Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 1 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COUMBIA

RAND PAUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; et aI.,
Plaintiffs, v.
BARACK H. OBAMA, et aI., Defendants.

, '
Case: 1: 14-cv-00262 Assigned To: Leon, Richard J. Assign, Date: 2/18/2014 Description: Civil Rights (non, employ)

PLAINTIFF PAUL'S MOTION TO LIST NON-RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS IN COMPLAINT CAPTION Pursuant to instructions from the Office of the Clerk for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Plaintiff Rand Paul respectfully requests that he be permitted to use a P.O. Box address on the Complaint, in lieu of the residential address set forth in D.D.C. L.Cv.R. 11.1. Plaintif1 Paul is a United States Senator representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky. As a public figure, disseminating Plaintiff Paul's residential address via a publiclyfiled complaint would needlessly impinge upon his personal privacy. Rule 1l.1 's purpose is to "facilitate service of process and effective communication between the parties." Yaman v. United States Dep't afState, 786 F.Supp.2d 148, 153 CO.D.C. 2011). Plaintiff Paul's mailbox, which is regularly checked, as well as his representation by undersigned counsel, ensure that he will receive any communications from the Court and other litigants. Accordingly, Plaintiff Paul respectfully moves that he be permitted to file the Complaint using a P.O. Box in lieu of a residential address in the Complaint's caption.

1

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 1 Filed 02/18/14 Page 2 of 3
Respectfully Submitted,

I

is-fin:l.com

The Lewis Finn, PLLC

901 New York Ave., Ste. 450E

Washington, D.C. 20001

Tel:

Ken Cuccinelli (pro hac vice pending) Cuccinelli & Associates, LLC 10560 Main Street, Ste. 218 Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Certificate of Service
1 ceJiify that a true and con'ect copy of this Plaintitf Paul's Motion to List NonResidential Address in Complaint Caption was served on the following via certified U.S. mail on
February 12,2014:
BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Office of the President, The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20500
JAMES R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence; Office of the Director ofNationallntelligenee Attn: James R. Clapper Washington, D.C. 20511
KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; National Security Agency Attn: General Keith B. Alexander 9800 Savage Rd. FOli Meade, MD 20755

2

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 1 Filed 02/18/14 Page 3 of 3
JAMES B. COMEY, JR., in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; FBI Headquarters 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20535-0001 Defendants. Additional service on behalf of Defendants President Obama, Director Clapper and Director Comey: Ronald C. Machen Jr. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Judiciary Cemef Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Additional service on behalf of Defendant Genera! Alexander: Rod 1. Rosenstein U.S. Att0t11ey for the District of M 6406 I vy Lane Suite 800 Greenbelt, MD 20770
Earl N. "Tlfy" Mayfrlld
Counsel for PlaintitFs
3

 
 Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COUMBIA
RAND PAUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; P.O. Box 15643 Washington, D.C. 20003

FEB 1 ~ 201<t
....Clerk. U.S. fJistncr & 8ankrlllJiCt t,ourts for the Dletncl of t::ol,,mhi:t

and
FREEDOMWORKS, INC., on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated; 400 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 765 Washington, D.C. 20001

Case: 1: 14-cv-00262
Assigned To: Leon, Richard J.
Assign. Date: 2/18/2014 Description: Civil Rights (non. employ)

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Office of the President, The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20500

JAMES R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director ofNational Intelligence; Office of the Director of National Intelligence Attn: James R. Clapper Washington, D.C. 20511

KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; National Security Agency Attn: General Keith B. Alexander 9800 Savage Rd. Fort Meade, MD 20755
and JAMES B. COMEY, JR., in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; FBI Headquarters 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Defendants.

1

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 2 of 18
Additional service on behalf of Defendants President Obama, Director Clapper and Director Corney: Ronald C. Machen Jr. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530
Additional service on behalf of Defendant General Alexander: Rod J. Rosenstein U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland 6406 Ivy Lane Suite 800 Greenbelt, MD 20770
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated United States citizens
or permanent residents who are or have been customers, users, or subscribers of phone service in
the United States since 2006, bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against
Defendants' mass, suspicionless, non-particularized collection, storage, retention, and search of
telephone metadata related to every domestic or international phone call made or received by
Plaintiffs and class members (hereinafter "Mass Associational Tracking Program" or "MATP")
under the auspices of Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act. 50 U.S.C. § 1861, in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 1 Plaintiffs and class members seek a declaration that the Mass Associational Tracking Program is unconstitutional, an injunction forbidding the government from continuing the MATP, and an order to the Defendants to purge from its MATP
databases all of the telephone metadata related to the communications ofPlaintiffs and class
members. Plaintiffs and class members aver as follows:
1 The Fourth Amendment provides: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describmg the place to be searched, and the persons or thmgs to be seized."
2

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 3 of 18
SUBJECT MATTER JURJSDlCTION AND AUTHORJTY TO GRANT RELIEF 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members arise under the Constitution of the United States. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. This Court has authority to award costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
PERSONAL JURJSDICTION 2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because their acts or
omissions giving rise to the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members occurred in this district or because of their regular or continuous presence or residence in this district.
VENUE 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a substantial portion of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members occurred in this district, and, upon information and belief, one or more ofDefendants reside in this district.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 4. Plaintiff and Class Representative Rand Paul is a citizen of the United States and a resident and citizen of Kentucky. Plaintiff Paul has standing to bring this suit because Defendants have, without legitimate legal basis, collected, stored, retained, and periodically searched
3

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 4 of 18
telephone metadata concerning every domestic or international phone call he made or received since at least May 2006, and Defendants continue to do so. Plaintiff Paul uses and has used both cellular and/or landline telephones in the United States on a daily basis since May 2006, and he has been a subscriber of both cellular and landline telephone services since May 2006. Such telephone services have included, but not been limited to, Verizon Wireless and AT&T services. Plaintiffhas a subjective expectation ofprivacy from Defendants about his telephone metadata that society views as reasonable. 5. Plaintiff and Class Representative FreedomWorks, Inc. is a not for profit Washington, D.C. corporation ("FreedomWorks"), exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff FreedomWorks has standing to bring this suit because Defendants have, without legitimate legal basis, collected, stored, retained for five years, and periodically searched telephone metadata concerning every domestic or international phone call made or received by FreedomWorks' employees and members since at least May 2006, and Defendants continue to do so. 2 PlaintitTFreedomWorks's employees and members use both cellular and landline telephones in the United States, and FreedomWorks is a subscriber ofboth cellular and landline telephone services. FreedomWorks also funds the cellular telephone plans of many of its employees. Such telephone services have included, but not been limited to, Verizon Wireless and AT&T services. Plaintiff FreedomWorks has a subjective expectation of privacy from Defendants of its telephone metadata that society views as reasonable.
2 FreedomWorks has approximately 6,000,000 participating members and over 65,000 financially supportmg members.
4

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 5 of 18
DEFENDANTS
6. Defendant Barack H. Obama is the President ofthe United States endowed with ultimate authority over each of the federal agencies relevant to this action.
7. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director ofNationallntelligence endowed with ultimate authority over the activities of the intelligence community, including activities undertaken pursuant to Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1861, and the Mass Associationa1 Tracking Program.
8. Defendant Lt. General Keith Alexander is the Director of the National Security Agency ("NSA"), in the Department of Defense, and is Chief of the Central Security Service. Lt. General Alexander has ultimate authority to supervise and implement all functions and operations of the NSA, the agency that has and continues to conduct the Mass Associational Tracking Program under the auspices of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Lt. General Alexander personally authorizes and supervises the Mass Associational Tracking Program.
9. Defendant James B. Corney, Jr. is the Director of the FBI and is responsible for applications made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for orders demanding the production of "tangible things" under Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act, which is a cornerstone of the Mass Associationa1 Tracking Program.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 10. Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S. C. ~ 1801, et seq. ("FISA") in response to concerns about surveillance abuses and illegalities perpetrated by the federal government.
5

