Document Date

Exemptions

Description
Email Chain #1

1.1

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(1 ), (b)(5)

1.2

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

Email Chain #2
2.1

2011

Email to Secretary Clinton from Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l), (b)(5)

2.2

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l), (b)(5)

2.3

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

2.4

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(1 ), (b)(5)

2.5

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

2.6

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l), (b)(5)

2.7

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

Email Chain #3
3.1

2011

Email chain originating with email from a State

Department official to Jacob Sullivan, and
concluding with message to Secretary Clinton from
Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l)

3.2

2011

Email chain originating with email from a State

Department official to Jacob Sullivan, and
concluding with message to Jacob Sullivan from
Secretary Clinton

(b)(l)

Email Chain #4
4.1

2011

Email to Secretary Clinton from Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l), (b)(5)

4.2

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(1 ), (b)(5)

4.3

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

4.4

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Secretary
Clinton to Jacob Sullivan

(b)(1 ), (b)(5)

4.5

2011

Email chain between Jacob Sullivan and Secretary

Clinton concluding with message from Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

Email Chain #5
5.1

2012

Email from a State Department official to multiple

State Department officials, forwarded by Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton, Cheryl Mills, and
William Bums

(b)(l), (b)(5)

5.2

2012

Email chain originating with email from a State

Department official to multiple State Department
officials, concluding with message to Jacob Sullivan
from Secretary Clinton

(b)(l), (b)(5)

5.3

2012

Email chain originating with email from a State

Department official to multiple State Department
officials, concluding with message to Secretary
Clinton from Jacob Sullivan

(b)(l), (b)(5)

5.4

2012

Email chain originating with email from a State

Department official to multiple State Department
officials, concluding with message to Jacob Sullivan
from Secretary Clinton

(b )(1 ), (b )(5)

Email Chain #6
6.1

2011

Email chain between State Department officials,

forwarded by Jacob Sullivan to Secretary Clinton

(b)(l)

Email Chain #7
7.1

2012

Email from a State Department official to multiple

State Department officials, forwarded by Jacob
Sullivan to Secretary Clinton and Cheryl Mills

(b)(l), (b)(5)

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 68 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 4

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 (Mr. Leopold) and Defendant U.S. Department of State
(State), submit this joint status report concerning their discussions regarding bifurcated
briefing of Part 1 of the Narrowed FOIA Request:
1.

In its Order of May 27, 2015 (ECF No. 16) (Scheduling Order), the Court

entered the parties proposed order that, among other things, limited the FOIA request at issue in
this case to the Narrowed FOIA Request, consisting of (1) All records provided to the
Department of State by former Secretary of State Clinton as described in Paragraph 10 of the
Declaration of John F. Hackett (ECF No. 12-1) (the Clinton Emails);1 and (2) All records
from the files of former Secretary Clinton, Philippe Reines, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, each

Paragraph 10 of Mr. Hacketts declaration states as follows:

In December 2014, former Secretary Clinton provided to the Department paper copies of
approximately 30,000 e-mails, comprising approximately 55,000 pages. Secretary Clinton
provided these records in response to a letter sent by the Department of State to former
Secretaries requesting that, if former Secretaries or their representatives were aware or [were
to] become aware in the future of a federal record, such as an email sent or received on a
personal email account while serving as Secretary of State, that a copy of this record be made
available to the Department. . . if there is reason to believe that it may not otherwise be
preserved in the Departments recordkeeping system. See Ex. 1 (Text of Letter to Former
Secretaries of State Concerning the Federal Records Act of 1950).

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 68 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 4

person who served as the Counselor to the Secretary from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013,
and each person who served as a Deputy Secretary of State (both (D) and (D-MR)) from January
21, 2009, to February 1, 2013, that are regarding or related to eleven enumerated topics.
Scheduling Order at 1-2.
2.

On March 1, 2016, State reported that it had completed processing of Part 1 of the

Narrowed FOIA Request, having completed its review and public release of the non-exempt
portions of the Clinton Emails. Def.s Status Rep. 1 (Mar. 1, 2016) (ECF No. 58).2
3.

Review and release of the non-exempt portions of documents responsive to Part 2

of the Narrowed FOIA Request is ongoing. To date, State has exceeded the monthly review
goals set forth by the Court in its scheduling orders (ECF Nos. 44 & 64) and reviewed in excess
of 16,000 pages of documents potentially responsive to Part 2 of the Narrowed FOIA Request.
See Defs Status Report of July 8, 2015 (ECF No. 67). Despite the volume of documents
potentially responsive to Part 2 that State has already reviewed, a very large percentage of the
work remains to be done.
4.

Because processing of Part 2 of the Narrowed FOIA Request will continue for

some time, the parties respectfully propose that bifurcated summary judgment briefing is
appropriate to avoid unnecessary delay in resolution of the issues related to Part 1. To this end,
the parties have engaged in discussions regarding an appropriate briefing procedure.
5.

The parties have conferred to limit the issues to be litigated by the parties with

respect to Part 1 of the Narrowed FOIA Request. In the interest of a quicker resolution of this

State reported that it excluded from review a number of the Clinton Emails that it had identified, in consultation
with the National Archives and Records Administration, as entirely personal correspondence, that is, documents
that are not federal records and thus that are not subject to the FOIA. Def.s Status Rep. 1 (Mar. 1, 2016).

-2-

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 68 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 4

aspect of the case, Mr. Leopold has agreed to waive all challenges regarding States processing
of Part 1 except for challenges with respect to the following issues:
a.

the appropriateness of States withholding in full of documents classified

top secret;
b.

the appropriateness of States withholding in full of emails between

former Secretary Clinton and the President of the United States; and
c.

the adequacy of States search for records responsive to Part 1 of the

Narrowed FOIA Request.

6.

The parties have agreed that State will provide to Mr. Leopold a substantially

complete Vaughn index for the documents described in 5.a, supra, on July 22, 2016 and a
Vaughn index for the documents described in 5.b, supra, by September 15, 2016.
7.

The parties will continue to confer regarding the adequacy of States search for

records responsive to Part 1 of the Narrowed FOIA Request in an attempt to further limit the
issues that must be litigated.

-3-

Case 1:15-cv-00123-RC Document 68 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 4

Date: July 22, 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

-4-