Obama Justice Dept loses motion in Panther case

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:


United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton has rejected claims of attorney work product privilege made by the Obama Justice Department to justify the withholding of key documents relating to the New Black Panther Party scandal.

Judicial Watch, a conservative non-partisan government accountability watchdog, had sued Justice after the department refused to turnover documents relating to the Obama administration's decision to dismiss charges against several members of the New Black Panther Party who were videotaped intimidating voters outside a polling place on Eleciton Day 2008. In response to a Judicial Wath Freedom of Information Act request, Justice had refused to turnover some documents that were prepared after the government dismissed its case, claiming they were protected by the attorney work product privilege.

But Judge Walton rejected the Obama administration's work product privilege claim, noting: "The filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the scope of the work-product privilege."

Judge Walton did find that the documents might be properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege, but that the Justice Department had not yet provided the proper explanation to meet the standard either. Justice now has until September 30th to explain why the documents meet the deliberative process privilege standard.

“The Obama Justice Department is going to extraordinary lengths to make sure no more details emerge regarding the Black Panther scandal,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a release. “We already know the Obama administration’s claim that political appointees were not involved in this decision is patently false. And now Justice Department officials continue to fight tooth and nail to stonewall the release of additional information. What else do they have to hide? This new court ruling means we may pry loose some additional information on this voter intimidation scandal.”