A federal judge ruled yesterday not to hand another 30 documents pertaining to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's secret email server over to a conservative watchdog group.

Judge James E. Boasberg concluded that 'Judicial Watch has not provided a sufficient basis to believe that the information withheld by the State Department would shed light on any government misconduct,' the decision read, according to Politico.

Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch, the group that got many of Clinton's emails released, wanted additional correspondence about Clinton's server released to the public.

Scroll down for video

The issue of Hillary Clinton's secret email server came up again in federal court this week, as a judge ruled against a watchdog group that wanted more information on internal State Department deliberations on her emails' release

The State Department, after Hillary Clinton had already left, cited the Freedom of Information Act's Exemption 5 in deciding not to release the additional documents to the public

The judge ruled that the documents show ''ordinary discussions about legitimate policy ends' and were not evidence of a broader cover-up of Hillary Clinton's behavior while at State

However, the State Department refused, citing Exemption 5, which keeps the government's internal deliberations private.

Judicial Watch countered and argued that keeping the records away from public view suggested the government was trying to cover-up the misdeeds of Clinton's record keeping while she was in office.

'This is yet another case spun off from the e-maelstrom swirling around Hillary Clinton's use of a private server during her time as Secretary of State,' Boasberg wrote, laying out the case.

He said while Judicial Watch contended that the State Department 'improperly withheld' 30 documents 'the court disagrees.'

Boasberg noted that he reviewed the documents 'in camera' – privately – and explained that 'the documents sought were not the emails themselves, but rather discussions about the emails.'

The judge detailed some of what he read for the sake of the argument, noting 'the material withheld does not provide insight into Clinton's misuse of the private server, not does it reveal any purported Department complicity in that act or effort to downplay her conduct after the fact.'

Among those 30 documents were emails containing news article that State Department employees shared about Clinton's emails.

There was a draft webpage for the Clinton emails' public release.

There was a draft letter from the State Department to the National Archives and Records Administration on the matter.

'It contains run-of-the-mill track changes, red-line edits, and innocuous comment bubbles suggesting revisions to the precision of the language by several employees,' the judge wrote.

There were also draft talking points for a discussion with lawmakers regarding the Clinton email release to the Select Committee on Benghazi.

'The talking points, moreover, do not indicate an effort to downplay that conduct,' the judge wrote.

He said he believed the 30 documents that will remain withheld are 'ordinary discussions about legitimate policy ends.'

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton told Politico that the group is considering an appeal.

'We remain curious about the documents,' Fitton told the publication. 'The PR effort remains troubling and something that we think is in the public's interest to know.'

He also said he'd urge President Donald Trump's Justice Department to take a second look at this request.

'We expect the Trump administration to be more transparent on this issue, since the last administration was completely lawless on this issue,' Fitton said.