Judicial Watch v. IRS - Transcript of Status Conf 7-10-2014

Scott L.
Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter

(202)354-3196 * scottlyn01@aol.com
1
UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBI A
JUDICIAL WATCH, INCORPORATED,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Ci vi l Act i on
No. 13- 1559
J ul y 10, 2014
11: 10 a. m.
Washi ngt on, D. C.
TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CALL PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE EMMET G. SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPEARANCES:
For t he Pl ai nt i f f : Ramona Raula Cotca, Esq.
J UDI CI AL WATCH, I N
425 Thi r d St r eet , SW
Sui t e 800
Washi ngt on, DC 20024
( 202) 646- 5172
Fax: ( 202) 646- 5199
Emai l : Rcot ca@j udi ci al wat ch. or g
Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq.
J UDI CI AL WATCH, I NC.
425 Thi r d St r eet , SW
Sui t e 800
( 202) 646- 5172
Fax: ( 202) 646- 5199
For t he Def endant : Geoffrey John Klimas, Esq.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE
P. O. Box 227
( 202) 307- 6346
Emai l : Geof f r ey. j . kl i mas@usdoj . gov
Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter
2
APPEARANCES: ( Cont . )
On behal f of t he
Def endant s:
Carmen M. Banerjee, Esq.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE
Tax Di vi si on - Ci vi l Tr i al Sect i on
555 Four t h St r eet , NW
Sui t e 6810
( 202) 307- 6423
Emai l : Car men. m. baner j ee@usdoj . gov
Cour t Repor t er : Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR
Of f i ci al Cour t Repor t er
Room6503, U. S. Cour t house
Washi ngt on, D. C. 20001
202. 354. 3196
scot t l yn01@aol . com
Pr oceedi ngs r epor t ed by machi ne shor t hand, t r anscr i pt pr oduced
by comput er - ai ded t r anscr i pt i on.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
MORNING SESSION, JULY 10, 2014
( 11: 10 a. m. )
THE COURTROOM CLERK: Your Honor , t hi s i s Ci vi l Act i on
13- 1559, Judicial Watch, Inc. versus Internal Revenue Service.
Wi l l al l par t i es pl ease come f or war d and i dent i f y your sel ves f or
t he r ecor d, pl ease.
MS. COTCA: Good mor ni ng, Your Honor , Ramona Cot ca f or
J udi ci al Wat ch, and Paul Or f anedes, al so at counsel t abl e.
THE COURT: Good mor ni ng t o you bot h.
MR. KLI MAS: Good mor ni ng, Your Honor , J ef f Kl i mas f or t he
def endant I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce. Wi t h me at counsel t abl e i s
Car men Baner j ee, al so wi t h t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce, Tax
Di vi si on.
THE COURT: Good mor ni ng t o you bot h. Let me hear f r om
pl ai nt i f f ' s counsel . You asked f or a st at us hear i ng, so t el l me
why you want ed i t .
MS. COTCA: Cer t ai nl y, Your Honor . The r eason t hat we
submi t t ed t hi s mot i on i s because we wer e al ar med i n t he r ecent
weeks t o f i nd out - - t hi s i s a FOI A l i t i gat i on, as you know - - t o
f i nd out t hat a subst ant i al number of t he r ecor ds t hat wer e
r equest ed as par t of t hi s l awsui t have appar ent l y gone mi ssi ng.
We wer e al ar med.
THE COURT: Your r equest was f or r ecor ds f r omwhat ,
J anuar y 1, 2010 t o t he pr esent ; i s t hat r i ght ?
MS. COTCA: Cor r ect , cor r ect , Your Honor . We wer e al ar med
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
t o l ear n t hat - - Our r equest cover ed a t hr ee- year span of
r ecor ds, and, appar ent l y, al most t wo year s of t hose r ecor ds have
gone mi ssi ng. That ' s a subst ant i al - -
THE COURT: How di d you l ear n t hat ?
MS. COTCA: We l ear ned i t t hr ough t he news, Your Honor .
We di dn' t l ear n i t f r omdef ense counsel , and t hat ' s t he second
par t of t hi s i ssue and t he r eason we r equest ed t hi s st at us
conf er ence, i s because we have conf er r ed, per t he Cour t ' s or der
i n J anuar y. I have been engagi ng i n conver sat i ons wi t h def ense
counsel dur i ng t he cour se of t hi s l i t i gat i on and never has t he
I RS, t he def endant her e, di scl osed t hat t hey' r e mi ssi ng a l ar ge
chunk of t hese e- mai l s.
THE COURT: Was t he gover nment under a l egal obl i gat i on t o
make t hat di scl osur e?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , Your Honor , i t i s. I t ' s a subst ant i al
number of t he r ecor ds t hat have - - t hat wer e r equest ed and - -
THE COURT: Let me r ephr ase t hat .
MS. COTCA: Okay.
THE COURT: At some poi nt , of cour se t he gover nment i s
under an obl i gat i on, but dur i ng t he r equi si t e t i mef r ame we' r e
t al ki ng about , t he l ast si x mont hs or so - - what ' s t he t i mef r ame
t hat you' ve descr i bed as bei ng t he r el evant t i mef r ame f or t he
gover nment ' s obl i gat i ons t o di scl ose t he f act t hat e- mai l s wer e
mi ssi ng?
MS. COTCA: When t he gover nment f ound out about i t , and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
t he news r epor t s and t he t est i mony t hat t he I RS commi ssi oner has
pr ovi ded bef or e Congr ess i s t hat t he gover nment , t he I RS, knew
about t hi s i n Febr uar y.
THE COURT: Febr uar y of t hi s year ?
MS. COTCA: Febr uar y of t hi s year .
THE COURT: Ri ght .
MS. COTCA: That ' s t he same t i me t hat t he I RS had
i ni t i al l y st ar t ed t o pr oduce document s i n our case her e. That i s
- - Two mont hs l at er , i n Apr i l , t he gover nment had pr oduced a
st at us r epor t t o t hi s Cour t wi t h r espect t o t he pr ogr ess of t he
sear ch and t he pr oduct i on i n t hi s case.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . So i n ei t her Febr uar y or Apr i l ,
was t he gover nment under some l egal obl i gat i on t o say t o t he
pl ai nt i f f , we j ust di scover ed t hat some e- mai l s ar e mi ssi ng? And
i f so, what does t hat l egal obl i gat i on come f r om?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , t he l egal obl i gat i on, Your Honor , comes
f r omt he f act t hat t hey have t o conduct a sear ch t hat i s
r easonabl y cal cul at ed t o di scover and uncover al l r el evant
i nf or mat i on.
THE COURT: I got t hat , I have t hat , but I ' msayi ng,
what ' s t he l egal obl i gat i on? At what poi nt does t hi s l egal
obl i gat i on, and I ' mi nt er est ed i n wher e t hi s obl i gat i on spr i ngs
f r om, at what poi nt does t hat r equi r e t he gover nment t o say, l o
and behol d, we j ust l ear ned t hat some e- mai l s ar e mi ssi ng?
What ' s t he pr ecedent f or t hat ?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
MS. COTCA: Wel l , t hey' r e mat er i al quest i ons of f act her e
wi t h r espect t o t he sear ch t hat ' s bei ng conduct ed, and t hat ' s t he
l egal pr ecedent her e, because we don' t have any conf i dence t hat a
pr oper sear ch i s bei ng conduct ed.
THE COURT: I under st and what you' r e sayi ng, but I ' m
concer ned about what t he l egal aut hor i t y i s t hat woul d have
r equi r ed t he gover nment , as a mat t er of l aw, t o have t ol d you i n
ei t her Febr uar y or J anuar y or some day pr i or t o t oday' s dat e t hat
t her e ar e e- mai l s t hat t he gover nment can' t f i nd? Wher e i s t hat
l egal - - at what poi nt does t he l egal obl i gat i on t o make t hat
di scl osur e ki ck i n?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , our posi t i on i s t hat one of t he pl aces
wher e t hat l egal obl i gat i on comes f r omi s f r omt he Cour t ' s or der
t hat t he gover nment has t o pr ovi de di scl osur e wi t h r espect t o t he
st at us of i t s sear ch, and t he f act t hat t he I RS, t he def endant
her e, has not di scl osed t hat , r ai ses ser i ous quest i ons t hat t he
sear ch t hat t hey' r e doi ng i s i nadequat e.
THE COURT: Asi de f r ommy or der , t hough, ar e you awar e of
any pr ecedent or aut hor i t y, any Ci r cui t aut hor i t y, or Di st r i ct
Cour t aut hor i t y or Supr eme Cour t aut hor i t y t hat woul d have
r equi r ed t he gover nment , as a mat t er of l aw, t o say we j ust f ound
out t hat e- mai l s ar e mi ssi ng?
MS. COTCA: Your Honor , I t hi nk we woul d st and by t he
Cour t ' s or der t hat I t hi nk - -
THE COURT: - - so t he Cour t ' s or der - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
MS. COTCA: - - t hat t he obl i gat i on - -
THE COURT: I st and on my or der s al so. I s t her e any ot her
aut hor i t y ot her t han my or der ? I ' mnot mi ni mi zi ng my or der
ei t her , now, al l r i ght .
MS. COTCA: I under st and, Your Honor , I under st and.