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 6 of 18
11. FISA empowers the government to obtain ex parte judicial orders from the FISC Court authorizing domestic electronic surveillance by demonstrating, among other things, that probable cause exists to believe that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 (a) (3) and 1805 (a) (2). A foreign power is defined to include "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." 50 U.S.C. § 1801.
12. In addition to arming the government with surveillance authority, 50 U.S.C. §§ 18011812, FISA was later amended to enable the government to obtain ex parte FISC orders authorizing physical searches, §§ 1821-1829, and pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, §§ 1841-1846.
13. In 1998, Congress added a "business records" provision to FISA. It empowered the FBI to apply for an ex parte order requiring specified entities, for instance, common carriers, to release business records by demonstrating that "there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(2)(B) (2000).
14. In the aftermath ofthe 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the Patriot Act which, among other things, empowered the FBI under Section 215 to apply for a FISC order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." 50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(l).
15. Congress changed the standard for obtaining a Section 215 FISC order in 2006 by requiring an FBI application to include "a statement of facts showing that there are
6

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 7 of 18
reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation ... to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." 50 U.S.C. § 186l(b)(2)(A).
Mass Associational Tracking Program 16. Since May 2006, Defendants have conducted the Mass Associational Tracking
Program under a series ofFISC orders issued pursuant to Section 215. Upon information and belief, all major telecommunications companies operating in the United States provide NSA on an ongoing daily basis telephone metadata for all domestic and international telephone calls on their networks, including the calls of Plaintiffs and class members. Plaintiffs' and class members' metadata is collected, maintained, and periodically searched in a single database without any belief by Defendants at the time of collection or retention or searches that any of the information is connected with international terrorism or an international terrorist organization. Plaintiffs and class members hold subjective expectations of privacy over their collected, retained, and searched telephone metadata by Defendants, which expectations society views as reasonable. The MATP does not exempt the telephone metadata of anyone from its vast database. 17. Additionally, Defendants' inconsistent public statements, along with now-public FISC orders, lead Plaintiffs and class members to be concerned that Defendants may have collected or may be collecting, storing, retaining, and searching location information from the telephone metadata. 3 If Plaintiffs and class members learn that Defendants
3 For example, what 1s known as a "trunk identifier" is among the metadata mcluded in the public orders of the FISC Court listmg what is to be provided by a telephone company to the NSA. Trunk identifiers specify a phys1cal
7

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 8 of 18
have or are collecting, storing, retaining, and searching location data relating to their telephone calls, Plaintiffs and class members reserve the right to move to amend their complaint accordingly. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendants coordinate or have coordinated various metadata gathering programs to identify individuals and their personal information and relate such individuals to particular phone numbers, email addresses, etc. 18. Upon information and belief, there are over 300 million mobile phone subscribers in the United States, and approximately 100 million landline subscribers. 19. Telephone metadata collected by Defendants includes comprehensive communications routing information including, but not limited to, originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity number, International Mobile Station Equipment Identity number, trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. 20. The metadata is stored by the NSA in repositories with secure networks, and access is restricted to authorized personnel with allegedly adequate and appropriate training. 21. The NSA is only to access the metadata to further an international terrorism investigation, and only by querying the entire database with a telephone number or identifier that is associated with an NSA-suspected foreign terrorist organization on a list approved by the FISC. The NSA refers to an identifier or phone number used to query the vast telephone metadata database as a "seed." Such queries may only take
locat1on where a call is connected between a single phone and a major element of the telecommunicatiOns network known as a "trunk." Thus, having the trunk identifier that a caller connects to provides a rough location for that caller at the time the call1s made and having the trunk identifier for the person bemg called also provides a rough locatiOn for the recipient of the call as well. Furthermore, if the NSA has received all of the trunk identifiers for each call (rather than merely the trunk identifiers connected to at the commencement of a phone call), then for calls made to or from phones that change locatiOn dunng the call, the NSA can roughly track such mobile phone user.
8

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 9 of 18
place after two NSA line personnel and one supervisor first decide that they believe there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the seed is associated with an international terrorist organization on the FISC approved list. There is no judicial oversight or appeal of such decision prior to NSA acting on the decision. 4 22. The type and quantum of evidence needed to satisfy the "reasonable articulable suspicion" threshold to initiate a query by the NSA officials based on a seed is not publicly known. While the results do not identify the individuals or organizations associated with responsive telephone numbers, their identities (including the identities ofPlaintiffs and class members) can be readily discovered outside the Mass Associated Tracking Program. When cross-checked against other public records, telephone metadata can reveal a person's name, address, driver's license, credit history, social security number, and other information. 5 23. The results of a query also include second and third-tier contacts ofthe seed, referred to by the NSA as "hops." 24. The first "hop" captures telephone metadata for phone numbers in direct contact with the seed. 25. The second "hop" reaches telephone metadata for telephone numbers in direct contact with the phone numbers captured in the first "hop." 26. The third "hop" assembles telephone metadata for telephone numbers in direct contact with any second "hop" telephone number. The universe of telephone numbers that can
4 On December 15, 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama complained about the lack ofJUdiCial oversight on the floor of the Senate, stating: "If someone wants to know why the1r own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or pnvate document, the library books that you've read, the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation g1ves people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No JUdge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong." (emphasis added). 5 See Klayman v. Obama, 2013 U.S. D1st. LEXIS 176925, *94, n.58.
9

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 10 of 18
be within three hops of a seed over a five year period may easily run to the hundreds of thousands, absent reasonable restrictions. 27. Upon information and belief, since its commencement in May 2006, Defendants' Mass Associational Tracking Program has not stopped or been instrumental in stopping even one imminent international terrorist attack, or otherwise assisted Defendants in achieving any time-sensitive objective. The December 12, 2013, Report and Recommendations of the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies ("PRG") 6 concluded that the Mass Associational Tracking Program "was not essential to preventing [terrorist] attacks and [the same information] could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders." PRG at 104. 28. Telephone metadata reveals a wealth of detail about Plaintiffs' and class members' familial, political, ideological, professional, religious, and other associations that are ordinarily unknown to government. Klayman v. Obama, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176925, *94 (citing United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 955 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Such metadata and details taken by, and in the hands of, Defendants and government violate the reasonable expectations ofprivacy ofPlaintiffs and class members. 29. A search occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment each time the NSA violates Plaintiffs' and class members' reasonable expectations of privacy. ACLU v. Clapper, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180863, *63 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360-61 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); Jones at 950 (2012); and Bond v. United States, 529
6 As of February 11, 2014, available at: http://www. whJtehouse.gov/sJtes/default/files/docs/2013-1212_rg_final_rcport. pdf
10

