emails with doj re: foia request

7/26/2019 Emails with DOJ re: FOIA Request

1/5

Exhibit C

Case 1:16-cv-00461-ABJ Document 20-4 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 5


2/5

1

Hatchett, Andrew

From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 5:23 PMTo: Kang, EdwardCc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Ted: Thanks for your email. Ive provided answers to your questions below. It is important to understand that thedocument counts here are approximations, and the resulting page counts are based on an assumption of approximately1.6 pages per document. The actual length could fluctuate considerably from one document to the next. Moreover,because we werent in a position to open each attachment to an email, the estimate is based solely on parentdocuments. Thus, the total number of pages, even after narrowing, is likely quite a bit higher than 450,000 pages.

Are the 450,000 pages that you identify below include classified material? If it does, what is the page count for onlynon-classified?

This figure is, as we mentioned, a rough estimate. Of those approximately 450,000 pages, less than ten

percent were classified. Can you break down the total page count by the three custodians at issue (Kennedy, Mills, Sullivan)?

Sullivan had approximately 120,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 200,000 pages, after

search criteria were applied.

Kennedy had approximately 95,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 150,000 pages, after

search criteria were applied.

Mills had approximately 66,000 documents, totaling more than approximately 100,000 pages, after search

criteria were applied.

Are you further able to break down the number of pages associated with each of the search terms that we sentyou?

The fact that the documents were in various formats and databases necessitated a variety of searchtechniques to arrive at this estimate. As such, such a breakdown is not readily available.

I look forward to hearing from you. Justin

From: Kang, Edward [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 9:18 AMTo: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)Cc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Hi Justin. Thank you for the update. We have a few follow-up questions based on your email.

Are the 450,000 pages that you identify below include classified material? If it does, what is the page count foronly non-classified?



3/5

2

Can you break down the total page count by the three custodians at issue (Kennedy, Mills, Sullivan)?

Are you further able to break down the number of pages associated with each of the search terms that we sentyou?

Answers to these questions will better guide us on discussing next steps. Thanks very much.

Ted

__________________________________________________________Edward T. KangAlston + Bird LLP I 950 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 [email protected] http://www.alston.com/professionals/edward-kang/

From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 5:34 PMTo: Kang, Edward < [email protected] >Cc: Barnaby, Kelley < [email protected] >Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Good evening, Ted.

We have assessed, to the extent possible given technological limitations, the effect of the search terms and date limitson the universe of documents potentially responsive to your requests for the Mills, Sullivan, and Kennedyrecords. Unfortunately, with respect to these three requests, there are approximately 450,000 total potentiallyresponsive pages. Given the Departments current workload and the complexity of the review required for thesedocuments, including interagency consultations, the Department cannot process more than 500 pages a month. Thus, itwould take about 75 years to process these requests. Accordingly, the Department has concluded that, even as

narrowed, each of these three requests would impose an unreasonable burden, and it will not gather or processdocuments potentially responsive to them. Please let me know how you would like to proceed as to these requests, i.e.,whether you would like to move to summary judgment briefing or would prefer to jointly seek an extension of theupcoming deadline to allow the parties to negotiate more limited requests.

The Department continues to gather information regarding the requests related to Pagliano and Secretary Clinton, and Ihope to have more information to share with you tomorrow.

I look forward to hearing from you. Justin

From: Kang, Edward [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:25 PMTo: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)Cc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Hi Justin. Here is what my client proposes on limitations for the Mills production. We look forward to yourresponse. Thank you.

Proposed limitations on Mills-related documents



4/5

3

1/21/09 1/11/10 can be dropped from the timeframe of our request.

For the period 1/12/10 2/2/13, please exclude all emails received from:

[email protected]

[email protected]

For the period 2/3/13 10/31/13, the request remains unmodified (Produce these emails first)


From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 4:37 PMTo: Kang, Edward < [email protected] >Cc: Barnaby, Kelley < [email protected] >Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Good afternoon, Ted. Do you know when you will be able to send those search terms? Best, Justin

From: Kang, Edward [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:34 PMTo: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)Cc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Justin,

Thank you for your email. We look forward to hearing from you about how much our Kennedy/Sullivan search termswere able to limit the volume of documents please let us know as soon as possible once you have moreinformation. We will be providing you with search terms with respect to the Mills emails, and we will be providing youwith those terms later this week.

I also appreciate the update on the Pagliano records. While I dont recall being told that the information previouslyprovided was not final (I only recall being informed that there were no Pagliano and Clinton records that wereresponsive to our requests), I am glad to hear that the State Department has been able to locate emails related to Mr.

Pagliano. We would request that those emails be produced as soon as possible.

Do you know if the State Department has similarly been able to locate any blackberry and/or text messages with respectto Mrs. Clinton from the requested time period? Thank you very much.

Ted

__________________________________________________________Edward T. Kang



5/5

4

Alston + Bird LLP I 950 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004202-239-3728 O I 703-635-9373 [email protected] http://www.alston.com/professionals/edward-kang/

From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:21 PMTo: Kang, Edward < [email protected] >

Cc: Barnaby, Kelley < [email protected] >Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Narrowing

Ted: We are assessing whether the search terms that you have proposed for the Kennedy and Sullivan emails willmeaningfully reduce the volume of documents to a reasonable level. I take it that your client is declining to providesearch terms with respect to the Mills emails. Is that correct? Also, Ive been informed that the State Department hassome emails related to Mr. Pagliano, and Im in the process of gathering more information about those. Of course, as Inoted during our conversations, the information that I provided to you earlier was not final. I look forward to hearingfrom you. Justin

From: Kang, Edward [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2016 1:59 PMTo: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)Cc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion

Hi Justin. Attached please find our clients proposed search terms for the Kennedy and Sullivan emails. Please note thatfor the Kennedy emails, we have two groups of search terms one group for when Clinton was at the State Departmentand another group for after she left that position. Thanks very much, and enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Ted


From: Sandberg, Justin (CIV) [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 4:31 PMTo: Kang, Edward < [email protected] >Cc: Barnaby, Kelley < [email protected] >Subject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion

Ted: No problem. We cannot incorporate these edits. Accordingly, in our motion for an extension, we will note yourclients lack of consent. Best, Justin

From: Kang, Edward [ mailto:[email protected] ]Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:06 AMTo: Sandberg, Justin (CIV)Cc: Barnaby, KelleySubject: RE: Rep. Nat'l Comm. v. U.S. Dep't of State, 16-CV-461: Extension Motion


emails with doj re: foia request

Documents