FOLLOW US

Key Takeaways

1. Judicial Watch Prevails: A Georgia court found District Attorney Fani Willis in default, imposing $21,578 in attorney’s fees and costs.
2. Records Withheld: Despite initially denying any responsive records, Willis later admitted to having communications with the House January 6 Committee but withheld nearly all of them, claiming exemptions.
3. Special Master Sought: Judicial Watch has moved to appoint a special master to ensure a diligent search for any remaining records and to review the withheld communications.

By Samuel A. Lopez – USA Herald

(Washington, DC) – In a recent ruling, the Superior Court in Fulton County, Georgia, has issued an order granting Judicial Watch $21,578 in attorney’s fees and costs. In accordance with the court’s December order, Willis must tender payment of $21,578 within two weeks of the order’s entry.

This comes after District Attorney Fani Willis was found in default in an open records lawsuit concerning communications between her office, Special Counsel Jack Smith, and the House January 6 Committee.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, officially filed in March 2024 under the Georgia Open Records Act (ORA), demanded that Willis release any records pertaining to her communications with the Department of Justice’s Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6 Committee. According to the court record, Willis initially “flatly ignored” the request, then falsely responded that no such records existed.

After several back-and-forths, the Fulton County court determined in early December 2024 that Willis was in default for failing to comply with her obligations under the law. Notably, once default was entered, Willis suddenly acknowledged the existence of communications with the January 6 Committee—material she had previously disclaimed.

Court’s Rationale for Imposing Attorney’s Fees

The court’s ruling methodically details Willis’ failure to conduct any meaningful search for records until confronted with civil litigation. In the court’s own words:

“Most basically, by operation of law Defendant acknowledged violating the ORA when she defaulted. … Even if the records prove to be exempt from disclosure for sound public policy reasons, this late revelation is a patent violation of the ORA.”

From a legal standpoint, the court’s decision highlights how the Georgia Open Records Act contains explicit, mandatory provisions. Noncompliance triggers consequences—one of which is responsibility for the requestor’s legal fees.

Inconsistent Searches and the Request to Appoint a Special Master

Given Willis’ inconsistent record searches, Judicial Watch is now seeking the appointment of a special master. This request is grounded in the suspicion that not all responsive communications have been identified, and the group is asking for an in-camera (private) inspection of any withheld documents. Judicial Watch explains:

“Willis by her own admission conducted at least three searches before finding any responsive records not already supplied by [Judicial Watch]. She did not even bother to conduct a search until the Complaint was filed. … The foregoing gives rise to grave suspicion that all responsive records have not been found.”

Special masters, when appointed, serve as neutral third parties to oversee searches, document reviews, and disclosure. In this kind of high-profile matter, it can be a crucial step to maintain public confidence and legal integrity.