After nearly
two years of delay, the AP sued the State Department in March 2015. The department agreed in a
court filing last August to turn over Clintons calendar, and provided the documents in November.
After noticing discrepancies between Clintons calendar and some schedules, the AP pressed in
court for all of Clintons planning material. The U.S. has released about one-third of those
planners to the AP, so far.). 1 Whatever the truth about those allegations, the RNC cannot agree to
a summary-judgment briefing schedule that extends into next year.
11.

Summary judgment briefing on Request 1 must not be delayed, in any event, until

completion of the States production of documents responsive to Request 2. Requests 1 and 2 are
separate FOIA requests that are entitled to be litigated separately. To require the RNC to wait for
summary judgment briefing and adjudication on Request 1 until after completion of the States
production of Request 2 documents would be manifestly unfair to the RNC (forcing the RNC to
wait until the end of the States production on Request 2 to litigate a summary judgment motion
that the RNC already filed on August 19, 2016) and contrary to FOIAs requirement of broad
disclosure. See 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(A) (requiring each agency to review and produce documents
upon any request for records) (emphasis added); 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3)(D) (agency must search
for documents responsive to a request) (emphasis added); Milner v. Dept of Navy, 562 U.S.
562, 571 (2011) (We have often noted [FOIAs] goal of broad disclosure and insisted that the
exemptions be given a narrow compass).
1

Available at http://bigstory.ap.org/article/858997d5d9a540688d316654a5bb0c15/clintons-state-deptcalendar-missing-scores-entries.

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 6 of 7

12.

On August 19, 2016, the RNC filed a targeted summary judgment brief about the

calendars and schedules that the RNC seeks under its FOIA request. Dkt. No. 19. The RNC is
prepared to litigate that summary-judgment motion and would propose the following schedule:
September 6, 2016: State files opposition to the RNCs summary-judgment motion and any
cross-motion for summary judgment.
September 13, 2016: The RNC files a reply supporting its summary-judgment motion and
an opposition to any cross-motion for summary judgment.
September 20, 2016: State files a reply supporting its summary-judgment motion.
Dated: August 29, 2016

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
CHANNING PHILLIPS
United States Attorney
MARCIA BERMAN
Assistant Director
/s/ Carol Federighi
CAROL FEDERIGHI
Senior Trial Counsel
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
P.O. Box 883
Washington, DC 20044
Phone: (202) 514-1903
Email: carol.federighi@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendant

Case 1:16-cv-00489-BAH Document 20 Filed 08/29/16 Page 7 of 7

/s/ Kelley Barnaby

Kelley Barnaby (D.C. Bar No. 998757)
kelley.barnaby@alston.com
Edward T. Kang (D.C. Bar No. 1011251)
edward.kang@alston.com
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
950 F St. NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 239-3300
Counsel for Plaintiff