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

The Judicial Watch case has become vehicle to explore the question of whether Hillary Clinton's private server put responsive government records beyond the reach of FOIA requesters and whether that was deliberate. | Getty Judicial Watch, feds negotiate fact-finding in Clinton email case

Lawyers for the State Department and a conservative group are in talks about the scope of a fact-finding process a federal judge has authorized in a lawsuit relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to a new court filing.

Attorneys for the watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed the discussions as part of a request to U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan for more time to sort out the discovery issue, which includes potential limits on questioning of former Clinton aides and other State Department officials at depositions expected to take place in the coming months.

Last week, the State Department signaled it did not plan to further oppose Judicial Watch's proposal to seek sworn testimony from former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and information technology aide Bryan Pagliano. However, State asked for limits on what questions could be asked of those individuals and other, current State officials to the issue of why Clinton's server was set up in the first place. State is seeking to rule out queries about cybersecurity issues, the presence of classified information on the server and about Abedin's employment arrangement, which is the subject of the Freedom of Information Act request and suit brought by Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch was scheduled to reply to State's concerns by the end of the day Tuesday, but the group asked that deadline be extended to Friday in order to pursue an agreement with State or at least to narrow the differences.

"Plaintiff reached out to Defendant to see whether the parties could reach an agreement on several issues," Judicial Watch lawyer Michael Bekesha wrote. "As Plaintiff is hopeful that these continuing discussions will narrow areas of disagreement, Plaintiff requests a brief extension of time to file its reply."

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the talks. A spokeswoman for Judicial Watch did not immediately reply to a message seeking comment Tuesday night.

The Judicial Watch case has become a vehicle to explore the question of whether Clinton's private server put responsive government records beyond the reach of FOIA requesters and whether that was deliberate.

Sullivan did not immediately grant the request for an extension, although such requests are routinely approved, sometimes after the deadline involved has passed.

State opposed any discovery in the Freedom of Information Act suit, but Sullivan ruled in February that such questioning was appropriate because of suspicions that the private account and server were set up at least in part to evade FOIA requests. A second judge, Royce Lamberth, issued a similar ruling last month in another case brought by Judicial Watch.

The conservative group, which has sparred with Clinton for more than two decades, has not yet sought to depose Clinton in either of the cases but has said it may seek to do so in the future if it seems warranted after interviewing Clinton's aides.