THE COURT: But you r ai se an i nt er est i ng i ssue. I mean,
t her e ar e a l ot of movi ng pi eces her e. As I under st and i t , and I
don' t know ever yt hi ng about what ' s goi ng on on Capi t ol Hi l l , but
t her e i s a Congr essi onal i nqui r y goi ng on; i s t hat cor r ect ?
MS. COTCA: Cor r ect , Your Honor .
THE COURT: And I don' t know what r epr esent at i ons t he
gover nment has made t o t he i nqui r i ng commi t t ee about l ost
e- mai l s. That ' s an ongoi ng - - i s t hat an ongoi ng - -
MS. COTCA: - - f r omour under st andi ng - -
THE COURT: - - pr ocess?
MS. COTCA: The i nf or mat i on t hat we have t hat I gat her
f r omt he pr ess f r oml i st eni ng t o t he news i s t hat t hi s i s an
ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on. Ther e was a TI GTA r epor t t hat had come
out i n May of 2013 wi t h r espect t o t he I RS t r eat ment t o t ea
par t y' s appl i cat i ons - - t ea par t y or gani zat i ons' appl i cat i ons t o
t he I RS, and t hat i s what pr ompt ed and t hat ' s t he r eason t hat we
submi t t ed our FOI A r equest r equest i ng Ms. Loi s Ler ner ' s e- mai l s
f or t hi s t i mef r ame, and si nce t hen t her e has been a number of
i nvest i gat i ons and hear i ngs t hat have been conduct ed on t he Hi l l
wi t h r espect t o t he I RS and t o Loi s Ler ner ' s i nvol vement wi t h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
r espect t o t he t ea par t y - -
THE COURT: Shoul d t he Cour t j ust wai t unt i l t hose - -
unt i l t hat i nvest i gat i on has been compl et ed, t he Congr essi onal
i nqui r y, si nce t hat st ar t ed some t i me ago, I t hi nk, di dn' t i t ?
MS. COTCA: I don' t bel i eve - - Wel l , our posi t i on i s no,
t he Cour t shoul d not wai t unt i l - -
THE COURT: Because FOI A i s separ at e and apar t f r om
what ever may be pr oceedi ng on Capi t ol Hi l l .
MS. COTCA: Absol ut el y.
THE COURT: When you f ound out f r omnews r epor t s t hat t he
gover nment had r epr esent ed t o Congr essi onal i nvest i gat or s t hat
e- mai l s wer e mi ssi ng, di d you pi ck t he phone up and cal l your
opposi ng counsel and say, Why di dn' t you t el l us t hi s?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , f i r st what I di d, what I per sonal l y di d
i s I got onl i ne and I conduct ed a si gni f i cant r esear ch t o
under st and what t he news r epor t s wer e al l about .
THE COURT: Di d you f i nd t hose e- mai l s?
MS. COTCA: No, Your Honor , t hey' r e - - I di dn' t f i nd t hem.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . You di d some r esear ch. Di d you
r each out t o opposi ng counsel , t hough?
MS. COTCA: Yes, we di d, we di d.
THE COURT: Good, good.
MS. COTCA: And opposi ng counsel i n t hi s case had
absol ut el y no i nf or mat i on, and t hi s i s t he r eason we st r ess why
we bel i eve t her e' s an i nadequat e sear ch bei ng done. They wer en' t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
even abl e t o i dent i f y t he i ndi vi dual s whose comput er s had been
cr ashed. They wer e unabl e t o pr ovi de absol ut el y anyt hi ng, ot her
t han what t he t est i mony was pr ovi ded by t he I RS commi ssi oner t o
Congr ess. That shows t o us, Your Honor , t hat t hey have done
not hi ng, t hey have not l ooked t o see who el se may have been
moni t or i ng Ms. Ler ner ' s e- mai l s, i f i ndeed t hese e- mai l s ar e
mi ssi ng, so, per haps, we can l ook somewher e el se. They di dn' t
have any of t hose quest i ons answer ed when we spoke wi t h t hem, and
t hat was ver y t r oubl i ng.
THE COURT: Wel l , what i s i t t hat you' r e aski ng t he Cour t
t o do? I want t he r ecor d t o be cl ear , t her e' s not a - - t her e' s
no mot i on pendi ng bef or e t he Cour t f or any r el at ed - - i t ' s a
st at us hear i ng, and I r ead i t and I t hought i t was appr opr i at e t o
gr ant a st at us hear i ng t o gi ve t he pl ai nt i f f an oppor t uni t y t o be
hear d and gi ve t he gover nment a chance t o r espond.
MS. COTCA: Ri ght , and t hat was our f i r st st ep, and we
t hought t hi s was pr udent . Thi s i s mat er i al i nf or mat i on wi t h
r espect t o t hi s case, and t hat ' s why we t hought i t was
appr opr i at e t o br i ng i t bef or e t he Cour t f or a st at us hear i ng.
Because of - - and we woul d l i ke t o hear f r omt he I RS and f r omt he
def endant what happened, what i s t he st at us.
But past t hat , t hi s r ai ses a number of quest i ons, mat er i al
quest i ons of f act wi t h r espect t o t he sear ch, so we woul d ask t he
Cour t t o conduct some f or mof i nvest i gat i on or per mi t some ver y
l i mi t ed di scover y wi t h r espect t o what happened, who knows about
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
i t , wher e - - ar e t her e ot her sour ces t hat def endant can l ook at
t o r et r i eve t hese e- mai l s, when di d t he gover nment know about
t hi s? Because agai n, t hat ' s per t i nent wi t h r espect t o t hei r
di scl osur e t o t he Cour t and t o J udi ci al Wat ch, so i t woul d be
ver y l i mi t ed, but we woul d ask f or some f or mof i nvest i gat i on or
di scover y.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . I j ust became awar e t he day bef or e
yest er day t hat one of my col l eagues, J udge Wal t on, has a si mi l ar
case. I ' mnot goi ng t o say i t ' s r el at ed wi t hi n t he meani ng of
t he r ul es because I don' t know t hat much about t hat case at al l ,
but I j ust r ai se t he quest i on. Fi r st of al l , ar e you f ami l i ar
wi t h t hat case?
MS. COTCA: I know of i t , yes, Your Honor .
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . I s i t an anal ogous case?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , Your Honor , i t has t o do wi t h t he Tr ue
t he Vot e case agai nst t he I RS, i f i t ' s t he case t hat I ' mt hi nki ng
of t hat ' s bef or e J udge Wal t on t omor r ow, but t hey have a di r ect
cause of act i on wi t h r espect t o Tr ue t he Vot e' s appl i cat i on, so
i t ' s a l i t t l e bi t di f f er ent because at t hat poi nt t hey' r e at t he
j unct ur e of a mot i on, a mot i on t o di smi ss.
THE COURT: They asked f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ve r el i ef .
MS. COTCA: Cor r ect , cor r ect . We ar e i n t he pr ocess, and
t he r eason t hi s case i s di f f er ent - - i t ' s a FOI A l i t i gat i on, but
we' r e al r eady i n t he pr ocess of t he gover nment pr oduci ng
document s.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
THE COURT: And t he gover nment i s pr oduci ng document s.
MS. COTCA: And t he gover nment i s pr oduci ng document s, and
t he gover nment i s conduct i ng i t s sear ch of t he r ecor ds, but we
have ser i ous quest i ons as t o t he adequacy and r easonabl eness of
t hat sear ch.
THE COURT: Ri ght . Wel l , t he poi nt I was get t i ng at i s
whet her or not under our l ocal r ul es t he t wo cases shoul d be
consol i dat ed bef or e one j udge as r el at ed. And agai n, I don' t
know enough about J udge Wal t on' s case t o have an i nf or med opi ni on
about t hat .
MS. COTCA: Um, I don' t t hi nk i t woul d be appr opr i at e.
THE COURT: We do t r y t o pr eser ve j udi ci al r esour ces, i f
he' s pur sui ng t he same i ssues, accor di ng t o whet her or not one
j udge shoul d devot e t hat j udge' s l i mi t ed r esour ces t o t he i ssue.
MS. COTCA: Ri ght . And agai n, i t ' s t he j unct ur e of t he
cases t hat ' s di f f er ent , and at t hi s poi nt t he gover nment and i f
t he - - and i f t he Cour t woul d per mi t some l i mi t ed di scover y wi t h
t he sear ch, t her e' s def i ni t el y no quest i on bei ng r ai sed whet her
i t ' s appr opr i at e at t hi s t i me f or t hat l i mi t ed di scover y t o t ake
pl ace. Ther e may be - - and I bel i eve t her e may be a quest i on on
t hi s i ssue i n t he ot her case t hat ' s bef or e J udge Wal t on, so i t
may sl ow down our case.
THE COURT: So t he answer i s no, t he cases ar en' t r el at ed
t hen wi t hi n t he meani ng of t he l ocal r ul es? I s t hat what - -
MS. COTCA: That ' s what I t hi nk. I t hi nk i t woul d sl ow
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
down our case, and I don' t t hi nk i t woul d be appr opr i at e t o
consol i dat e.
THE COURT: Shoul d t wo j udges be devot i ng si gni f i cant
l i mi t ed r esour ces t o r esol ve t he same i ssue?
MS. COTCA: I know some of t he case, I don' t know - -
THE COURT: I don' t know ei t her .
MS. COTCA: - - t he det ai l s of i t .