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 11 of 18
U.S. 334, 337 (2000)). At a minimum, Defendants violate Plaintiffs' and class
members' Fourth Amendment rights each time they gather, store or search Plaintiffs'
and class members' telephone metadata.
30. That Plaintiffs and class members necessarily reveal certain information to
telecommunications companies with which they contract for their telephone service-
and which are provided to Defendants under the MATP- does not reflect a willingness
or expectation that they are surrendering the privacy of the information, but simply
reflects a necessary accommodation to modem life. 7
7 See generally Klayman,._ Obama, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176925, *81-90; but see Smith v. Mwyland, 442 U.S. 735 ( 1979).
The differences between the present case and Smith m boih nature and scope are stark. A listing of such differences includes, but is not limited to, the followmg: (1) the fact that in Smith, the car owned by the target of the information-gathering had previously been spotted on the crime viet 1m's street twice; whereas, in this case, there is no indication beforehand that £illY information gathered is related to anyone that has anything to do with any crime whatsoever. (2) The crime perpetrator in Smith was known to have used a phone to call the victim; whereas, in this case there is no known or suspected crime at the time of data collection. (3) The pen register m Smith was only operational for l3 days; whereas, in this case the government is essentially in a permanent cycle of ongomg collection. Thus, the sheer volume of data 1s exponentially different than in Smith. (4) There was no expectation the data gathered in Smith would be kept after the robbery case was over; whereas, in this case data is being gathered, stored, kept and searched for five years with no relat1on to any case whatsoever. (5) In Smith, the data gathered could have shown nothmg about the movements of the caller; whereas the gathering of trunk ident1fymg information under FISC orders can provide a general personal location aside from a fixed location. (6) The relationship between the government and the phone company in Smith was significantly different, i.e., limited m scope and cooperation; whereas, the daily and systematic exchange of all telephone metadata in this case spanning over seven-and-a-half years puts the telephone compamcs in a different posture than was the case 111 Smith. See US. Dep 't ofJustice v. Reporters Comm For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 764 (1989). (7) The ability of the government in Smith to address much more than one or a few phone numbers in any coordinated fashion simply did not exist: whereas, the technical capability of the government today to gather, store and search every, single phone number used to call or be called m the entire country was inconceivable to the Court in 1979, much less the authors of our Fourth Amendment. (8) ln Smith, nothmg but the date, time and phone numbers involved in a phone call were captured; whereas, w1th the MATP, phone numbers, rough locatiOn (via trunk identifier), whether or not a call was complctecVconnected, the date, time and duration of call. and a variety of details about the specific phones used on both ends of each phone call are obtained by the government. (9) In Smith, there were only landlines. There was no notion of a "mobile" phone, as there were no cellular phone systems in the U.S. unt1l the 1980s; whereas, today the vast majority of American adults have a personal cell phone, and cellular telephone communication has reached a level of ubiquity such that our phone usage says much about us as individuals- something that was not even contemplated in 1979. Roughly 1he same proportion of adults had cell phones in 2013 (approx. 91%) [Joanna Brenner, Pew Internet: Mobile (Sept. 18, 20 13), http://pewintemet.org/Commentary/20 12/February/Pew-IntemetMoblle.aspx] as households had phone lmes m 1979 (approx. 91%) [U.S. Dep't of Commerce & U.S. Dep't ofHous. & Urban Dev., Annual Housing Survey: 1979, at 4 (1981) (Table A-1: Charactenstics of the Housing Inventory: 1979 and 1970)]
11

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 12 of 18
31. Plaintiffs and class members reasonably expect both the ability to use telecommunications services and to maintain their privacy when they make phone calls, and society views such privacy expectations as reasonable.
32. The PRG observed (at 111-112): "In modern society, individuals, for practical reasons, have to use banks, credit cards, email, telephones, the Internet, medical services, and the like. Their decisions to reveal otherwise private information to such third parties does not reflect a lack of concern for the privacy of the information, but a necessary accommodation to the realities of modem life. What they want~and reasonably expect-is both the ability to use such services and the right to maintain their privacy when they do so." (underlining added, italics in original).
33. Since the MATP was publicly disclosed, public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to the dragnet collection, storage, retention, and search of telephone metadata collected on every domestic or international phone call made or received by citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. g Such polling results are one fonn of evidence showing that society views as reasonable the subjective collective expectation of Plaintiffs and class members that telephone metadata related to their domestic and international communications will remain off limits to government collection, storage, retention, and search absent at least some reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause to believe that at the time of collection, storage, or search that such metadata is relevant to the investigation of a particular international terrorism investigation or other criminal enterprise.
8 See, e.g, Associated Press, 9111 Anniversary: Poll finds public doubts gmwing on federal surveillance, privacy, Hous. Chron., Sept. II, 2013, at A6 ('"Some 56 percent oppose the NSA 's collection of telephone records for future investigations even though they do not include actual conversations."').
12

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 13 of 18
34. Additional evidence that society views Plaintiffs' asserted privacy expectations in their telephone metadata as reasonable is shown by the ongoing efforts of an unusual number of states to oppose the NSA's MATP surveillance in their 2014 legislative sessions. These include Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and the State ofWashington. 9 Additionally, other states, including Virginia, are advancing legislation demonstrating their opposition to various forms of electronic surveillance without a warrant. 10
35. The PRG underscored that abandoning the MATP would not disarm the United States in thwarting or punishing international ten·orism, nor would it even stop the government from reasonable access to the same infotmation: ''[The government] would stiii be free under section 215 to obtain specific information relating to specific individuals on spec(/ic terrorist threats from banks, telephone companies, credit card companies, and the like-when it can demonstrate to the FISC that it has reasonable grounds to access such information." ld at 115.
36. The United States wields a formidable array of both traditional and relatively novel investigative powers, criminal prohibitions, and detention and killing authority to thwart or to punish intemational or domestic terrorism. On information and belief, the Mass Associational Tracking Program adds only speculatively- if at all- to the Executive Branch's muscular counterterrorism arsenal as elaborated herein. The PRG noted that the NSA for several years used a metadata program for Internet communications similar to the MATP under the authority ofFISA's pen register and track-and-trace provisions rather than
9 As of February 11,2014, information on the referenced legislative efforts in all of the cited states is available at: www.offuow.org/actwn/state. 10 On February 11, 2014, HB17, a b!ll requmng a warrant prior to the use of any tracking device, mcluding but not ltm1ted to cellular phones with GPS or other tracking capability, passed the Virginia House of Delegates unanimously. http://leg l.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses= 141 &typ=bil&val=hb 17.
13

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 14 of 18
Section 215. NSA suspended the program in 2009 for compliance reasons, re-started the program in 2010, and terminated the program in 2011. PRG at 97 n.91. According to Defendant Alexander, the Internet metadata program was terminated because it "was insufficiently productive to justifY the cost." Jd. But according to Senator Wyden and Senator Mark Udall, the program was abandoned because Defendants were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness. Press Release, Wyden, Udall Statement on the Disclosure of Bulk Email Records Collection Program (July 2, 2013). 11 37. On March 12, 2013, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Defendant Clapper falsely stated in response to a question from Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that the NSA did not collect "any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans." Hearing before Senate Intelligence Committee, March 12, 2013, transcript at 66. 12 38. During a July 17, 2013, House Judiciary Committee hearing, Robert Litt, General Counsel of the Office ofthe Director ofNationalintelligence, answered the question of Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), "Do you think a program ofthis magnitude, gathering information involving a large number of people involved with telephone companies and so on, could be indefinitely kept secret from the American people?" by responding, "Well, we tried." Hearing before House Judiciary Committee, July 17, 2013, transcript at 14. 13
11 As of February 7, 2014, available at: http://www.wyden.senatc.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statementon-the-disclosure-of-bulk-emai1-records-collccti on-program. 12 As of February 11, 2014, available at: http://www.mtclligence.senatc.gov/pubcurrent.html. 13 As of February 11, 2014, avmlable at: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=37992064-B883-124Dl C4A-089A415C598E.
14

