This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 1 minute read

"Ga. Says DOJ Can't Hide Voting Suit Docs From FOIA Bid," Law 360

On Friday, September 30, 2022, various Georgia top elections officials requested that a District of Columbia federal judge found that the U.S. Department of Justice can not shield their records of their discussions with the outside groups who are challenging Georgia's recent voting law. They argue that by talking to the outside group to begin with, the feds waived their rights of any privilege of information over those documents.

Taylor English partner Bryan P. Tyson and Bryan F. Jacoutot are two of the legal counsel representation for both the state of Georgia and Secretary of State  Brad Raffensperger.

Georgia and Raffensperger argue that the conversations the DOJ had did not have an agreement in place that protected the topics and communications of the conversation had or that the feds "even shared any common legal interest with the various third party organizations" at the time.

"As those litigants were each pursuing their own distinct claims and strategies, DOJ cannot identify a 'common legal interest' that allowed DOJ to exchange privileged communications with third parties before the Northern District of Georgia consolidated the SB 202 litigation."

Secretary of State Raffensperger as well as the state of GA say that "the D.C. Circuit has repeatedly emphasized that the purported consultant must not be representing its own interests" and that "a true 'consultant' for purposes of the consultant corollary thus gives advice sought out by the agency, and acts solely with the agency's interests in mind."

To read the full article subscribers may click here

"As those litigants were each pursuing their own distinct claims and strategies, DOJ cannot identify a 'common legal interest' that allowed DOJ to exchange privileged communications with third parties before the Northern District of Georgia consolidated the SB 202 litigation," the motion said, adding that, before the consolidation order, "these lawsuits were proceeding separately, involved different legal claims and theories, and involved different facts."

Tags

tyson_bryan, jacoutot_bryan, news