THE COURT: Maybe I ' l l di r ect t he par t i es t o addr ess t hat
i n wr i t i ng, because one t hi ng we cer t ai nl y woul d want t o avoi d i s
a cont r adi ct or y r ul i ng on i ssues t hat may be r el evant t o bot h
cases.
MS. COTCA: Sur e.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thank you. Al l r i ght . I ' l l hear
f r omgover nment counsel . Good mor ni ng.
MR. KLI MAS: Good mor ni ng, Your Honor . May i t pl ease t he
Cour t .
THE COURT: Yes. Let me ask you t hi s: Was t he gover nment
under an obl i gat i on at t he t i me t hat i t l ear ned t hat e- mai l s wer e
mi ssi ng, e- mai l s t hat wer e ar guabl y t he subj ect of or wi t hi n t he
scope of t hi s FOI A r equest , t o say somet hi ng t o ei t her t he Cour t
or t o pl ai nt i f f ?
MR. KLI MAS: The I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce' s posi t i on i s
no, and i t ' s ki nd of a t wo- par t answer . J udi ci al Wat ch has
accused t he gover nment of a mat er i al omi ssi on t o t he Cour t , and
we woul d make t wo ar gument s, f i r st of al l , t hat t hi s was not
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
mat er i al t o t he case, t hat i t was not mat er i al i n t hat we had an
af f i r mat i ve obl i gat i on t o di scl ose i t ; and t hen, secondar i l y, i t
was not an omi ssi on on t he par t of mysel f or my pr edecessor
at t or ney on t hi s case because we di d not act ual l y know about i t ,
and I ' l l t al k a l i t t l e bi t about t hose pr ongs i f t he Cour t woul d
l i ke.
THE COURT: Wel l , at what poi nt - - does i t boi l down t o
when t he at t or ney assi gned t o a case became awar e t hat t he
e- mai l s wer e mi ssi ng or t he pr i nci pl es t hat t he at t or ney
r epr esent s? What ' s t he t r i gger i ng event t her e?
MR. KLI MAS: Sur e. St ar t i ng wi t h whet her or not t hi s i s
mat er i al at al l , t he har d dr i ve cr ash, Loi s Ler ner , occur r ed i n
2011, t wo year s bef or e J udi ci al Wat ch made i t s FOI A r equest .
Under Supr eme Cour t , D. C. Ci r cui t , and D. C. Di st r i ct Cour t
pr ecedent , t he I RS' s obl i gat i on t o pr eser ve document s and t o
pr oduce document s commences at t he t i me t hat a per f ect ed FOI A
r equest i s submi t t ed. That ' s May 2013. And t o t he ext ent t hat
t hese document s wer e l ost , damaged, not pr eser ved t wo year s
ear l i er , does not cr eat e any r emedy under t he FOI A and i t ' s
i r r el evant under FOI A.
THE COURT: What case ar e you r el yi ng on f or t hat ?
MR. KLI MAS: Yes, Your Honor . Speci f i cal l y t he Supr eme
Cour t i n Department of Justice versus Tax Analysts i ndi cat ed t hat
f or document s t o be agency r ecor ds subj ect t o t he FOI A, quot e,
The agency must be i n cont r ol of t he r equest ed mat er i al at t he
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
t i me t he FOI A r equest i s made. "
Si mi l ar l y, i n t he Supr eme Cour t case Kissinger versus
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press, t he Supr eme Cour t
hel d t hat , " An agency' s obl i gat i on under FOI A commenced upon
r ecei pt of a FOI A r equest , end quot e. " Ther e i s no FOI A
obl i gat i on t o r et ai n r ecor ds pr i or t o t hat r equest . "
I n addi t i on, t hat i s consi st ent wi t h t he hol di ng of t he
D. C. Ci r cui t i n t he case of Wilbur versus CIA, 2004 D. C. Ci r cui t
case. I t ' s consi st ent wi t h t he D. C. Ci r cui t case Weisberg versus
Department of Justice, a D. C. Ci r cui t case f r om1983. I t ' s
consi st ent wi t h t he hol di ngs of numer ous j udges wi t hi n t hi s Cour t
at t he Di st r i ct Cour t l evel .
For exampl e, t he l at e J udge Ober dor f er i n t he case Budwar
versus Department of Air Force i ndi cat ed t hat FOI A, quot e, does
not aut hor i ze t he r econst r uct i on of document s or sanct i ons f or
f ai l ur e t o pr eser ve t hem, end quot e. He t hen sai d t hat i n t hat
case he bel i eved t he agency had been l ax i n f ai l i ng t o meet i t s
obl i gat i ons t o pr eser ve r ecor ds t hat i t was r equi r ed by l aw t o
r eser ve. However , he i ndi cat ed f ur t her t hat , t o t he ext ent t hat
was t he case, t hat woul d, quot e, be a mat t er f or t he I nspect or
Gener al , t he Compt r ol l er Gener al , and Congr essi onal over si ght
commi t t ees, end quot e, not a mat t er f or a cour t adj udi cat i ng a
FOI A case.
THE COURT: So - - al l r i ght . So t he shor t answer i s t he
cr ash occur r ed bef or e t he FOI A r equest , and t he gover nment was
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
under no obl i gat i on t o, I guess, r et ai n e- mai l s t hat wer e t he - -
t hat cr ashed; i s t hat r i ght ?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect . Ther e was a cr ash i n 2011 t hat
r esul t ed i n a l oss of i nf or mat i on, and because t hat i nf or mat i on
di d not exi st i n 2013 when t he r equest was made - -
THE COURT: These ar e j ust t he r epr esent at i ons of counsel .
Woul d di scover y be appr opr i at e at t hi s poi nt t o get t he swor n
t est i mony of some i ndi vi dual about t hese al l egat i ons of l ost
e- mai l s?
MR. KLI MAS: Your Honor , t her e' s - - i f we' r e t al ki ng about
pr eser vat i on and t he I RS' s obl i gat i on t o pr eser ve document s,
obvi ousl y t he I RS i s under an obl i gat i on t o pr eser ve document s
t hat ar e pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve t o J udi ci al Wat ch' s FOI A r equest .
I f you woul d l i ke, I can t al k you t hr ough t he st eps t hat t he I RS
has t aken t o make sur e t hat i t s obl i gat i ons ar e f ul f i l l ed.
THE COURT: J ust answer my quest i on f i r st . What about
di scover y?
MR. KLI MAS: Ther e - - We t hi nk t hat di scover y woul d be
pr emat ur e and speci f i cal l y i nappr opr i at e i n t hi s i nst ance,
pr emat ur e i nsof ar as t hat as an i ni t i al mat t er di scover y i s a
r ar e except i on i n FOI A cases. I t ' s r ar el y al l owed i n - -
THE COURT: Why i sn' t t hi s t he r ar e FOI A case wher e t he
gover nment doesn' t di sput e t hat t her e ar e r el evant - - Wel l , do
you di sput e t hat t her e ar e r el evant e- mai l s t hat have been l ost
i n t he cont ext of t hi s FOI A case?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
MR. KLI MAS: We don' t t hi nk t hat t hey woul d be agency
r ecor ds t hat t he I RS woul d be obl i gat ed t o or coul d pr oduce
because t hey wer e dest r oyed t wo year s - - t o t he ext ent t hey wer e
dest r oyed - -
THE COURT: But t hat ' s what you say. Ther e' s no swor n
decl ar at i on by anyone i n t hi s r ecor d. Those ar e j ust
r epr esent at i ons of counsel . So why i sn' t t hi s t he r ar e case
wher e di scover y woul d be appr opr i at e?
MR. KLI MAS: I n cases wher e cour t s have f ound t hat
di scover y i s appr opr i at e i n FOI A cases, i t s al most - - i n al most
al l t hose cases i t ' s af t er t he gover nment has moved f or summar y
j udgment and t hen t her e' s an i ssue.
THE COURT: Why shoul d I wai t , t hough? You don' t di sput e
t hat t her e ar e l ost e- mai l s, do you?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect , we cer t ai nl y admi t t hat Loi s
Ler ner ' s har d dr i ve cr ashed i n - -
THE COURT: So why shoul d we go t hr ough t hi s pr ocess of
t he gover nment pr oduci ng ever yt hi ng t hat i t want s t o pr oduce or
can pr oduce and t hen aski ng t o f i l e a mot i on f or summar y j udgment
and t hen t ee up a Rul e 56( f ) a year f r omnow when t he Cour t coul d
or der appr opr i at e l i mi t ed di scover y now i n an ef f or t t o det er mi ne
what was l ost , how was i t l ost , and what ef f or t s wer e bei ng made
t o r et r i eve, et cet er a, t he r el evant quest i ons? Why do we have
t o wai t a year i nt o t hat ?
MR. KLI MAS: Wel l , Your Honor , speci f i cal l y i n t hi s case,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
t he r eason why we bel i eve i t woul d be i nappr opr i at e - - and
cer t ai nl y I spoke t o Ms. Cot ca - - Ms. Cot ca f or t he f i r st t i me on
Tuesday about t hi s i ssue, and I under st and t hat t her e wer e a
number of quest i ons t hat she want ed answer s t o t hat I was unabl e
t o pr ovi de on Tuesday, and I ' mpr obabl y not i n a bet t er posi t i on
t o pr ovi de answer s t o t hose expl anat i ons t oday, but I can gi ve a
bet t er expl anat i on as t o why I cannot pr ovi de t hose answer s. I
can cer t ai nl y ask t he I RS quest i ons about t he l oss of Loi s
Ler ner ' s har d dr i ve, what happened, det ai l s about t hat .