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 15 of 18
CLASS ACTION AVERMENTS 39. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 40. Plaintiffs Paul and FreedomWorks seek to represent a class of persons to be defined as follows:
All persons afforded protections under the Fourth Amendment who made or received a cellular/wireless or terrestrial/landline telephone call that originated and/or terminated in the United States after May 2006. 41. Numerosity. The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in one action would be impracticable. As described above, there are over 300 million cellular subscribers and 100 million landline subscribers in the United States. The disposition of the individual claims of the respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this Court. The exact size ofthe class and the identities of the individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant's records. Members of the class may be notified ofthe pendency ofthis action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by published notice or electronic media or by other methods deemed appropriate by this Court. 42. Commonality. There is a well-defined community of interest and common questions of fact and law affecting members of the class. Common questions of fact include the extent of telephone metadata of all class members that has been and continues to be collected, stored, retained, and searched by Defendants under the Mass Associational Tracking Program. Common questions of law include whether such collection, storage, retention, and
15

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 16 of 18
search of the telephone metadata of class members violates the Fourth Amendment; and, whether declaratory and injunctive relief, including the purging ofthe telephone metadata concerning Plaintiffs and class members from Defendants' database, is appropriate. 43. Typicality. Plaintiffs' claims are typical ofthe claims of class members because they are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same conduct. Plaintiffs and class members were and are subscribers, users, and/or consumers of telephone service in the United States whose telephone metadata has been and continues to be collected, stored, retained, and searched by Defendants under the MATP as alleged herein. 44. Adequacy. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives ofthe class because their interests and the interests of class members they seek to represent do not conflict. The interests are virtually identical in seeking to prevent Defendants from collecting, storing, retaining, and searching telephone metadata related to Plaintiffs' and class members' domestic or international communications. Plaintiffs will fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the class, and Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the members ofthe class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who is competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation. 45. This suit may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, and final injunctive relief or conesponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Defendants' actions under the MATP do not differ with respect to the class members, and declaratory or injunctive relief is proper.
16

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 17 of 18
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 46. Plaintiffs and class members re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs. 47. Defendants' Mass Associational Tracking Program violates the Fourth Amendment
rights ofPlaintiffs and class members. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs and class members respectfully request that the Court: 1. Declare that the Mass Associational Tracking Program violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution; 2. Permanently enjoin Defendants from conducting or operating the MATP; 3. Order Defendants to purge from their possession, custody, and control all of the telephone metadata collected, stored, retained, and searched about Plaintiffs and class members pursuant to the MATP, regardless where held or by whom; 4. Certify the suit as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 5. Issue an order establishing procedures enabling Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain required security clearances to adequately conduct discovery or otherwise litigate the case properly; 6. Award Plaintiffs' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412; and 7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
17

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 18 of 18
Respectfully Submitted,
u~,/~
Earl "Trey" Mayfield D.C. Bar # 459998 tmayfie ld@lewis- firm. com Michael P. Lewis D.C. Bar. # 503311 mlewis@lewis- firm. com The Lewis Firm, PLLC 901 New York Ave., Ste. 450E Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: 202-630-6006 Fax: 888-430-6695 Kenneth T. "Ken" Cuccinelli, II KCuccinelli@CuccinelliAndAssociates.com Cuccinelli & Associates, LLC 10560 Main Street, Ste. 218 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 pro hac vice pending
18

 
 Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF COUMBIA
RAND PAUL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; P.O. Box 15643 Washington, D.C. 20003

FEB 1 ~ 201<t
....Clerk. U.S. fJistncr & 8ankrlllJiCt t,ourts for the Dletncl of t::ol,,mhi:t

and
FREEDOMWORKS, INC., on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated; 400 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 765 Washington, D.C. 20001

Case: 1: 14-cv-00262
Assigned To: Leon, Richard J.
Assign. Date: 2/18/2014 Description: Civil Rights (non. employ)

Plaintiffs,

v.

BARACK H. OBAMA, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Office of the President, The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20500

JAMES R. CLAPPER, in his official capacity as Director ofNational Intelligence; Office of the Director of National Intelligence Attn: James R. Clapper Washington, D.C. 20511

KEITH B. ALEXANDER, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service; National Security Agency Attn: General Keith B. Alexander 9800 Savage Rd. Fort Meade, MD 20755
and JAMES B. COMEY, JR., in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; FBI Headquarters 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

Defendants.

1

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 2 of 18
Additional service on behalf of Defendants President Obama, Director Clapper and Director Corney: Ronald C. Machen Jr. U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Judiciary Center Building 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20530
Additional service on behalf of Defendant General Alexander: Rod J. Rosenstein U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland 6406 Ivy Lane Suite 800 Greenbelt, MD 20770
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated United States citizens
or permanent residents who are or have been customers, users, or subscribers of phone service in
the United States since 2006, bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against
Defendants' mass, suspicionless, non-particularized collection, storage, retention, and search of
telephone metadata related to every domestic or international phone call made or received by
Plaintiffs and class members (hereinafter "Mass Associational Tracking Program" or "MATP")
under the auspices of Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act. 50 U.S.C. § 1861, in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 1 Plaintiffs and class members seek a declaration that the Mass Associational Tracking Program is unconstitutional, an injunction forbidding the government from continuing the MATP, and an order to the Defendants to purge from its MATP
databases all of the telephone metadata related to the communications ofPlaintiffs and class
members. Plaintiffs and class members aver as follows:
1 The Fourth Amendment provides: 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describmg the place to be searched, and the persons or thmgs to be seized."
2

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 3 of 18
SUBJECT MATTER JURJSDlCTION AND AUTHORJTY TO GRANT RELIEF 1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members arise under the Constitution of the United States. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202. This Court has authority to award costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
PERSONAL JURJSDICTION 2. This Court possesses personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because their acts or
omissions giving rise to the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members occurred in this district or because of their regular or continuous presence or residence in this district.
VENUE 3. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a substantial portion of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claims ofPlaintiffs and class members occurred in this district, and, upon information and belief, one or more ofDefendants reside in this district.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 4. Plaintiff and Class Representative Rand Paul is a citizen of the United States and a resident and citizen of Kentucky. Plaintiff Paul has standing to bring this suit because Defendants have, without legitimate legal basis, collected, stored, retained, and periodically searched
3

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 4 of 18
telephone metadata concerning every domestic or international phone call he made or received since at least May 2006, and Defendants continue to do so. Plaintiff Paul uses and has used both cellular and/or landline telephones in the United States on a daily basis since May 2006, and he has been a subscriber of both cellular and landline telephone services since May 2006. Such telephone services have included, but not been limited to, Verizon Wireless and AT&T services. Plaintiffhas a subjective expectation ofprivacy from Defendants about his telephone metadata that society views as reasonable. 5. Plaintiff and Class Representative FreedomWorks, Inc. is a not for profit Washington, D.C. corporation ("FreedomWorks"), exempt from taxation under Section 501 (c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiff FreedomWorks has standing to bring this suit because Defendants have, without legitimate legal basis, collected, stored, retained for five years, and periodically searched telephone metadata concerning every domestic or international phone call made or received by FreedomWorks' employees and members since at least May 2006, and Defendants continue to do so. 2 PlaintitTFreedomWorks's employees and members use both cellular and landline telephones in the United States, and FreedomWorks is a subscriber ofboth cellular and landline telephone services. FreedomWorks also funds the cellular telephone plans of many of its employees. Such telephone services have included, but not been limited to, Verizon Wireless and AT&T services. Plaintiff FreedomWorks has a subjective expectation of privacy from Defendants of its telephone metadata that society views as reasonable.
2 FreedomWorks has approximately 6,000,000 participating members and over 65,000 financially supportmg members.
4

