Read Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
Here is a link. They all get sued, you can find the rest if you're so inclined.
You didn't read that article, did you?
After lengthy gobbledygook in the filing, here is a record of their interaction with the judge:
________________________________________________________________________________
THE COURT: What does “assume custody and control” mean in your view? What do you want them to do?
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Because they are also required to make them available to the public, “assume custody and control” would be to take control of the records or have somebody else take control of the records....
THE COURT: How do they take control? ... He issues a press release[:] I've got them.... Then what? What are they supposed to do?
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: As I said, there are many options.
THE COURT: Tell me one.
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: One option is they can call President Clinton and ask....
THE COURT: Okay. He says no. Now what?
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: They write a nice letter. They maybe use one of these enforcement mechanisms. Maybe they try something else.
Id. at 43:18–44:12. Throughout the hearing, plaintiff remained unable to identify any avenue for relief or to specify the terms of the order it was seeking:
THE COURT: What enforcement mechanism, what thing, what power can they exercise under the statute that I can order them to do that makes your injury redressable?
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: Once the records are determined to be [P]residential records there is an obligation to assume custody and control of them. How—and I will just say, once again, how they go about doing that—Judicial Watch is not challenging how.
* * *
And once the determination is made [that they are] [P]residential records, it opens the door. It leaves for the possibility that [A]rchives will go out and get the records. It leaves the possibility that they'll use one of their enforcement mechanisms or they may use other avenues to get them.
* * *
THE COURT: We're talking about very mushy unenforceable orders at this point.... I just don't think I could issue an order that says ‘try your best.’ Then how would anybody be able to ascertain whether they've complied[?]
Tr. at 48:24–50:24 (internal quotations added).
Ultimately, plaintiff conceded that even an order deeming the materials to be Presidential records and directing the defendant to make an effort to retrieve them would not bind the former President to produce them, Tr. at 60:14–20, and it would not make them magically available under FOIA:
THE COURT: So even if you win, what do you get?
[PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL]: We get the possibility to discuss that when the time comes.
_____________________________________
More discussion, followed by the ruling:
CONCLUSION
Thus, because the Court is unable to provide the remedy plaintiff seeks by ordering that defendant “assume custody and control” over the audiotapes, the Court is unable to redress plaintiff's claim. Accordingly, the Court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss [Dkt. # 6] under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. A separate order will issue.
______________________________________
In other words, they were laughed out of court.