THE COURT: Ar e we j ust t al ki ng about one har d dr i ve or
ar e we t al ki ng about mul t i pl e empl oyees' har d dr i ves or do we
know? And because we don' t know or may not know, doesn' t t hat
al so gi ve r i se t o t he pr opr i et y of di scover y at t hi s j unct ur e?
MR. KLI MAS: Ther e' s Loi s Ler ner ' s har d dr i ve, and t he
commi ssi oner of t he I nt er nal Revenue has t est i f i ed t hat t her e ar e
si x ot her har d dr i ves.
THE COURT: And t hey al l cr ashed as wel l ?
MR. KLI MAS: That i s hi s t est i mony, cor r ect . Now, I
cer t ai nl y - -
THE COURT: At t he same t i me?
MR. KLI MAS: That ' s an answer t hat I cannot gi ve, and I
woul d l i ke t o expl ai n why I cannot gi ve an answer . I t ' s
cer t ai nl y a quest i on t hat I asked t he I nt er nal Revenue Ser vi ce.
THE COURT: I t ' s a r el evant quest i on.
MR. KLI MAS: I t ' s cer t ai nl y a quest i on I woul d l i ke t o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
have an answer t o t oday.
THE COURT: Wel l , t he pl ai nt i f f s woul d l i ke t o have an
answer t o t hat , t oo, and pr obabl y t he Cour t , as wel l , pr obabl y.
Go ahead.
MR. KLI MAS: When I spoke t o t he I RS and asked t hat
quest i on, when di d t hese har d dr i ves cr ash, whose har d dr i ves,
was i t af t er t he I RS t ook st eps t o pr eser ve t he i nf or mat i on f r om
t hose i ndi vi dual s? What I was t ol d i s t hat t he I nspect or
Gener al , who i nvest i gat es t ax mat t er s f or t he I RS, t he Tr easur y
I nspect or Gener al f or Tax Admi ni st r at i on or TI GTA has commenced
an i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hi s i ssue about t he pot ent i al l oss of
i nf or mat i on f r omhar d dr i ve mal f unct i ons.
THE COURT: When di d t he At t or ney Gener al commence t hat
i nvest i gat i on?
MR. KLI MAS: Not t he At t or ney Gener al , t he I nspect or
Gener al .
THE COURT: I ' msor r y, t he I nspect or Gener al .
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect . I know i t was ongoi ng at l east as
of J une of t hi s year .
THE COURT: Coul d t he I RS not t el l you when i t st ar t ed?
MR. KLI MAS: I di d not speci f i cal l y ask when t he
i nvest i gat i on st ar t ed. I know t hat t he I RS was i nf or med t hat t he
i nvest i gat i on had st ar t ed i n J une of t hi s year .
THE COURT: Al l r i ght .
MR. KLI MAS: I - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
THE COURT: And does t he I nspect or Gener al pl an t o f i l e a
publ i c r epor t ?
MR. KLI MAS: The I nspect or Gener al i s not i n a posi t i on at
t hi s j unct ur e t o say whet her t he f i nal r epor t woul d be publ i c or
not . I t depends on how t he - -
THE COURT: I s t hat pur suant t o a congr essi onal di r ect i ve?
MR. KLI MAS: I don' t bel i eve Congr ess di r ect ed t he
I nspect or Gener al t o i ni t i at e t hi s i nvest i gat i on, but I do not
know t hat f or a f act .
MR. KLI MAS: I spoke t o t he I RS and I sai d, Okay, t her e' s
t hi s i nvest i gat i on goi ng on, what does t hat mean i n t er ms of your
abi l i t y t o answer my quest i ons, and what t he I RS sai d i s t hat t he
I nspect or Gener al di r ect ed t he I RS not t o cont act pot ent i al
wi t nesses about t he subj ect mat t er of t he i nvest i gat i on and not
t o t r y t o obt ai n document s t hat wer e r el evant t o t he subj ect
mat t er of t hat i nvest i gat i on because t he I nspect or Gener al had
i ndi cat ed t hat t hat coul d i nt er f er e wi t h hi s abi l i t y t o conduct
t he i nvest i gat i on.
Not onl y di d I t al k t o t he I RS about t hat , I have r eached
out t o TI GTA and t he i nvest i gat or wor ki ng on t he case. TI GTA has
conf i r med t hat t her e' s ongoi ng i nvest i gat i on i nt o t hi s exact
i ssue. TI GTA has conf i r med i t i nst r uct ed t he I RS not t o cont act
t hose wi t nesses or pot ent i al wi t nesses or i ndi vi dual s, and i t has
f ur t her i nst r uct ed t he I RS not t o t r y t o col l ect document s t hat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
ar e r el evant t o t he TI GTA i nvest i gat i on.
THE COURT: And t hat woul d ar guabl y i ncl ude FOI A
document s, cor r ect ?
MR. KLI MAS: The document s t hat t he I RS has segr egat ed,
pr eser ved and t aken appr opr i at e st eps t o pr eser ve ar e document s
t hat have al r eady been col l ect ed, al r eady been segr egat ed, and
t her e ar e al r eady st eps t hat have been t aken t o pr eser ve t hem, so
t he I RS does not have t o go out and get t hose document s at t hi s
j unct ur e, t he I RS has al r eady col l ect ed t hose document s.
THE COURT: So, amI cor r ect i n sayi ng t hat t he document s
t hat ar e t he subj ect of t hi s pl ai nt i f f ' s FOI A r equest have al l
been col l ect ed?
MR. KLI MAS: I - - t he I RS has r epr esent ed t hat t hey i ssued
pr eser vat i on l et t er s i n May and J une of 2013 and t hen pr oceeded
over t he cour se of t he next sever al mont hs t o col l ect any
pot ent i al r esponsi ve document s, so I bel i eve t hat t he answer i s
t hat any pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve document s have been col l ect ed, t o
t he ext ent t hat a r easonabl e sear ch woul d capt ur e t hose
document s. Obvi ousl y, an agency can never say t hat i t ' s
col l ect ed ever y si ngl e pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve document f r oman
agency wi t h 90, 000 empl oyees and t he FOI A doesn' t r equi r e t hat ,
i t r equi r es a r easonabl e sear ch. The I RS has col l ect ed t he
document s t hat i t bel i eves woul d const i t ut e a r easonabl e sear ch.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . To be mor e pr eci se, pur suant t o
t he I RS' s obl i gat i ons under FOI A pr ecedent , i s your answer yes,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
t hat t he I RS has compl et ed i t s sear ch f or r el evant e- mai l
document s i n t hi s case? I s your answer yes?
MR. KLI MAS: I t depends on what you mean by sear ch. I f
you mean col l ect i ng t he uni ver se of pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve
document s - -
THE COURT: I di dn' t l i mi t i t , I sai d pur suant t o i t s
obl i gat i on t o FOI A - - t o i t s obl i gat i ons under r el evant FOI A
pr ecedent , has t he I RS compl et ed i t s sear ch f or document s t hat
ar e t he subj ect of t hi s FOI A r equest by t hi s pl ai nt i f f ?
MR. KLI MAS: Sur e. I t hi nk t hat i t ' s a t wo- st ep answer .
So, i n t er ms of col l ect i ng t he uni ver se of pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve
document s, of conduct i ng a r easonabl e sear ch t o cr eat e t hat
uni ver se of pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve document s, I bel i eve t hat t he
I RS has compl et ed t hat sear ch.
Now, t hat i s an over br oad uni ver se of document s. Ther e
ar e document s t hat ar e not r esponsi ve, t her e ar e document s t hat
woul d be exempt f r omdi scl osur e, and t he I RS i s i n t he pr ocess of
conduci ng a r evi ew of t hat uni ver se of document s t hat have been
gat her ed and pr eser ved, and t hat has not - -
THE COURT: So I ' mj ust br eaki ng i t down. So, t he
gover nment has t hr own out a br oad net , t he I RS has t hr own out a
br oad net t o capt ur e document s t hat ar e ar guabl y pr oduceabl e, but
t her e may ot her wi se be pr i vi l eged except i ons or ot her except i ons,
nat i onal secur i t y, what ever , t hat pr ecl ude pr oduct i on t o t he
pl ai nt i f f . So t he br oad uni ver sal sear ch has been compl et ed,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
t hen.
MR. KLI MAS: That ' s cor r ect , Your Honor .
MR. KLI MAS: That ' s my under st andi ng.
THE COURT: And t he gover nment i s pr oduci ng document s, t he
I RS i s pr oduci ng document s t o t hi s pl ai nt i f f ? I ' mj ust concer ned
about t hi s case r i ght now.
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect , t he I RS has been pr oduci ng document s
si nce Febr uar y. I t ' s pr oduced over 3800 pages of document s and
pr oduced document s as r ecent l y as, I bel i eve, J une 30t h of t hi s
year .