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 5 of 18
DEFENDANTS
6. Defendant Barack H. Obama is the President ofthe United States endowed with ultimate authority over each of the federal agencies relevant to this action.
7. Defendant James R. Clapper is the Director ofNationallntelligence endowed with ultimate authority over the activities of the intelligence community, including activities undertaken pursuant to Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1861, and the Mass Associationa1 Tracking Program.
8. Defendant Lt. General Keith Alexander is the Director of the National Security Agency ("NSA"), in the Department of Defense, and is Chief of the Central Security Service. Lt. General Alexander has ultimate authority to supervise and implement all functions and operations of the NSA, the agency that has and continues to conduct the Mass Associational Tracking Program under the auspices of Section 215 of the Patriot Act. Lt. General Alexander personally authorizes and supervises the Mass Associational Tracking Program.
9. Defendant James B. Corney, Jr. is the Director of the FBI and is responsible for applications made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for orders demanding the production of "tangible things" under Section 215 ofthe Patriot Act, which is a cornerstone of the Mass Associationa1 Tracking Program.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 10. Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S. C. ~ 1801, et seq. ("FISA") in response to concerns about surveillance abuses and illegalities perpetrated by the federal government.
5

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 6 of 18
11. FISA empowers the government to obtain ex parte judicial orders from the FISC Court authorizing domestic electronic surveillance by demonstrating, among other things, that probable cause exists to believe that the target is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 (a) (3) and 1805 (a) (2). A foreign power is defined to include "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." 50 U.S.C. § 1801.
12. In addition to arming the government with surveillance authority, 50 U.S.C. §§ 18011812, FISA was later amended to enable the government to obtain ex parte FISC orders authorizing physical searches, §§ 1821-1829, and pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, §§ 1841-1846.
13. In 1998, Congress added a "business records" provision to FISA. It empowered the FBI to apply for an ex parte order requiring specified entities, for instance, common carriers, to release business records by demonstrating that "there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the person to whom the records pertain is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power." 50 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(2)(B) (2000).
14. In the aftermath ofthe 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress enacted the Patriot Act which, among other things, empowered the FBI under Section 215 to apply for a FISC order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." 50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(l).
15. Congress changed the standard for obtaining a Section 215 FISC order in 2006 by requiring an FBI application to include "a statement of facts showing that there are
6

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 7 of 18
reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation ... to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." 50 U.S.C. § 186l(b)(2)(A).
Mass Associational Tracking Program 16. Since May 2006, Defendants have conducted the Mass Associational Tracking
Program under a series ofFISC orders issued pursuant to Section 215. Upon information and belief, all major telecommunications companies operating in the United States provide NSA on an ongoing daily basis telephone metadata for all domestic and international telephone calls on their networks, including the calls of Plaintiffs and class members. Plaintiffs' and class members' metadata is collected, maintained, and periodically searched in a single database without any belief by Defendants at the time of collection or retention or searches that any of the information is connected with international terrorism or an international terrorist organization. Plaintiffs and class members hold subjective expectations of privacy over their collected, retained, and searched telephone metadata by Defendants, which expectations society views as reasonable. The MATP does not exempt the telephone metadata of anyone from its vast database. 17. Additionally, Defendants' inconsistent public statements, along with now-public FISC orders, lead Plaintiffs and class members to be concerned that Defendants may have collected or may be collecting, storing, retaining, and searching location information from the telephone metadata. 3 If Plaintiffs and class members learn that Defendants
3 For example, what 1s known as a "trunk identifier" is among the metadata mcluded in the public orders of the FISC Court listmg what is to be provided by a telephone company to the NSA. Trunk identifiers specify a phys1cal
7

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 8 of 18
have or are collecting, storing, retaining, and searching location data relating to their telephone calls, Plaintiffs and class members reserve the right to move to amend their complaint accordingly. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendants coordinate or have coordinated various metadata gathering programs to identify individuals and their personal information and relate such individuals to particular phone numbers, email addresses, etc. 18. Upon information and belief, there are over 300 million mobile phone subscribers in the United States, and approximately 100 million landline subscribers. 19. Telephone metadata collected by Defendants includes comprehensive communications routing information including, but not limited to, originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity number, International Mobile Station Equipment Identity number, trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. 20. The metadata is stored by the NSA in repositories with secure networks, and access is restricted to authorized personnel with allegedly adequate and appropriate training. 21. The NSA is only to access the metadata to further an international terrorism investigation, and only by querying the entire database with a telephone number or identifier that is associated with an NSA-suspected foreign terrorist organization on a list approved by the FISC. The NSA refers to an identifier or phone number used to query the vast telephone metadata database as a "seed." Such queries may only take
locat1on where a call is connected between a single phone and a major element of the telecommunicatiOns network known as a "trunk." Thus, having the trunk identifier that a caller connects to provides a rough location for that caller at the time the call1s made and having the trunk identifier for the person bemg called also provides a rough locatiOn for the recipient of the call as well. Furthermore, if the NSA has received all of the trunk identifiers for each call (rather than merely the trunk identifiers connected to at the commencement of a phone call), then for calls made to or from phones that change locatiOn dunng the call, the NSA can roughly track such mobile phone user.
8

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 9 of 18
place after two NSA line personnel and one supervisor first decide that they believe there is "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the seed is associated with an international terrorist organization on the FISC approved list. There is no judicial oversight or appeal of such decision prior to NSA acting on the decision. 4 22. The type and quantum of evidence needed to satisfy the "reasonable articulable suspicion" threshold to initiate a query by the NSA officials based on a seed is not publicly known. While the results do not identify the individuals or organizations associated with responsive telephone numbers, their identities (including the identities ofPlaintiffs and class members) can be readily discovered outside the Mass Associated Tracking Program. When cross-checked against other public records, telephone metadata can reveal a person's name, address, driver's license, credit history, social security number, and other information. 5 23. The results of a query also include second and third-tier contacts ofthe seed, referred to by the NSA as "hops." 24. The first "hop" captures telephone metadata for phone numbers in direct contact with the seed. 25. The second "hop" reaches telephone metadata for telephone numbers in direct contact with the phone numbers captured in the first "hop." 26. The third "hop" assembles telephone metadata for telephone numbers in direct contact with any second "hop" telephone number. The universe of telephone numbers that can
4 On December 15, 2005, then-Senator Barack Obama complained about the lack ofJUdiCial oversight on the floor of the Senate, stating: "If someone wants to know why the1r own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or pnvate document, the library books that you've read, the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation g1ves people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No JUdge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong." (emphasis added). 5 See Klayman v. Obama, 2013 U.S. D1st. LEXIS 176925, *94, n.58.
9

