Mueller He Sued

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a person discussed in the Mueller report has standing to bring an equitable claim for alleged errors

In 2017, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III began investigating allegations of Russian government interference in the previous year’s presidential election. To that end he empaneled a grand jury. One of the witnesses who testified before it was Giorgi Rtskhiladze.

When the Department of Justice released a redacted version of Mueller’s final report, it included information that allegedly injured Rtskhiladze. So he sued, seeking both equitable and monetary relief. He also filed a separate application to obtain a copy of the transcript of his grand jury testimony.

The district court decided that Rtskhiladze lacked standing to bring his equitable claims; that he failed to state a claim for damages; and that he was not entitled to obtain a copy of the transcript.

We hold that Rtskhiladze has standing to bring all his claims. So we remand for the district court to consider the merits of the equitable claims that it dismissed for lack of standing. However, we agree with the district court that Rtskhiladze has failed to state a claim for damages. We also agree with the decision to deny Rtskhiladze’s request to obtain a copy of the transcript of his grand jury testimony.

Errors alleged

First, it falsely called Rtskhiladze “Russian” when he is a Georgian-American. Id. Second, it inaccurately quoted the text that Rtskhiladze sent to Michael Cohen. Third, Rtskhiladze says the footnote was vaguely drafted and created false insinuations about his conduct.

Harm

DOJ does little to dispute that Rtskhiladze has alleged an injury caused by the Mueller Report. More saliently, DOJ says that the court cannot equitably redress any such injury. According to DOJ, the (accurate) Senate Report eliminated the ongoing effects of the (inaccurate) Mueller Report.

We disagree. A government report (like the Senate Report) does not extinguish the harm from an earlier government report (like the Mueller Report) “where reputational injury derives directly from an unexpired and unretracted government action.”

Damages

On appeal, Rtskhiladze has forfeited any argument that he plausibly alleged “intentional or willful” conduct by DOJ. Instead, he cites common-law defamation precedents. But this is not a defamation suit, and the Privacy Act’s explicit text requires Rtskhiladze to allege “intentional or willful” conduct. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4). So here, common law cases are not on point.

Because Rtskhiladze has not even attempted to meet the Privacy Act’s requirements, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his damages claim.

Panel

SRINIVASAN, Chief Judge, WALKER and PAN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALKER

(Mike Frisch)