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Al l r i ght . Wi t h r espect t o t he
document s t hat have been capt ur ed, t hat have been l ocat ed, when
i s t he - - when do you envi si on t hat t he f ur t her document at i on
r evi ew, cat egor i zat i on or what ever , wi l l be compl et e?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect , Your Honor . That i s a quest i on t hat
I asked t he I RS as wel l . Ther e ar e f our separ at e FOI A r equest s
t hat ar e at i ssue i n t hi s l awsui t .
THE COURT: Ri ght .
MR. KLI MAS: The f i r st FOI A r equest deal s wi t h
communi cat i ons t o or f r omLoi s Ler ner br oadl y. That i s
essent i al l y what i s bei ng sought . And t he I RS has i ndi cat ed t hat
t hey bel i eve t hat t hey ar e r oughl y hal f way t hr ough t he r evi ew and
pr oduct i on of t hose document s t o J udi ci al Wat ch.
The second FOI A r equest speci f i cal l y deal s wi t h t he number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
of 501( c) ( 4) appl i cat i ons t hat wer e submi t t ed t o t he I nt er nal
Revenue Ser vi ce. My pr edecessor on t hi s case conf er r ed wi t h
Ms. Cot ca about t hat par t i cul ar r equest , and t her e was agr eement
t hat i nst ead of pr oduci ng al l document s r el at ed t o t he number of
appl i cant s, t hat i nst ead t he I RS woul d pr oduce - - woul d pr ovi de a
number t o Ms. Cot ca. We bel i eve t hat t hat wi l l be done by t he
end of t he mont h, and pot ent i al l y sooner t han t he end of t he
mont h. Ther e ar e t wo addi t i onal FOI A r equest s. One t hat br oadl y
deal s wi t h communi cat i ons bet ween t he I RS and Congr ess or
agenci es. The I RS i s i n t he pr ocess of t aki ng t hat br oad
uni ver se of document s t hat we t al ked about and doi ng what i s
r ef er r ed t o as bat chi ng, so t aki ng t hat br oad uni ver se of
document s, sear chi ng t o l i mi t i t t o a mor e pr obabl y number of
pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve document s, and t hen havi ng peopl e - - and
t hen havi ng I RS empl oyees r evi ew t hose document s f or
r esponsi veness and f or exempt i ons.
And t hen wi t h r espect t o t he f our t h FOI A r equest , t he I RS
has al r eady bat ched, al r eady br oken i nt o manageabl e segment s t he
pot ent i al l y r esponsi ve document s, and t hose document s ar e
cur r ent l y bei ng r evi ewed by I RS empl oyees f or r esponsi veness and
exempt i ons.
As f ar as a concr et e answer as t o when t hat pr ocess wi l l
be done, I asked t hat quest i on and I was t ol d t hat t he I RS i s
hopef ul t o have an answer by t he next st at us r epor t i n August ,
but t hey wer e unabl e t o pr ovi de me a t ar get end dat e t hi s week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
when I spoke t o t hem.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . You ment i oned t hat t he I nspect or
Gener al was i nvol ved i n conduct i ng an i nvest i gat i on. By t he way,
who i s t he i nvest i gat i ng at t or ney? Do we have a name?
MR. KLI MAS: I have a name. I haven' t per sonal l y spoken
wi t h hi m. He r equest ed t hat I not ment i on hi s name i n open cour t
j ust because he woul d pr ef er t o wor k on hi s expedi t ed
i nvest i gat i on r at her t han deal wi t h phone cal l s f r omt he pr ess
f or t he next sever al days.
THE COURT: But does t he publ i c have a r i ght t o know t he
name of t hi s per son?
MR. KLI MAS: Thi s i s a r equest t hat I r ecei ved f r omhi m.
Obvi ousl y, i f t he Cour t woul d l i ke me t o pr ovi de hi s name, I ' m
not goi ng t o di sobey an or der f r omt he Cour t t o pr ovi de i t or
pr ovi de i t i n- camer a, i f necessar y, but t hat ' s t he r equest t hat I
r ecei ved f r omhi m.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Do we know whet her or not t hat
per son has or der ed a f or ensi c exami nat i on?
MR. KLI MAS: I can' t t el l you t he st at us of t he
i nvest i gat i on as f ar as what st eps he has t aken or what f act s he
has f ound.
THE COURT: What I mean by t hat i s t her e an exami nat i on of
t he comput er s, t he r el evant comput er s.
MR. KLI MAS: I can - - what I can r epr esent i s t hat t hat
woul d be par t of what TI GTA i s doi ng, not onl y t o i nt er vi ew
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
peopl e, not onl y t o f i nd out f act ual l y what happened, but al so t o
exami ne t he par t i cul ar equi pment and t o t ake st eps t o r est or e
i nf or mat i on, t o t he ext ent t hat i t was l ost . That woul d be al so
par t of what TI GTA i s t r yi ng t o accompl i sh wi t h t hi s
i nvest i gat i on.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Do we know whet her or not t he
Depar t ment of J ust i ce has r equest ed t he FBI t o conduct an
i nvest i gat i on?
MR. KLI MAS: I do not know whet her t he Depar t ment of
J ust i ce has r equest ed t he FBI t o conduct an i nvest i gat i on.
THE COURT: Have you asked t hat quest i on?
MR. KLI MAS: I have not asked t hat quest i on.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . And no one' s vol unt eer ed t hat
i nf or mat i on t o you t hat t he FBI may be i nvest i gat i ng t hi s as
wel l ?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect . I don' t - - I know t her e' s been
Congr essi onal t est i mony about whet her t he FBI i s i nvest i gat i ng or
what t he FBI i s i nvest i gat i ng. I can' t say whet her t he FBI i s
i nvest i gat i ng t hi s par t i cul ar i ssue or not , I don' t know.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Let ' s get back t o t he quest i on of
di scover y. Why not di scover y now, t hen? Why wai t ? Because t he
scenar i o you al l ude t o i s one i n whi ch t he gover nment woul d say
at some poi nt t o t he Cour t , we' ve compl et ed our sear ch f or
r el evant document s, we' ve pr oduced document s, we' ve i nvoked
pr i vi l ege wi t h r espect t o cer t ai n document s, we woul d l i ke an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
oppor t uni t y t o f i l e a mot i on f or summar y j udgment , whi ch i s t he
nor mal cour se, r i ght ?
MR. KLI MAS: Yes.
THE COURT: Whi ch woul d pr obabl y t r i gger - - Wel l , J udge - -
f r omt he pl ai nt i f f s - - t hr ee mont hs ago or a year ago or t hr ee
year s ago, t he gover nment sai d t hat t her e wer e - - or we f ound out
t hat t her e wer e, ar guabl y, l ost document s, we don' t know whet her
t hey f al l wi t hi n a r el evant t i mef r ame. Ar guabl y, t hey coul d be
wi t hi n a r el evant t i mef r ame, but we' d l i ke some l i mi t ed di scover y
at t hat poi nt and t hey f i l e a 56( f ) af f i davi t sayi ng we can' t
r eal l y - - we' r e not i n a posi t i on t o oppose summar y j udgment
because we need some di scover y, and your ar gument a f ew mi nut es
ago was t hat i t woul d be mor e appr opr i at e at t hat j unct ur e t o
consi der di scover y, r i ght ?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect , Your Honor .
THE COURT: I s t hat st i l l your answer ?
MR. KLI MAS: That i s st i l l our answer , i n addi t i on t o t he
concer ns t hat we have about t he TI GTA i nvest i gat i on whi ch i s
ongoi ng. At a mi ni mum, we t hi nk t hat t he - - t he Depar t ment
t hi nks t hat i t woul d be mor e appr opr i at e f or t hat i nvest i gat i on
t o - -
THE COURT: Mor e appr opr i at e f or whom, t hough, f or t he
Depar t ment or f or t he publ i c? I mean, t hi s i s an act i on f i l ed by
an or gani zat i on t hat seeks document s under t he t heor y t hat t he
publ i c l i kes t o know what i t s gover nment i s doi ng, so mor e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
appr opr i at e f or whom? How woul d del ayi ng di scover y assi st t hi s
pl ai nt i f f and assi st t he publ i c i n l ear ni ng what happened her e?
MR. KLI MAS: I woul d submi t t hat l et t i ng t he I nspect or
Gener al concl ude hi s i nvest i gat i on ser ves t he publ i c i nt er est .
The I nspect or Gener al i s - -
THE COURT: Fi r st of al l , we don' t know who t hi s I nspect or
Gener al i s; secondl y, we don' t know whet her hi s or her r epor t i s
goi ng t o be publ i c, r i ght , r i ght ?
MR. KLI MAS: That ' s cor r ect .
THE COURT: So what ' s - - so l et ' s j ust st op t her e. Whose
i nt er est does t hat benef i t , ot her t han t he I RS and not t he
publ i c?
MR. KLI MAS: I woul d not e t hat t he I nspect or Gener al i s
i ndependent of t he I RS, t hat t he I nspect or Gener al i s t he same
I nspect or Gener al who i ssued t he r epor t r egar di ng 501( c) ( 4)
i ssues t hat l aunched t he Congr essi onal i nvest i gat i ons t hat ar e
ongoi ng. The I nspect or Gener al i s t he same one who commenced
t hi s par t i cul ar i nvest i gat i on. I t hi nk i t ' s cl ear t hat t hi s
I nspect or Gener al has t he i nt er est , t he aut hor i t y, and t he
r esour ces t o conduct a mor e t hor ough r evi ew t han what we coul d do
wi t h di scover y, even ext ensi ve di scover y, but cer t ai nl y bet t er
t han what we coul d do wi t h l i mi t ed di scover y i n t hi s act i on. I
can' t i magi ne t hat l i mi t ed di scover y woul d - - t hi s i s t he f i r st
t i me I ' ve hear d t hat t hi s i s somet hi ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f sought .