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 10 of 18
be within three hops of a seed over a five year period may easily run to the hundreds of thousands, absent reasonable restrictions. 27. Upon information and belief, since its commencement in May 2006, Defendants' Mass Associational Tracking Program has not stopped or been instrumental in stopping even one imminent international terrorist attack, or otherwise assisted Defendants in achieving any time-sensitive objective. The December 12, 2013, Report and Recommendations of the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies ("PRG") 6 concluded that the Mass Associational Tracking Program "was not essential to preventing [terrorist] attacks and [the same information] could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional Section 215 orders." PRG at 104. 28. Telephone metadata reveals a wealth of detail about Plaintiffs' and class members' familial, political, ideological, professional, religious, and other associations that are ordinarily unknown to government. Klayman v. Obama, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176925, *94 (citing United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 955 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Such metadata and details taken by, and in the hands of, Defendants and government violate the reasonable expectations ofprivacy ofPlaintiffs and class members. 29. A search occurs for purposes of the Fourth Amendment each time the NSA violates Plaintiffs' and class members' reasonable expectations of privacy. ACLU v. Clapper, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180863, *63 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360-61 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring); Jones at 950 (2012); and Bond v. United States, 529
6 As of February 11, 2014, available at: http://www. whJtehouse.gov/sJtes/default/files/docs/2013-1212_rg_final_rcport. pdf
10

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 11 of 18
U.S. 334, 337 (2000)). At a minimum, Defendants violate Plaintiffs' and class
members' Fourth Amendment rights each time they gather, store or search Plaintiffs'
and class members' telephone metadata.
30. That Plaintiffs and class members necessarily reveal certain information to
telecommunications companies with which they contract for their telephone service-
and which are provided to Defendants under the MATP- does not reflect a willingness
or expectation that they are surrendering the privacy of the information, but simply
reflects a necessary accommodation to modem life. 7
7 See generally Klayman,._ Obama, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176925, *81-90; but see Smith v. Mwyland, 442 U.S. 735 ( 1979).
The differences between the present case and Smith m boih nature and scope are stark. A listing of such differences includes, but is not limited to, the followmg: (1) the fact that in Smith, the car owned by the target of the information-gathering had previously been spotted on the crime viet 1m's street twice; whereas, in this case, there is no indication beforehand that £illY information gathered is related to anyone that has anything to do with any crime whatsoever. (2) The crime perpetrator in Smith was known to have used a phone to call the victim; whereas, in this case there is no known or suspected crime at the time of data collection. (3) The pen register m Smith was only operational for l3 days; whereas, in this case the government is essentially in a permanent cycle of ongomg collection. Thus, the sheer volume of data 1s exponentially different than in Smith. (4) There was no expectation the data gathered in Smith would be kept after the robbery case was over; whereas, in this case data is being gathered, stored, kept and searched for five years with no relat1on to any case whatsoever. (5) In Smith, the data gathered could have shown nothmg about the movements of the caller; whereas the gathering of trunk ident1fymg information under FISC orders can provide a general personal location aside from a fixed location. (6) The relationship between the government and the phone company in Smith was significantly different, i.e., limited m scope and cooperation; whereas, the daily and systematic exchange of all telephone metadata in this case spanning over seven-and-a-half years puts the telephone compamcs in a different posture than was the case 111 Smith. See US. Dep 't ofJustice v. Reporters Comm For Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 764 (1989). (7) The ability of the government in Smith to address much more than one or a few phone numbers in any coordinated fashion simply did not exist: whereas, the technical capability of the government today to gather, store and search every, single phone number used to call or be called m the entire country was inconceivable to the Court in 1979, much less the authors of our Fourth Amendment. (8) ln Smith, nothmg but the date, time and phone numbers involved in a phone call were captured; whereas, w1th the MATP, phone numbers, rough locatiOn (via trunk identifier), whether or not a call was complctecVconnected, the date, time and duration of call. and a variety of details about the specific phones used on both ends of each phone call are obtained by the government. (9) In Smith, there were only landlines. There was no notion of a "mobile" phone, as there were no cellular phone systems in the U.S. unt1l the 1980s; whereas, today the vast majority of American adults have a personal cell phone, and cellular telephone communication has reached a level of ubiquity such that our phone usage says much about us as individuals- something that was not even contemplated in 1979. Roughly 1he same proportion of adults had cell phones in 2013 (approx. 91%) [Joanna Brenner, Pew Internet: Mobile (Sept. 18, 20 13), http://pewintemet.org/Commentary/20 12/February/Pew-IntemetMoblle.aspx] as households had phone lmes m 1979 (approx. 91%) [U.S. Dep't of Commerce & U.S. Dep't ofHous. & Urban Dev., Annual Housing Survey: 1979, at 4 (1981) (Table A-1: Charactenstics of the Housing Inventory: 1979 and 1970)]
11

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 12 of 18
31. Plaintiffs and class members reasonably expect both the ability to use telecommunications services and to maintain their privacy when they make phone calls, and society views such privacy expectations as reasonable.
32. The PRG observed (at 111-112): "In modern society, individuals, for practical reasons, have to use banks, credit cards, email, telephones, the Internet, medical services, and the like. Their decisions to reveal otherwise private information to such third parties does not reflect a lack of concern for the privacy of the information, but a necessary accommodation to the realities of modem life. What they want~and reasonably expect-is both the ability to use such services and the right to maintain their privacy when they do so." (underlining added, italics in original).
33. Since the MATP was publicly disclosed, public opinion polls have shown widespread opposition to the dragnet collection, storage, retention, and search of telephone metadata collected on every domestic or international phone call made or received by citizens or permanent resident aliens in the United States. g Such polling results are one fonn of evidence showing that society views as reasonable the subjective collective expectation of Plaintiffs and class members that telephone metadata related to their domestic and international communications will remain off limits to government collection, storage, retention, and search absent at least some reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause to believe that at the time of collection, storage, or search that such metadata is relevant to the investigation of a particular international terrorism investigation or other criminal enterprise.
8 See, e.g, Associated Press, 9111 Anniversary: Poll finds public doubts gmwing on federal surveillance, privacy, Hous. Chron., Sept. II, 2013, at A6 ('"Some 56 percent oppose the NSA 's collection of telephone records for future investigations even though they do not include actual conversations."').
12

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 13 of 18
34. Additional evidence that society views Plaintiffs' asserted privacy expectations in their telephone metadata as reasonable is shown by the ongoing efforts of an unusual number of states to oppose the NSA's MATP surveillance in their 2014 legislative sessions. These include Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Vermont, and the State ofWashington. 9 Additionally, other states, including Virginia, are advancing legislation demonstrating their opposition to various forms of electronic surveillance without a warrant. 10
35. The PRG underscored that abandoning the MATP would not disarm the United States in thwarting or punishing international ten·orism, nor would it even stop the government from reasonable access to the same infotmation: ''[The government] would stiii be free under section 215 to obtain specific information relating to specific individuals on spec(/ic terrorist threats from banks, telephone companies, credit card companies, and the like-when it can demonstrate to the FISC that it has reasonable grounds to access such information." ld at 115.
36. The United States wields a formidable array of both traditional and relatively novel investigative powers, criminal prohibitions, and detention and killing authority to thwart or to punish intemational or domestic terrorism. On information and belief, the Mass Associational Tracking Program adds only speculatively- if at all- to the Executive Branch's muscular counterterrorism arsenal as elaborated herein. The PRG noted that the NSA for several years used a metadata program for Internet communications similar to the MATP under the authority ofFISA's pen register and track-and-trace provisions rather than
9 As of February 11,2014, information on the referenced legislative efforts in all of the cited states is available at: www.offuow.org/actwn/state. 10 On February 11, 2014, HB17, a b!ll requmng a warrant prior to the use of any tracking device, mcluding but not ltm1ted to cellular phones with GPS or other tracking capability, passed the Virginia House of Delegates unanimously. http://leg l.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses= 141 &typ=bil&val=hb 17.
13

