According to various articles, it seems that a lot of disclosures have come about via Judicial Watch’s lawsuit. According to this article, they are currently suing for the right to depose Clinton about the matter. I’m having a hard time understanding what gives JW any more standing than any other American to depose Clinton. And if they don’t have any more standing, then does that mean that - per their legal argument - any random citizen can demand the right to depose a former SOS over her email practices and the like?
Or are they different because they’re been previously been granted some sort of standing on behalf of the public in this case?
Judicial Watch sued the State Department alleging violation of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), which grants subject matter jurisdiction to federal courts to compel a federal agency to produce records where the agency has improperly withheld such records. Judicial watch had asked the State Department for certain records, and subsequently brought suit in federal court alleging that the agency was not in compliance with FOIA.
FOIA suits are actually fairly common (the State Department currently has over 100 FOIA lawsuits pending in court).
I have not read any of the filings in the case, but my guess is that JW is arguing that it should be allowed to depose HRC as a witness, for information about her records retention practices. I have no idea how common it is for such depositions to be permitted in FOIA suits.
That’s essentially one of the four arguments advanced by JW in support of their request for the deposition (here’s the State Department’s objection brief to JW’s request).
To clarify, JW did not sue for the right to depose HRC – as mentioned, JW brought a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department, and subsequently asked the Court to allow it to depose HRC as part of the discovery process related to the FOIA case.