I t ' s not somet hi ng t hat we di scussed ear l i er t hi s week when we
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
spoke, but I cer t ai nl y don' t t hi nk t hat t he l i mi t ed di scover y
t hat Ms. Cot ca was pr oposi ng i nvol ved f or ensi c exami nat i on of
comput er har d dr i ves. I don' t t hi nk i t woul d be as ext ensi ve or
as successf ul i n t er ms of get t i ng t o t he bot t omof t hi s i ssue.
THE COURT: What about a quest i on t hat t he Cour t r ai sed
wi t h pl ai nt i f f ' s counsel a f ew mi nut es ago about whet her or not
t hi s case shoul d be consol i dat ed or t r ansf er r ed t o my col l eague
J udge Wal t on under our r el at ed case r ul es?
And agai n, I don' t know enough about hi s case t o know
whet her or not t hey' r e, i ndeed, r el at ed under t he meani ng of our
l ocal r ul es, but I j ust r ai se t he quest i on f or your r esponse.
MR. KLI MAS: Sur e. I have some f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he Tr ue
t he Vot e case. Ther e ar e Depar t ment of J ust i ce Tax Di vi si on
at t or neys who ar e assi gned t o t hat case, and I ' mnot one of t hose
at t or neys, but i t ' s my under st andi ng t hat t he Tr ue t he Vot e case
i s not a FOI A act i on, i t ' s a case i n whi ch t her e woul d - - i f t he
mot i on t o di smi ss f i l ed by t he gover nment i s deni ed, t hen t her e
woul d pot ent i al l y be a di scover y schedul e and di scover y whi ch
woul d be uni que and di f f er ent f r om- -
THE COURT: Ther e' s a pendi ng mot i on t o di smi ss i n t hat
case; i s t hat cor r ect ?
MR. KLI MAS: I bel i eve t hat ' s cor r ect , Your Honor .
THE COURT: But you' r e not i nvol ved i n t hat ?
MR. KLI MAS: Cor r ect .
THE COURT: And t hat ' s not a FOI A case, t hat ' s an act i on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
f or damages, i s i t , or a decl ar at or y i nj unct i ve r el i ef and
damages al so, i f I r ecal l ? I br i ef l y r ead t he pl eadi ngs. I t ' s
an act i on f or a decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef and I bel i eve a
col l at er al r equest f or damages, I t hi nk, but not FOI A.
MR. KLI MAS: I bel i eve t hat ' s cor r ect , t her e i s not a FOI A
cl ai mi n t hat l awsui t . So cer t ai nl y t her e woul d be some
syner gi es i n havi ng one j udge who i s f ami l i ar wi t h t hese i ssues.
I cer t ai nl y don' t t hi nk i t ' s a r el at ed case i n t he way t hat t hat
t er mi s used i n t hi s Cour t ' s r ul es, but I see t her e woul d be some
ef f i ci enci es i n havi ng one - -
THE COURT: But you woul d not be pr ecl uded f r oma t r ansf er
by consent t o one of t he t wo j udges. Ar e t her e any ot her act i ons
i n t hi s Cour t ?
MR. KLI MAS: Any ot her act i ons?
THE COURT: Si mi l ar or ar guabl y r el at ed l awsui t s i n t hi s
Cour t pendi ng bef or e ot her col l eagues?
MR. KLI MAS: I n t er ms of FOI A cases - -
THE COURT: No, no, I know t hat . We' r e i nundat ed wi t h
FOI A cases. I n t er ms of t hi s e- mai l i ssue, anyone el se wi l l
f i l ed anyt hi ng?
MR. KLI MAS: I don' t speci f i cal l y know i f t he e- mai l i ssue
i s ger mane t o any of t he ot her pendi ng l awsui t s i n t hi s Cour t . I
know t hat t her e ar e ot her pendi ng l awsui t s i n t hi s cour t t hat
r el at e t o 501( c) ( 4) l awsui t s. Many of t hose ar e FOI A l awsui t s,
but I don' t know i f t he i ssues ar e ger mane t o t hose cases or not .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thank you.
MR. KLI MAS: Thank you, Your Honor .
THE COURT: Anyt hi ng f ur t her ?
MS. COTCA: Thank you, Your Honor .
THE COURT: Why shoul dn' t you wai t ? Why shoul dn' t t hi s
wai t unt i l t he gover nment says, We' ve f i ni shed our pr ocess, we' ve
pr oduced ever yt hi ng, and we want t o f i l e a mot i on f or summar y
j udgment at t hat poi nt and t hen gi ve you an oppor t uni t y t o f i l e
your 56( f ) , i f t hat ' s appr opr i at e, and you can per suade t he Cour t
i f t her e' s a need f or di scover y? That ' s t he nor mal cour se, i sn' t
i t ?
MS. COTCA: Ri ght , and t hat ' s t he nor mal cour se because
t hat ' s when t hi s sor t of i nf or mat i on becomes avai l abl e. Thi s
case i s di f f er ent f r omt hat because t hi s i nf or mat i on became
avai l abl e t hr ough publ i c r esour ces and t he news wi t h r espect t o
what t he pl ai nt i f f bel i eves i s an i ssue wi t h - -
THE COURT: The medi a i s get t i ng some hi gh mar ks f r omyou
t oday, huh?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , t hat ' s wher e we got t hi s i nf or mat i on,
Your Honor .
THE COURT: The Congr essi onal i nvest i gat i on i s a publ i c
pr oceedi ng; i s t hat cor r ect ?
MS. COTCA: Cor r ect . So t hat ' s why we t hi nk t hi s i s
di st i ngui shabl e f r omt he ot her cases. And t hat ' s r i ght , when - -
i n t he nor mal cour se of a FOI A l i t i gat i on, you have t he summar y
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
j udgment mot i ons and you have t he decl ar at i ons, and t hat ' s when
an obj ect i on i s r ai sed or a chal l enge i s r ai sed t o t he sear ch
because t hat ' s when t he evi dence or t he r ecor d becomes cl ear . We
al r eady have t hi s i nf or mat i on. I t doesn' t make sense t o wai t .
Fi r st of al l , who knows what ' s goi ng t o st i l l be avai l abl e
t wo year s down t he l i ne. We don' t have a t i mel i ne yet of when
t hi s wi l l be over . I t coul d be t hr ee year s f r omnow, i t coul d be
t hr ee mont hs, we don' t know. We don' t have much conf i dence t hat
i t wi l l be t hr ee mont hs f r omnow, but - - and so t hat ' s why we
t hi nk i t woul d be appr opr i at e at t hi s t i me t o have t he l i mi t ed
di scover y. Wi t h r espect t o - -
THE COURT: Suppose - - woul d you be sat i sf i ed i f someone
f i l ed a decl ar at i on i n t he FOI A case under oat h i n an ef f or t t o
per suade t he Cour t and t he pl ai nt i f f t hat t hese document s t hat
you' r e seeki ng i n t he cour se of t hi s l i t i gat i on ar en' t even
wi t hi n t he scope of t he document s t hat ar e mi ssi ng?
MS. COTCA: Wel l - -
THE COURT: Woul d t hat be enough?
MS. COTCA: No, Your Honor , because - - and t hi s i s t he
poi nt . The Loi s Ler ner e- mai l s - - Fi r st of al l , Your Honor
cor r ect l y poi nt ed out t hat we don' t act ual l y have any decl ar at i on
or any st at ement act ual l y made by t he I RS, t he def endant i n t hi s
case, whet her , i ndeed, t hese e- mai l s ar e mi ssi ng or not .
THE COURT: You l ear ned t hr ough t he publ i cl y avai l abl e
medi a t hat t her e ar e e- mai l s t hat ar e mi ssi ng. You don' t know
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
what t i mef r ame t hey cover or not , do you?
MS. COTCA: We don' t know what t i mef r ame.
THE COURT: You don' t know what t i mef r ame t he mi ssi ng
e- mai l s ar e - -
MS. COTCA: The t i mef r ame f or t he e- mai l s?
THE COURT: Yea, f or t he e- mai l s t hat ar e ar guabl y
mi ssi ng, r i ght ?
MS. COTCA: What ' s been di scl osed i s e- mai l s f r om2010 t o
2012. That ' s what I bel i eve t he i nf or mat i on i s wi t h r espect t o
t he mi ssi ng e- mai l s, whi ch cover s t he speci f i c per i od of t i me
t hat we r equest ed f or t he e- mai l s.
THE COURT: Ri ght , but t hat ' s what you bel i eve.
MS. COTCA: That ' s what t he t est i mony t hat t he I RS
Commi ssi oner or t hat ' s t he i nf or mat i on t he I RS pr ovi ded t o
Congr ess and t hat ' s wher e we got t he i nf or mat i on f r om. But goi ng
back t o t he i ssue her e, t hi s i nf or mat i on i s becomi ng avai l abl e
now. We don' t have a set t i mel i ne of when t he I RS wi l l compl et e
i t s pr oduct i on so we can move on t o t he br i ef i ng phase of t he
l i t i gat i on, and we don' t know what wi l l be avai l abl e and what
wi l l not be avai l abl e at t hat poi nt . So i t doesn' t make sense
f or us t o wai t .