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 14 of 18
Section 215. NSA suspended the program in 2009 for compliance reasons, re-started the program in 2010, and terminated the program in 2011. PRG at 97 n.91. According to Defendant Alexander, the Internet metadata program was terminated because it "was insufficiently productive to justifY the cost." Jd. But according to Senator Wyden and Senator Mark Udall, the program was abandoned because Defendants were unable to demonstrate its effectiveness. Press Release, Wyden, Udall Statement on the Disclosure of Bulk Email Records Collection Program (July 2, 2013). 11 37. On March 12, 2013, during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, Defendant Clapper falsely stated in response to a question from Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) that the NSA did not collect "any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions, of Americans." Hearing before Senate Intelligence Committee, March 12, 2013, transcript at 66. 12 38. During a July 17, 2013, House Judiciary Committee hearing, Robert Litt, General Counsel of the Office ofthe Director ofNationalintelligence, answered the question of Chairman Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.), "Do you think a program ofthis magnitude, gathering information involving a large number of people involved with telephone companies and so on, could be indefinitely kept secret from the American people?" by responding, "Well, we tried." Hearing before House Judiciary Committee, July 17, 2013, transcript at 14. 13
11 As of February 7, 2014, available at: http://www.wyden.senatc.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-udall-statementon-the-disclosure-of-bulk-emai1-records-collccti on-program. 12 As of February 11, 2014, available at: http://www.mtclligence.senatc.gov/pubcurrent.html. 13 As of February 11, 2014, avmlable at: http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=37992064-B883-124Dl C4A-089A415C598E.
14

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 15 of 18
CLASS ACTION AVERMENTS 39. Plaintiffs bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 40. Plaintiffs Paul and FreedomWorks seek to represent a class of persons to be defined as follows:
All persons afforded protections under the Fourth Amendment who made or received a cellular/wireless or terrestrial/landline telephone call that originated and/or terminated in the United States after May 2006. 41. Numerosity. The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all individual members in one action would be impracticable. As described above, there are over 300 million cellular subscribers and 100 million landline subscribers in the United States. The disposition of the individual claims of the respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this Court. The exact size ofthe class and the identities of the individual members thereof are ascertainable through Defendant's records. Members of the class may be notified ofthe pendency ofthis action by techniques and forms commonly used in class actions, such as by published notice or electronic media or by other methods deemed appropriate by this Court. 42. Commonality. There is a well-defined community of interest and common questions of fact and law affecting members of the class. Common questions of fact include the extent of telephone metadata of all class members that has been and continues to be collected, stored, retained, and searched by Defendants under the Mass Associational Tracking Program. Common questions of law include whether such collection, storage, retention, and
15

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 16 of 18
search of the telephone metadata of class members violates the Fourth Amendment; and, whether declaratory and injunctive relief, including the purging ofthe telephone metadata concerning Plaintiffs and class members from Defendants' database, is appropriate. 43. Typicality. Plaintiffs' claims are typical ofthe claims of class members because they are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same conduct. Plaintiffs and class members were and are subscribers, users, and/or consumers of telephone service in the United States whose telephone metadata has been and continues to be collected, stored, retained, and searched by Defendants under the MATP as alleged herein. 44. Adequacy. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives ofthe class because their interests and the interests of class members they seek to represent do not conflict. The interests are virtually identical in seeking to prevent Defendants from collecting, storing, retaining, and searching telephone metadata related to Plaintiffs' and class members' domestic or international communications. Plaintiffs will fairly, adequately, and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the class, and Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to the members ofthe class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel who is competent and experienced in the prosecution of class action litigation. 45. This suit may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, and final injunctive relief or conesponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Defendants' actions under the MATP do not differ with respect to the class members, and declaratory or injunctive relief is proper.
16

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 17 of 18
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 46. Plaintiffs and class members re-allege each of the foregoing paragraphs. 47. Defendants' Mass Associational Tracking Program violates the Fourth Amendment
rights ofPlaintiffs and class members. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs and class members respectfully request that the Court: 1. Declare that the Mass Associational Tracking Program violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution; 2. Permanently enjoin Defendants from conducting or operating the MATP; 3. Order Defendants to purge from their possession, custody, and control all of the telephone metadata collected, stored, retained, and searched about Plaintiffs and class members pursuant to the MATP, regardless where held or by whom; 4. Certify the suit as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 5. Issue an order establishing procedures enabling Plaintiffs' counsel to obtain required security clearances to adequately conduct discovery or otherwise litigate the case properly; 6. Award Plaintiffs' fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2412; and 7. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
17

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 3 Filed 02/18/14 Page 18 of 18
Respectfully Submitted,
u~,/~
Earl "Trey" Mayfield D.C. Bar # 459998 tmayfie ld@lewis- firm. com Michael P. Lewis D.C. Bar. # 503311 mlewis@lewis- firm. com The Lewis Firm, PLLC 901 New York Ave., Ste. 450E Washington, D.C. 20001 Tel: 202-630-6006 Fax: 888-430-6695 Kenneth T. "Ken" Cuccinelli, II KCuccinelli@CuccinelliAndAssociates.com Cuccinelli & Associates, LLC 10560 Main Street, Ste. 218 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 pro hac vice pending
18

 
 Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 39 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:14-cv-00262-RJL Document 39 Filed 02/07/19 Page 2 of 2

 
 CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14−cv−00262−RJL

PAUL et al v. OBAMA et al Assigned to: Judge Richard J. Leon Cases: 1:13−cv−00851−RJL
1:11−cv−02214−RCL
Case in other court: USCA, 14−05212 Cause: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statute(s)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/18/2014 Date Terminated: 02/08/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

RAND PAUL on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

represented by Earl N. Mayfield , III JURIS DAY, PLLC 10521 Judicial Drive Suite 200 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 268−5600 Fax: (703) 268−5602 Email: tmayfield@lewis−firm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Lewis LEWIS FIRM PLLC 901 New York Avenue, NW Suite 450E Washington, DC 20001 (202) 630−6006 Fax: (888) 430−6695 Email: mlewis@lewis−firm.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli , II CUCCINELLI & ASSOCIATES, LLC 10560 Main Street #218 Fairfax, VA 22030 (804) 286−2550 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
FREEDOMWORKS, INC. on behalf of itself, its members, and all others similarly situated

represented by Earl N. Mayfield , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael P. Lewis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli , II (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II in his official capacity as President of the United States
Defendant JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR. in his official capacity as Director of National Intelligence
Defendant KEITH B. ALEXANDER in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service

represented by James J. Gilligan U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Room 11200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514−3358 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: james.gilligan@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Poc Agostinho, Jean 1100 L St., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 202−616−8480 Email: julia.heiman@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney Patton U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−7919 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: rodney.patton@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James J. Gilligan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney Patton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James J. Gilligan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney Patton

Defendant JAMES B. COMEY in his official capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Movant DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON TERMINATED: 07/30/2014

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James J. Gilligan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Alexandra Heiman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rodney Patton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON P.O. Box 9063 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 PRO SE

Date Filed 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014
02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014
02/20/2014 02/24/2014 02/24/2014

