Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 1 of 12
CLOSED,TYPE−D
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:17−cv−01320−CKK

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER v.

Date Filed: 07/03/2017

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION Date Terminated: 08/22/2018

INTEGRITY et al

Jury Demand: None

Assigned to: Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly

Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative

Case in other court: USCA, 17−05171

Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of

Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER

represented by Marc Rotenberg ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 483−1140, ext 106 Fax: (202) 483−1248 Email: rotenberg@epic.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alan Jay Butler ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 483−1140 ext 103 Fax: (202) 483−1248 Email: butler@epic.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Caitriona Fitzgerald ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 (617) 945−8409 Fax: (202) 483−1248 Email: fitzgerald@epic.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeramie D. Scott ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20009 (202) 483−1140 Fax: (202) 483−1248 Email: jscott@epic.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 2 of 12

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY

represented by Carol Federighi U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Room 6108 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−1903 Email: carol.federighi@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Shapiro U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−5302 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: Elizabeth.Shapiro@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Evan Borson U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20005 (202) 514−1944 Fax: (202) 616−8460 Email: joseph.borson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina Ann Wolfe U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch P.O. Box 883 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 (202) 353−4519 Email: kristina.wolfe@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHAEL R. PENCE In his official capacity as Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth J. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 3 of 12

Defendant KRIS KOBACH In his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
Defendant EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Defendant OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 4 of 12

Defendant GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Defendant CHARLES G. HERNDON in his official capacity as Director of White House Information Technology
Defendant UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE

represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth J. Shapiro (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 5 of 12

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph Evan Borson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristina Ann Wolfe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/03/2017
07/03/2017
07/03/2017 07/03/2017 07/03/2017
07/03/2017 07/03/2017 07/03/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 4616085803) filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(td) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
SUMMONS (8) Issued as to EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (td) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
2 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (td) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(td) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: At approximately 4:50 P.M. EST, the Court held an on−the−record teleconference, attended by counsel for both parties, to set a briefing schedule on Plaintiff's 3 Emergency Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. Defendants shall file their opposition to the motion by 4 P.M. EST on WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2017. Plaintiff shall file its reply by 9 A.M. EST on THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/3/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
4 ORDER Establishing Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 07/03/2017. (DM) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth J. Shapiro on behalf of All Defendants (Shapiro, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/03/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly: Telephone Conference held on 7/3/2017. (Court Reporter Richard Ehrlich.) (dot) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 6 of 12

07/05/2017 07/05/2017
07/05/2017
07/05/2017 07/06/2017

6 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol Federighi on behalf of All Defendants (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
7 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Evan Borson on behalf of EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY (Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
8 RESPONSE re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kris Kobach, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
9 ORDER. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/5/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
10 TRANSCRIPT OF SCHEDULING CONFERENCE before Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly held on July 3, 2017; Page Numbers: 1− 13. Date of Issuance: July 6, 2017. Court Reporter/Transcriber Richard D. Ehrlich, Telephone number 202−354−3269, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased from the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

07/06/2017
07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017 07/06/2017

Redaction Request due 7/27/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/6/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/4/2017.(Ehrlich, Richard) Modified date of hearing on 7/7/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 07/06/2017)
11 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 9 Order filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kris W. Kobach)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
12 NOTICE of Appearance by Alan Jay Butler on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
13 REPLY to opposition to motion re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum, # 2 Affirmation of Marc Rotenberg, # 3 Exhibits 1−11)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
14 ERRATA by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 13 Reply to opposition to Motion filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Exhibit 11)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
15 ORDER. The Court hereby sets a hearing on Plaintiff's 3 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, to be held at 4:00 P.M. on July 7, 2017, in Courtroom 28A. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/6/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/06/2017)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 7/7/2017 at 4:00 PM in Courtroom 28A before Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly. (dot) (Entered: 07/07/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 7 of 12

07/07/2017
07/07/2017 07/07/2017
07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 07/09/2017

16 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Surreply, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
17 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT Filing of Supplemental Brief by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER re 15 Order (Butler, Alan) Modified event title on 7/10/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 07/07/2017)
18 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 15 Order Defendants' Supplemental Brief on Informational Standing filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY. (Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
19 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Sur−surreply by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed sur−surreply, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit to proposed sur−surreply, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
20 NOTICE of Supplemental Exhibits by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER re 15 Order (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Exhibits)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly: Motion Hearing held on 7/7/2017 re 3 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER; and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Richard Ehrlich.) (dot) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
21 AMENDED COMPLAINT pursuant to FRCP 15(a)(1)(A) against ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Summons as to U.S. Department of Defense)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
22 TRANSCRIPT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER before Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly held on July 7, 2017; Page Numbers: 1 − 63. Date of Issuance:July 10, 2017. Court Reporter/Transcriber Richard D. Ehrlich, Telephone number (202) 354−3269, Transcripts may be ordered by submitting the Transcript Order Form

For the first 90 days after this filing date, the transcript may be viewed at the courthouse at a public terminal or purchased fro m the court reporter referenced above. After 90 days, the transcript may be accessed via PACER. Other transcript formats, (multi−page, condensed, CD or ASCII) may be purchased from the court reporter.