And wi t h r espect t o - - and at t hi s poi nt , we do know
t her e' s t hi s i ssue wi t h r espect t o t hese e- mai l s, and we st i l l
don' t know what t he I RS has done, what t he def endant has done t o
t r y t o see wer e t her e ot her pot ent i al sour ces wher e t hese e- mai l s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
can be r et r i eved because t hey do have t he bur den t o conduct a
sear ch t hat ' s r easonabl y cal cul at ed t o r each - - t o uncover t he
r equest ed r ecor ds.
One par t i cul ar e- mai l t hat t he I RS has pr oduced i n t hi s
case at t hi s poi nt i s f r omMs. Ler ner her sel f f r om2012 wher e she
i dent i f i es and asks act ual l y t he TI GTA of f i cer - - t he TI GTA
i nvest i gat or t o copy someone i n her of f i ce because she moni t or s
her e- mai l s. One obvi ous quest i on i s, Wel l , has t he I RS gone
back t o see i f t hi s i ndi vi dual ' s comput er s and t hi s i ndi vi dual ' s
r ecor ds have been sear ched so we can r et r i eve t he r ecor ds t hat we
r equest ed i n t hi s case by t hat mechani smand t hr ough t hose means,
and t hat ' s r easonabl e. That ' s pl ai nt i f f ' s posi t i on i n t hi s case.
THE COURT: What about t he gover nment ' s st at ement t hat
di scover y woul d be, ar guabl y, dupl i ci t ous now of what t hi s I GA
at t or ney i s doi ng?
MS. COTCA: Wel l , we don' t know what t he I G at t or ney i s
doi ng, we don' t know who t he I G at t or ney i s, and t hi s i s t he
f i r st t i me we' ve hear d of t hi s, and J udi ci al - - we woul d have, we
woul d suggest , a ver y l i mi t ed and onl y speci f i c - - not wi t h
r espect so much wi t h r espect t o t he obl i gat i ons and what not
t hat ' s goi ng on i n Congr ess of mai nt ai ni ng and keepi ng t hese
r ecor ds, but wi t h r espect t o what ar e t he r easonabl e mechani sms
t hat t he I RS has t o t r y t o get t hese e- mai l s t hat we' r e
r equest i ng i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. That ' s much mor e nar r ow t han t he
i nvest i gat i on i n t he way t hat I under st and what t hi s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
i nvest i gat i on woul d cover .
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . I ' mgoi ng t o t ake about a
t en- mi nut e r ecess.
UNI DENTI FI ED SPEAKER: Your Honor , may I be hear d on one
quest i on t hat Your Honor posed i n anot her case?
THE COURT: I ' msor r y?
UNI DENTI FI ED SPEAKER: I ' mnot counsel i n t hi s mat t er .
THE COURT: No, no. Thank you ver y much, t hough. At some
poi nt - - you' r e cer t ai nl y wel come t o speak wi t h counsel dur i ng
t he r ecess, but t hank you ver y much. I ' mgoi ng t o t ake a
t en- mi nut e r ecess. Al l r i ght . Thank you.
( Ther eupon, a r ecess i n t he pr oceedi ngs occur r ed f r om
11: 52 a. m. unt i l 12: 06 p. m. )
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Anyt hi ng f ur t her f r omcounsel ,
ei t her si de?
MR. KLI MAS: Your Honor , may I be hear d br i ef l y?
THE COURT: Yeah, sur e.
MR. KLI MAS: I j ust want ed t o br i ef l y addr ess - - Ms. Cot ca
i ndi cat ed t hat she di dn' t know what ef f or t s t he I RS has t aken t o
ei t her r ecover Ms. Ler ner ' s har d dr i ve or t o obt ai n t he
i nf or mat i on, t he l ost e- mai l s f r omot her sour ces wi t hi n t he I RS.
I woul d i ndi cat e t hat , i n f act , J udi ci al Wat ch at t ached t o t hei r
mot i on a st at ement - - a st at ement f r omt he I RS t hat det ai l s t he
f act t hat t he I RS had, i n f act , t aken t hose st eps; t hat af t er
Ms. Ler ner ' s har d dr i ve cr ashed, t he I T depar t ment at t empt ed t o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
r est or e t he i nf or mat i on and was unsuccessf ul . I t was t hen sent
t o t he I RS cr i mi nal di vi si on, whi ch at t empt ed t o r est or e t he
i nf or mat i on. I t was unsuccessf ul . Fur t her mor e, t he I RS has
obt ai ned over 20, 000 e- mai l s of whi ch Ms. Ler ner was not t he
cust odi an by goi ng t o ot her I RS empl oyees and obt ai ni ng t he
e- mai l s f r omt hose sour ces. That i s at t ached as an exhi bi t t o
t hei r mot i ons.
THE COURT: Have t hose e- mai l s been pr oduced t o pl ai nt i f f ?
MR. KLI MAS: I don' t know - - t he answer t o t hat quest i on
i s no, and t he r eason why i s because t he I RS i s pr oduci ng Loi s
Ler ner ' s e- mai l s and r evi ewi ng t hemi n r ever se chr onol ogi cal
or der . So t he I RS st ar t ed wi t h e- mai l s f r om2013, t he most
r ecent , and i s wor ki ng backwar ds. The I RS had not even got t en t o
2011, t he poi nt at whi ch t her e woul d have been any r ecogni t i on on
t he par t of t he I RS FOI A pr ocessi ng t eamt hat t her e was an i ssue.
That ' s a l ar ge par t of t he r eason why I was not made awar e of
t hi s i ssue, because t he I RS empl oyees pr ocessi ng t he FOI A
r equest s had not even got t en t o a poi nt wher e t hey coul d have
r eal i zed pot ent i al l y t hat t her e was an i ssue.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thank you. I n r esponse?
MS. COTCA: J ust ver y br i ef l y, Your Honor , wi t h r espect t o
t he ef f or t s t hat opposi ng counsel i s j ust r ef er r i ng t o. Those
ar e t he ef f or t s t hat t he I RS had gone t hr ough t o t r y t o r et r i eve
t he har d dr i ve and/ or maybe, per haps, backup t apes. That was
back i n 2011. I ' mt al ki ng about what ef f or t s have been done now
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
i n t hi s l i t i gat i on t o i dent i f y ot her sour ces t hat pot ent i al l y
coul d have t hese l ost e- mai l s, so t hat - - t her e' s a di f f er ence,
and I ' mhi ghl i ght i ng - -
THE COURT: I sn' t t hi s nor mal l y t he subj ect of a meet and
conf er , t hough, i n cases among counsel , f or counsel t o meet and
t al k about t hi s? Al l r i ght , t her e' s a pr obl emwi t h Loi s Ler ner ' s
e- mai l s, so how can we get t hi s i nf or mat i on, what ot her sour ces,
what about her cc l i st or bcc l i st or what ever ? Have you had any
di scussi ons l i ke t hat i n an ef f or t t o f i nd out how you can get
t hi s i nf or mat i on f r omot her sour ces?
MS. COTCA: We have, Your Honor . That was act ual l y t hi s
week on Tuesday, and t hose quest i ons haven' t - -
THE COURT: J ust Tuesday, t hough?
MS. COTCA: On Tuesday speci f i cal l y we - -
THE COURT: That ' s j ust a t el ephone conver sat i on, r i ght ?
MS. COTCA: That was a t el ephone conver sat i on, yes.
MS. COTCA: J ust - - and goi ng back ver y br i ef l y t o r el at ed
cases, J udi ci al Wat ch act ual l y has anot her pendi ng FOI A
l i t i gat i on t hat r el at es t o r ecor ds wi t h r espect t o per sonal
audi t s, audi t s of per sonal - - of i ndi vi dual s t hat wer e r ef er r ed
because of i nf or mat i on t hat was i n Tea Par t y' s appl i cat i ons.
That ' s act ual l y case number , I bel i eve, 13- 1759.
At t hi s poi nt - - I t ' s al so bef or e t hi s Cour t . So
t hat ' s - - t hat may - - t hi s i ssue may be r el at ed or may come up i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
t hat case, but I j ust want ed - - I mi ssed i t and I j ust want ed t o
make t he Cour t awar e.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . Thank you. Thank you, bot h. I
t hank t he f our of you. Let me j ust say t hi s: Fi r st of al l , t he
Cour t woul d be l oat hed t o gr ant an or al mot i on f or di scover y. I t
may wel l be, as pl ai nt i f f counsel i ndi cat ed, t hi s i s one of t he
r ar e cases t hat , because of devel opment s, counsel ' s i n f avor of
some l i mi t ed di scover y. I t ' s pr emat ur e at t hi s poi nt t o know
t hat .
I t hi nk t hat how t hi s case shoul d pr oceed i s as f ol l ows:
The gover nment i s goi ng t o be r equi r ed t o f i l e a decl ar at i on
si gned by t he appr opr i at e I RS of f i ci al , under oat h, under
penal t i es, addr essi ng t he Loi s Ler ner e- mai l / comput er i ssues, and
I ' l l j ust l eave i t as br oad as t hat r i ght now because, you know,
I have no i dea what t he r el evant t i mef r ame i s i nsof ar as t hi s
FOI A r equest .