# Docket Text
1 MOTION To List Non−Residential Address In Complaint Caption by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2 ORDER granting 1 MOTION To List Non−Residential Address In Complaint Caption. Signed by Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts on 02/18/2014. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
3 COMPLAINT against KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616062201) filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
SUMMONS Not Issued as to KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
4 NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL. Case related to Case No. 13−0851. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
5 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by FREEDOMWORKS, INC. identifying Other Affiliate FREEDOMWORS FOUNDATION, INC. for FREEDOMWORKS, INC.. (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Kenneth Thomas Cuccinelli, II, :Address− 10560 Main Street, Suite 218, Fairfax, Virginia, 22030. Phone No. − (804) 286−2550. by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
SUMMONS (5) Issued as to KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. Attorney (jf, ) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
7 STANDING ORDER. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/24/2014. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 6 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and it is further ORDERED that Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, is admitted pro hac vice in this proceeding. Signed by Judge Richard

02/26/2014 02/26/2014 02/26/2014 02/26/2014 02/26/2014 02/27/2014 03/07/2014
03/19/2014 03/24/2014 03/25/2014
03/26/2014 04/01/2014 04/08/2014 04/18/2014
04/23/2014
04/23/2014

J. Leon on 2/24/2014. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
8 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC. filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC..(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
9 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE James B. Comey, Jr. by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC. filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC..(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
10 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE James Clapper by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC. filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC..(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
11 REQUEST FOR SUMMONS TO ISSUE Gen. Keith B. Alexander by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC. filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC..(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
13 MOTION to Join, MOTION to Intervene by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON (rdj) (Entered: 03/06/2014)
12 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS (6) Re−Issued as to KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (znmw, ) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
14 NOTICE Regarding Order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Dearinger, Bryan) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
15 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− Motion to file amicus brief This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file Denied" Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 03/19/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
16 ENTERED IN ERROR.....AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lewis, Michael) Modified on 3/25/2014 (znmw, ). (Entered: 03/24/2014)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 16 Amended Complaint; emailed to mlewis@lewis−firm.com, cc'd 2 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Incorrect event used, 2. Please refile document, 3. Entered in Error: Refile as a Motion to Amend. (znmw, ) (Entered: 03/25/2014)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by RAND PAUL, FREEDOMWORKS, INC..(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
18 MOTION to Certify Class by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
19 LEAVE TO FILE DENIED− DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON, Motion for Emergency Stay This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Leave to file Denied". Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon. (zrdj) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
20 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
21 MOTION to Stay (Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction in Klayman v. Obama) by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 20 Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint and to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that defendants shall have until 5/2/2014 to file their response to 17

05/02/2014
05/02/2014 05/06/2014 05/12/2014 05/16/2014 05/19/2014 05/28/2014 05/30/2014
05/30/2014 06/05/2014
06/09/2014
06/17/2014 06/18/2014

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint; and it is further ORDERED that defendants shall have until 5/2/2014 to file their opposition to 18 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 4/23/2014. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
23 Memorandum in opposition to re 18 MOTION to Certify Class filed by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Berman, Julia) (Entered: 05/02/2014)
24 Memorandum in opposition to re 21 MOTION to Stay (Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction in Klayman v. Obama) filed by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL. (Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
25 REPLY to opposition to motion re 18 MOTION to Certify Class filed by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL. (Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2014)
26 REPLY to opposition to motion re 21 MOTION to Stay (Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal of the Preliminary Injunction in Klayman v. Obama) filed by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Patton, Rodney) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
27 Memorandum in opposition to re 22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 05/19/2014)
28 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting, nunc pro tunc, 28 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their reply brief in support of 22 Motion to Dismiss on or before 6/5/2014. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 5/30/2014. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Reply due by 6/5/2014. (tb, ) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
29 REPLY to opposition to motion re 22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint filed by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit (Exh. 9 part 1), # 10 Exhibit (Exh. 9 part 2), # 11 Exhibit (Exh. 9 part 3))(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
30 ERRATA by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR, JAMES B. COMEY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II 29 Reply to opposition to Motion, filed by JAMES B. COMEY, KEITH B. ALEXANDER, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, JAMES R. CLAPPER, JR.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Corrected Exhibit 4 to Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Gilligan, James) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
31 MOTION for Order for Oral Argument by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL (Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 31 Motion for Order; emailed to mlewis@lewis−firm.com, cc'd 5 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. Motion title does not match requested relief; Please file an errata with correct title of motion. (znmw, ) (Entered: 06/18/2014)

06/19/2014 07/30/2014 08/22/2014 08/27/2014 09/03/2014 09/08/2014 09/22/2014
10/21/2014 05/27/2015 03/05/2018 02/07/2019

32 NOTICE of Errata by FREEDOMWORKS, INC., RAND PAUL re 27 Memorandum in Opposition, 22 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, 31 MOTION for Order for Oral Argument, 29 Reply to opposition to Motion, Notice of QC, (Attachments: # 1 Errata Corrected Motion for Oral Argument)(Lewis, Michael) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
MINUTE ORDER denying 13 Motion to Join and/or Motion to Intervene by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 7/30/2014. (lcrjl1, ) (Entered: 07/30/2014)
33 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to Minute Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion for Joinder, Order on Motion to Intervene by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. "Leave to file Granted" signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 08/21/2014 (jf, ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
34 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed, and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Fee remains to be paid and another notice will be transmitted when the fee has been paid in the District Court re 33 Notice of Appeal,. (jf, ) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
USCA Case Number 14−5212 for 33 Notice of Appeal, filed by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON. (kb) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
35 MOTION for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON (jf, ) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Government Defendants' Motion for Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal of Preliminary Injunction. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that all proceedings against the Government Defendants in the above−captioned action are hereby STAYED pending the Government Defendants' appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from this Court's December 16, 2013, preliminary injunction in Case No. 13−cv−851. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/22/2014. (lcrjl1) (Entered: 09/22/2014)
36 ORDER of USCA as to 33 Notice of Appeal, filed by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON ; ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that this case be held in abeyance pending the district court's resolution of Appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. USCA Case Number 14−5212. (md, ) (Entered: 10/21/2014)
37 MANDATE of USCA (certified copy) as to 33 Notice of Appeal, filed by DAVID ANDREW CHRISTENSON. ORDERED that the motions be denied and, on the court's own motion, the appeal be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(8). That this court's order filed October 20, 2014, be vacated as moot. USCA Case Number 14−5212. (rd) (Entered: 05/28/2015)
38 ORDER that plaintiffs shall within 30 days of this order, show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for the same reasons as stated in the memorandum opinion in Klayman, 2017 WL 5635668. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 3/5/2018. (see order for complete details). (jth) (Entered: 03/05/2018)
39 ORDER. Plaintiffs Rand Paul and Freedomworks, Inc. filed their amended complaint in the instant action on March 26, 2014, and filed a motion to certify a class of all others similarly situated on April 1, 2014. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and an opposition to class certification on May 2, 2014. This case was stayed pending the appeal of this court's order in a related case, Civil Action No. 13−cv−851, which was resolved on June 8, 2016. Since there had been no motion to lift the stay or other activity for nearly two years, this Court issued an Order on March 5, 2018, requiring plaintiff to show cause in writing, by April 4, 2018, as to why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Because the plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court's Order to Show Cause within the time prescribed, and upon due consideration of the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.23; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk, in addition to electronic notice, shall mail a paper copy of this Order to plaintiff's counsel of record with a return receipt requested, and shall mail a copy directly to plaintiffs at their address of record. SO ORDERED.

Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 2/5/2019. (jth) (Entered: 02/07/2019)