Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis., Monday, March 28. | AP Photo Second judge grants discovery in Clinton email lawsuit

Citing indications of wrongdoing and bad faith, a federal judge has overruled government objections by declaring that a conservative group is entitled to more details about how Hillary Clinton's private email account was integrated into the State Department recordkeeping system and why it was not searched in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order Tuesday agreeing that Judicial Watch can pursue legal discovery — which often includes depositions of relevant individuals — as the group pursues legal claims that State did not respond completely to a FOIA request filed in May 2014 seeking records about talking points then-U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice used for TV appearances discussing the deadly attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi in September 2012.

Lamberth is the second federal judge handling a Clinton email-related case to agree to discovery, which is unusual in FOIA litigation. Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan gave Judicial Watch the go-ahead to pursue depositions of Clinton aides in a lawsuit for records about former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin.

The new order underscores the metastasizing potential of the email-related litigation which involves dozens of lawsuits brought by Clinton's political opponents as well as news organizations. While the morass of suits seems destined to remain a nagging headache for Clinton's presidential campaign, the immediate impact of Lamberth's ruling could be limited, as he indicated Tuesday that he'll hold off approving any particular discovery until Sullivan has ruled on the issue in the case he is handling.

"Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases," Lamberth wrote in his three-page order. The judge noted that State argues it had no legal duty to search Clinton's emails when Judicial Watch's request arrived because her emails were not in the agency's possession and control at that time. It was not until December 2014 that Clinton turned over a portion of her email archive to State at the agency's request.

"The government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately for the Court to make that determination," Lamberth wrote. The judge also referred to "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials."

The FOIA suits, directed against the State Department, are largely separate from the ongoing FBI investigation into the presence of classified information on Clinton's email server. Clinton's aides are expected to be interviewed in that probe in the coming weeks, with an interview of the former secretary of state and current presidential candidate likely sometime thereafter.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on Lamberth's ruling, while a State Department official said her agency is aware of the order and is reviewing it.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton praised the judge's decision as a step toward reducing the mysteries surrounding Clinton's private email setup.

"It’s a remarkable decision that highlights the serious issues about the State Department and Mrs. Clinton's activities," Fitton said in an interview. "Discovery will allow us to get into the shifting explanations and potential misrepresentations and exactly where the missing records might be."

Judicial Watch's proposal in Sullivan's case calls for depositions of eight individuals, including Abedin, former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and information technology specialist Bryan Pagliano, who was involved in setting up Clinton's home server. Pagliano initially took the Fifth Amendment in response to official inquiries, but has since reached an immunity agreement with the Justice Department. Judicial Watch has left open the possibility it will seek to take testimony from Clinton, but the group has not yet asked the judge to allow that.

The State Department's response to the discovery proposal filed last month is due next Tuesday. Sullivan is expected to rule on the issue by April 15. Lamberth gave Judicial Watch ten days after that ruling to come forward with any follow-up or further discovery requests "tailored" to the dispute in front of him.

Lamberth's latest order is likely to produce a back-to-the-future feeling among some Clinton loyalists and veterans of partisan legal wars from the 1990s. The Reagan appointee oversaw a series of lawsuits in that era over issues like access to the meetings and records of Clinton's Health Care Task Force, the maintenance of security files on GOP appointees in a White House security office and the use of Commerce Department trade missions as a reward for campaign donors.

The discovery process in those cases, often pursued by Judicial Watch, became a kind of ordeal for many senior Clinton appointees. The confrontational, wide-ranging depositions were eventually dramatized in the TV show, "The West Wing."

UPDATE (Tuesday, 3:45 p.m.): This post has been updated with comments from the State Department and Judicial Watch.

UPDATE 2 (Tuesday, 4:50 P.M.): This post has been updated with additional background.