Counsel has i ndi cat ed t hat t her e may be e- mai l s t hat
pr edat e t he cr ash t hat ar e somehow i mpact ed by - - I don' t know
t hat t o be a f act or not , so t hat ' s why I ' msayi ng, and I ' l l put
t hi s i n wr i t i ng i n a mi nut e or der , a decl ar at i on si gned by t he
appr opr i at e of f i ci al under oat h addr essi ng t he Loi s Ler ner
i ssues. That ' s about as br oad as I can make i t at t hi s poi nt .
The f act t hat t her e' s an I T i nvest i gat i on ongoi ng i s
i mpor t ant , i t ' s si gni f i cant . I don' t t hi nk i t ' s r el evant at al l
who' s conduct i ng t he i nvest i gat i on. I t hi nk i t ' s pr obabl y i n
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38
ever yone' s best i nt er est t hat t he i nvest i gat i on commence, i t has
commenced, accor di ng t o gover nment counsel , and can concl ude as
soon as possi bl e, and hopef ul l y at some poi nt t her e' s a publ i c
r epor t vol unt ar i l y pr oduced by t he I nspect or Gener al , and I ' l l
j ust l eave i t at t hat , t hat woul d addr ess t he r el evant i ssues i n
t hi s l i t i gat i on. I want t o be ver y car ef ul . I ' mj ust f ocusi ng
on t hi s FOI A case and t he pr oduct i on of document s t hat t hi s
pl ai nt i f f has r equest ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on and not hi ng el se. I
t hi nk t hat once t he decl ar at i on - - t he decl ar at i on shoul d al so
i ncl ude i nf or mat i on t hat may assi st t he par t i es i n r ecover i ng t he
subj ect mat t er of t he l ost e- mai l s f r omot her sour ces. I t hi nk
t hat ' s hi ghl y r el evant . So t her e wi l l be t wo mai n par t s, A and
B. A wi l l be t he Loi s Ler ner par t , and B wi l l be, how do we get
t hi s i nf or mat i on t hat ' s been l ost f r omot her sour ces, and t hat ' s
goi ng t o be hi ghl y r el evant as wel l , and t hat ' s al so goi ng t o
i nf or mt he Cour t whet her t her e' s a need f or l i mi t ed di scover y.
Now, I don' t t hi nk t hi s decl ar at i on shoul d be f i l ed at t he
concl usi on of di scover y. The decl ar at i on shal l be f i l ed, and I ' m
not goi ng t o ext end t he t i me. I ' l l be a l i t t l e gener ous i n
set t i ng f or t h an appr opr i at e t i mef r ame r ecogni zi ng t hi s i s
mi d- J ul y, peopl e have pl ans t o go on vacat i on, I don' t want
anyone' s spouses, si gni f i cant ot her s, or ki ds mad at me because
he or she has t o cancel vacat i on. Ther e ar e l i mi t s t o my
j udi ci al aut hor i t y, and I don' t want any phone cal l s f r omf ami l y
member s, so i t ' s goi ng t o be 30 days f r omt oday' s dat e. Today i s
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
t he 10t h, so August 10t h, and I ' mnot goi ng t o ext end i t . I want
t hat decl ar at i on f i l ed and si gned by t he appr opr i at e of f i ci al
under oat h, al l r i ght , and I ' ve sai d t hat at l east t hr ee or f our
t i mes. Then t hat ' s goi ng t o i nf or mt he Cour t and pl ai nt i f f as
wel l as t o whet her or not t her e i s a need f or any di scover y,
l i mi t ed di scover y.
So at t hat t i me, i f pl ai nt i f f wi shes t o pur sue di scover y,
t hen pl ai nt i f f can f i l e a r equest f or di scover y addr essi ng any
i nadequaci es i n t he decl ar at i on and i t ' s ent i t l ement , i f i t has
an ent i t l ement , as a mat t er of l aw, t o di scover y at t hi s ver y
i nt er est i ng j unct ur e wher e di scover y i s st i l l ongoi ng, i t ' s not
been concl uded, we' r e not at t he 56( f ) st age, but by t he same
t oken I t hi nk i t ' s appr opr i at e t o gi ve pl ai nt i f f a chance t o
addr ess whet her or not t her e' s a need f or di scover y.
Now, havi ng sai d t hat , I ' mgoi ng t o di r ect t hat t he
par t i es meet and conf er wi t h r espect t o t he B par t of t hat
decl ar at i on, how does t he gover nment obt ai n t hi s i nf or mat i on f r om
ot her sour ces, and I ' mgoi ng t o ask my col l eague J udge Facci ol a
t o pr esi de over di scussi ons, meet and conf er di scussi ons about
how t hat obj ect i ve i s obt ai ned; t hat i s, how ar e t he l ost
document s ot her wi se r et r i evabl e, i f at al l , f r omot her sour ces,
so you' r e not goi ng t o be abl e t o f i l e a mot i on f or di scover y
i mmedi at el y on August t he 11t h. I don' t know J udge Facci ol a' s
cal endar . I n f act , I di dn' t even t hi nk about assi gni ng or aski ng
hi mt o hel p me do anyt hi ng unt i l a f ew mi nut es ago, but I t hi nk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
t hat t he par t i es' best i nt er est s, best r espect i ve i nt er est s woul d
be ser ved by havi ng a di si nt er est ed t hi r d par t y j udi ci al of f i cer
assi st you, and because he' s an exper t i n t hi s ar ea of
E- di scover y, et cet er a, assi st t he par t i es i n obt ai ni ng - - i n
accompl i shi ng t hat obj ect i ve, how do you get t hat i nf or mat i on
f r omot her sour ces. I don' t know how much t i me t hat ' s goi ng t o
t ake. Agai n, I don' t know hi s schedul e. Hopef ul l y, he' l l be on
some ni ce beach August 11t h and f or t he r est of t he summer .
So what I ' l l do i s I ' l l say unt i l Sept ember 10t h or so
I ' l l r ef er t he mat t er t o J udge Facci ol a - - t hat wi l l be a mont h
af t er t he gover nment ' s f i l i ng of i t s decl ar at i on - - and t he
par t i es can meet and conf er wi t h hi mi n an ef f or t t o det er mi ne
how t hi s i nf or mat i on can ot her wi se be r ecover abl e or
di scover abl e, and I t hi nk t hat ' s al l t hat t he Cour t needs t o do
at t hi s poi nt , and I ' l l i ssue an appr opr i at e or der t hat addr esses
t hat , and I ' l l pr obabl y i ssue t hat t oday or t omor r ow.
The t hi r d par t shal l be t he I T i nvest i gat i on. I f t he
gover nment cont ends t hat di scover y woul d somehow or anot her
compr omi se or i mpact adver sel y t he I G i nvest i gat i on, t hen t he
gover nment needs t o pr ovi de t hat i nf or mat i on agai n under oat h i n
a decl ar at i on. So t her e ar e t hr ee sect i ons t her e. I f I t hi nk of
a f our t h sect i on, I ' l l put i t i n t he mi nut e or der , but t hose ar e
t he t hr ee sect i ons t hat I want t he gover nment t o addr ess, and
t hat ' s - - I ' mnot goi ng t o schedul e anot her st at us hear i ng now.
Agai n, I don' t know t he avai l abi l i t y of J udge Facci ol a. I t may
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
wel l be t hat you f ol ks ar e goi ng on vacat i on, t oo, I don' t know,
but t her e may have t o be some modest adj ust ment s, but I ' mgoi ng
t o hol d t i ght t o t hat August 10t h deadl i ne, t hough, f or t he
f i l i ng of t hat decl ar at i on. I t hi nk t hat 30 days f r omt oday i s
most appr opr i at e, and t hat ' s what t he Cour t wi l l do. Al l r i ght .
Any ot her mat t er s t hat we have t o addr ess t oday?
So I ' mnot pr ecl udi ng you at al l f r omf i l i ng your mot i on,
i t ' s j ust t hat t he t i mi ng i s not r i ght now, and you mi ght get a
l ot of addi t i onal i nf or mat i on as a r esul t of t he gover nment ' s
abi l i t y t o pr oceed wi t h al t er nat i ve sour ces f or r ecover y of t hi s
i nf or mat i on. I don' t know what ' s bei ng pr oduced i n ot her cases,
and counsel , you don' t know ei t her , do you? You' r e not i nvol ved
i n al l t he ot her cases?
MR. KLI MAS: I ' mnot i nvol ved i n al l t he ot her FOI A cases,
but I ' mi nvol ved i n sever al of t he FOI A cases.
THE COURT: Al l r i ght . That ' s al l I have t o say.
( Pr oceedi ngs adj our ned at 12: 19 p. m. )
C E R T I F I C A T E
I , Scot t L. Wal l ace, RDR- CRR, cer t i f y t hat
t he f or egoi ng i s a cor r ect t r anscr i pt f r omt he r ecor d of
pr oceedi ngs i n t he above- ent i t l ed mat t er .
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Scott L. Wallace, RDR, CRR Date
Official Court Reporter

Judicial Watch v. IRS - Transcript of Status Conf 7-10-2014

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Judicial Watch v. IRS - Transcript of Status Conf 7-10-2014

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Scott L.

Wallace, RDR, CRR, Official Court Reporter

Anda mungkin juga menyukai