Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 75 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JASON LEOPOLD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 15-cv-123 (RC)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Defendant.
JOINT STATUS REPORT REGARDING
PART 1 OF THE NARROWED FOIA REQUEST
Plaintiff Jason Leopold and Defendant U.S. Department of State (State), submit this
joint status report pursuant to the Courts minute order of September 26, 2016:
1.

The parties have met and conferred, and have reached an agreement on

redirecting resources from the review of records potentially responsive to Part 2 of the Narrowed
FOIA Request in this case to the review of information provided to State by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI).
2.

Because the parties continue to dispute whether documents that the FBI provided

to State must be reviewed for responsiveness to Part 1 of the Narrowed FOIA Request, they have
agreed that a scheduling order regarding the review and production of documents from the FBI
should be issued not in this case, but rather in Leopold v. DOJ, 15-cv-2117 (Moss, J.), in which
the Plaintiff seeks records the FBI retrieved from equipment obtained directly or indirectly from
former Secretary Clinton that have not already been made public. At a status conference on the
afternoon of September 26, the parties informed Judge Moss of the proceeding before this Court
earlier in the day and of the discussions to reach an agreement on the redirection of Part 2

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 75 Filed 09/28/16 Page 2 of 3

resources to the FBI materials. Judge Moss ordered the parties file a status report on the
outcome of those discussions, and the parties to that case intend to file a copy of this status report
in 15-cv-2117 shortly after its filing in this case.
3.

The parties agreement further contemplates this Court staying States obligations

under the scheduling order regarding Part 2 of the Narrowed FOIA Request (ECF No. 64)
(Scheduling Order). That scheduling order calls for State to aspire to abide by [a] production
schedule, based on reviewing a minimum of 2,200 pages each month and, for each document
reviewed, (1) determin[e] that it is not responsive to the request; (2) refer[] the document to
another agency for consultation; or (3) produc[e] the document (with redactions, if appropriate)
to Plaintiff.
4.

The parties in 15-cv-2117 agree to the entry of an order in that case redirecting

the processing resources for Part 2 to the FBI materials. Such an order would provide that State
shall aspire to abide by a monthly production schedule, starting with the production due
November 1, 2016, which the parties agree shall instead be due on November 3, 2016, in which,
each month, it would review a minimum of 1,850 pages of documents from the information
provided to State by the FBI that State has deemed to be work-related and potentially responsive
to the FOIA request at issue in 15-cv-2117 and, for each document reviewed, (1) determine that
it is not responsive to the request; (2) refer the document to another agency for consultation; or
(3) post the document (with redactions, if appropriate) on its public FOIA website. This is in
addition to the number of pages of FBI materials ordered to be processed in a case brought by a
different plaintiff, Judicial Watch v. State, 15-cv-687 (Boasberg, J.) (Sept. 23, 2016 minute

-2-

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 75 Filed 09/28/16 Page 3 of 3

order), and is possible due to the redirection of resources that the parties have agreed to in the
instant case.1
5.

The parties also agree to the entry of an order in the instant case staying the

Scheduling Order, including States obligations to review documents potentially responsive to

Part 2 of the Narrowed FOIA Request, until such time as State has completed the review of the
FBI information described in paragraph 4 above.
6.

Two proposed orders that, taken together, reflect the parties agreement, are

attached. The first of those proposed orders would be entered in the instant case; the second
would be entered in 15-cv-2117.
Date: September 28, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ryan S. James

RYAN S. JAMES
D.C. Bar #496272
5208 Capricorn Loop
Killeen, TX 76542
(254) 289-7459
RSJamesLaw@gmail.com

BENJAMIN C. MIZER
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
MARCIA BERMAN
Assistant Branch Director
/s/ Robert J. Prince
ROBERT J. PRINCE (D.C. Bar No. 975545)
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Tel: (202) 305-3654
robert.prince@usdoj.gov

JEFFREY L. LIGHT
D.C. Bar #485360
1712 Eye St., NW
Suite 915
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 277-6213
jeffrey@lawofficeofjeffreylight.com

Counsel for Defendant

Counsel for Plaintiff

1
State has determined, based on its experience reviewing both the emails provided by former Secretary Clinton and
documents potentially responsive to Part 2 of the Narrowed FOIA Request, that there is not a one-to-one
equivalency between the two types of documents. For this reason, State proposed a volume of pages to be reviewed
that was less than the 2,200 page goal for Part 2, and the parties agreed to the 1,850 page goal set forth herein.

-3-