Committee on Judiciary v. McGahn

Citation: 391 F. Supp. 3d 116Docket: Civil Action No. 19-2379 (BAH)

Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; August 14, 2019; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The House Judiciary Committee has filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief to enforce a subpoena issued on April 22, 2019, compelling Donald F. McGahn II, former White House Counsel, to testify. This action stems from the Committee's investigation into whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald J. Trump, referencing obstructive conduct outlined in Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report. The Complaint indicates that McGahn's refusal to testify is based on President Trump's assertion of his absolute immunity. Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee has filed a Notice of Related Case, linking this matter to previously filed cases concerning the release of grand jury materials, which were assigned to the Chief Judge due to their nature. The court has ordered the Committee to justify the related case designation in light of McGahn's objection. The resolution of the case's relation status is pending.

All new cases filed in this courthouse are randomly assigned to promote public confidence in judicial integrity, ensure equitable case distribution among judges, prevent favoritism, and minimize opportunities for judge-shopping, as established in various case law, including Dakota Rural Action v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. Scrupulous adherence to Local Rule 40.5 is crucial to maintain the appearance of impartiality; however, exceptions exist for 'related cases' under this rule. A plaintiff can designate a case as related by submitting a form to the Clerk of the Court, provided that the earlier case is pending and both cases share common property, factual issues, events, or involve the same patent. The burden of proof lies with the party claiming the relation, and deviation from random assignment is only warranted if the relationship is clear. The assigned judge addresses any objections to the related-case designation.

The House Judiciary Committee argues that the McGahn Subpoena Case is related to its GJ Materials Application due to overlapping factual issues and a shared event. However, the rule lacks clarity on the necessary degree of relatedness for bypassing random assignment. The Committee asserts that both cases stem from the same investigation and legal authorities aimed at gathering evidence concerning President Trump's obstructive actions, suggesting a justified application of the related case rule based on their factual connections.

The McGahn Subpoena Case is deemed not related to the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Grand Jury (GJ) Materials Application under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3). Key distinctions are outlined, indicating that the two cases involve different claims and issues. The McGahn Subpoena Case centers on enforcing a congressional subpoena related to McGahn's testimony, which the HJC argues is essential for addressing presidential misconduct and conducting oversight. In contrast, the HJC GJ Materials Application seeks the release of grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), specifically regarding President Trump's potential misconduct during the 2016 election. 

The legal issues in the McGahn case pertain to immunity and privileges related to McGahn's role as White House counsel, which are unique to him and do not overlap with the procedural questions presented in the HJC's GJ Application. The latter primarily concerns whether the HJC's investigation is connected to a judicial proceeding, a legal issue separate from those in the McGahn case. This divergence in claims, factual issues, and types of evidence—testimony versus grand jury materials—supports the conclusion that the cases are not related, warranting the transfer of the McGahn Subpoena Case for random reassignment by the Calendar and Case Management Committee.

The House Judiciary Committee has established specific "Grand Jury Handling Procedures" to ensure the secure storage and limited access of grand jury materials obtained through HJC's GJ Materials Application. These procedures are designed to protect sensitive information and require that access be restricted to Committee members and designated staff. The distinction between the evidence sought in HJC's application and the public testimony demanded from McGahn illustrates that the two cases do not share common issues of fact. Previous case law supports this view, indicating that cases must involve similar factual issues to be considered related. For example, different legal foundations, such as those based on the Equal Credit Opportunity Act versus common law claims, highlight varying issues of fact. The House Judiciary Committee argues that both cases seek evidence related to potential impeachment articles against President Trump, suggesting commonality; however, the rationale for filing the cases does not suffice to establish relatedness. The related case rule is intended to streamline judicial efficiency only when two cases have highly overlapping factual issues. McGahn counters that a litigant's purpose does not determine the relatedness of cases, as it could lead to broad interpretations that disregard the necessity for common factual issues, illustrated by a hypothetical involving multiple FOIA requests made for differing documents. Hence, a mere shared objective between litigants is not enough to justify treating the cases as related.

The McGahn Subpoena Case and the House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Grand Jury (GJ) Materials Application are not related under Local Civil Rule 40.5(a)(3)(iii) because they do not stem from the same event or transaction. The McGahn Subpoena originated from HJC's efforts to enforce a specific congressional subpoena against McGahn, whose refusal to comply triggered this action. In contrast, HJC's GJ Materials Application seeks grand jury materials related to the Special Counsel's Report, representing a different issue altogether. A precedent case, Lucas v. Barreto, illustrates that cases can be deemed unrelated even if they share a common context, emphasizing the risk of judge-shopping if unrelated matters are connected to a single judge. The court underscores that allowing the HJC to link various matters from its investigation to a single judge would undermine the impartiality intended by Local Civil Rule 40.5. Although HJC argues that finding relatedness would enhance judicial efficiency, the cases are too distinct in their core issues to justify this claim. Consequently, the HJC has not demonstrated sufficient grounds for deviating from random case assignment. The case will thus be transferred to the Calendar and Case Management Committee for random reassignment. The subpoena also sought documents from McGahn, but an accommodation with the White House allows for a rolling production of these documents, meaning the current Complaint focuses solely on enforcing McGahn's testimony.