Opinion ID: 186823
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Judicial Watch's Alleged Fishing Expedition in Conjunction with Post-1998 Discovery

Text: 33 DOC charges that Judicial Watch's post-1998 discovery was employed to engage in a fishing expedition that was unrelated to its FOIA lawsuit. We decline to entertain this claim, because it was not properly preserved with the District Court. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976) (as a general rule, a federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below); Williams v. Shalala, 997 F.2d 1494, 1500 (D.C.Cir.1993) (In general, an appellate court cannot consider issues not raised before the district court.). We agree with Judicial Watch that, in opposition to the fee application below, DOC never made the argument that fees should be denied because of allegedly irrelevant lines of questions asked in certain depositions. Appellee's Br. at 24. The argument is therefore waived. 34 There is no doubt that DOC repeatedly objected on relevance grounds during the depositions before the Magistrate Judge. See, e.g., Joint Appendix (J.A.) 644, 647-50, 675-77, 902, 951, 957, 960-61, 966-67, 977, 979, 982, 984. However, in its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Partial Opposition to Plaintiff's Application for Attorneys' Fees, J.A. 431-59, DOC never raised any specific objections claiming that certain of the fees claimed by Judicial Watch were excessive due to inappropriate fishing expeditions. DOC did make a general claim that some of the post-1998 discovery delved into 'collateral issues,' but this argument was raised in the context of DOC's claim that, because the post-1998 discovery produced no tangible benefits for Judicial Watch, no fees could be based on work done after December 1998. J.A. 443. This was not sufficient to put the District Court on notice that, in opposing fees, DOC wished to renew specific objections to the scope and relevance of some of the lines of inquiry pursued by Judicial Watch while taking depositions after December 22, 1998. 35 Unsurprisingly, having received no specific fishing expedition, relevance, or scope of discovery objections in DOC's opposition to Judicial Watch's fee application, the District Court did not address these matters. Rather, the District Court merely noted that it had policed Judicial Watch's discovery to ensure that discovery remained within the scope authorized by the Court. Fees Decision, 384 F.Supp.2d at 171. The court concluded that, because it had carefully supervised post-1998 discovery to ensure relevancy, [it had] no occasion to reduce Judicial Watch's award. Id. DOC raised no specific objections below to contest this conclusion. Therefore, we can find no grounds on this record to overturn the District Court's judgment on this point. 36