NOTICE RE REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have twenty−one days to file with the court and the court reporter any request to redact personal identifiers from this transcript. If no such requests are filed, the transcript will be made available to the public via PACER without redaction after 90 days. The policy, which includes the five personal identifiers specifically covered, is located on our website at www.dcd.uscourts.gov.

07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/10/2017

Redaction Request due 7/30/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/9/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/7/2017.(Ehrlich, Richard) (Entered: 07/09/2017)
23 ORDER. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/10/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
Set/Reset Deadline: Supplemental briefing due by 4:00 PM on 7/10/2017. (tth) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
24 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 23 Order Supplemental Brief re: DOD filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 8 of 12

07/10/2017 07/10/2017 07/11/2017 07/11/2017 07/11/2017
07/11/2017
07/11/2017 07/11/2017
07/11/2017 07/11/2017
07/12/2017 07/13/2017 07/13/2017

VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Third Kobach Decl.)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
25 SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (znmw) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
26 ORDER. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/10/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
27 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re 26 Order filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeramie D. Scott on behalf of ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Scott, Jeramie) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
29 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Caitriona Fitzgerald, :Firm− Electronic Privacy Information Center, :Address− 14 Tyler Street, Third Floor, Somerville, MA 02143. Phone No. − (617) 945−8409. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−5026343. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitriona Fitzgerald, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
30 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Exhibit 5, # 3 Summons as to Charles C. Herndon, # 4 Summons as to U.S. Digital Service, # 5 Summons as to Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
31 ORDER. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/11/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
32 RESPONSE re 30 MOTION for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint filed by EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: For good cause shown, and in light of Defendants' notice that they do not oppose this relief, ECF No. 32, Plaintiff's 30 Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/11/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
33 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CHARLES G. HERNDON, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5)(znmw) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
34 SUMMONS (3) Issued Electronically as to EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, CHARLES G. HERNDON, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE. (znmw) (Entered: 07/12/2017)
35 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order , MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit 1−20, # 4 Exhibit 21−30, # 5 Exhibit 31−40, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
36 ERRATA Corrected Exhibits 21−30 by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 35 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21−30)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 9 of 12

07/16/2017 07/17/2017
07/17/2017 07/18/2017 07/24/2017 07/24/2017 07/25/2017 07/26/2017 07/27/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017 08/02/2017
08/11/2017

37 NOTICE of Appearance by Kristina Ann Wolfe on behalf of All Defendants (Wolfe, Kristina) (Entered: 07/16/2017)
38 RESPONSE re 35 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
39 REPLY to opposition to motion re 35 Amended MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Eleni Kyriakides)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
NOTICE OF ERROR re 39 Reply to opposition to Motion; emailed to butler@epic.org, cc'd 9 associated attorneys −− The PDF file you docketed contained errors: 1. FYI on future filings, the signature of the person filing and the one signing the document must match. (ztd, ) (Entered: 07/18/2017)
40 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/24/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
41 ORDER. Plaintiff's 35 Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 7/24/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
42 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO DC CIRCUIT COURT as to 41 Order on Motion for TRO, Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. Filing fee $ 505, receipt number 0090−5047166. Fee Status: Fee Paid. Parties have been notified. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
43 Transmission of the Notice of Appeal, Order Appealed (Memorandum Opinion), and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals fee was paid this date re 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court. (znmw) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
USCA Case Number 17−5171 for 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (zrdj) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
44 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 7/16/2017. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 9/4/2017. (Rotenberg, Marc) Modified dates on 8/3/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 08/02/2017)
45 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 7/6/2017. (Rotenberg, Marc) Modified date of service on 8/3/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 08/02/2017)
46 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY served on 7/24/2017; EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES served on 7/6/2017; GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION served on 7/6/2017; CHARLES G. HERNDON served on 7/24/2017; KRIS KOBACH served on 7/6/2017; OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES served on 7/6/2017; MICHAEL PENCE served on 7/6/2017; PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY served on 7/6/2017; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE served on 7/24/2017; UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE served on 7/24/2017 (Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The 3 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and related 16 Motion for Leave to File Surreply, and 17 Motion for Leave to File Sur−surreply, are DENIED AS MOOT. The Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file an amended motion for injunctive relief. Order, ECF No. 31. The 35 Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction was resolved by the Court's

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 10 of 12

08/16/2017 08/25/2017
09/05/2017 09/05/2017
09/05/2017 09/08/2017 09/15/2017
09/19/2017

July 24, 2017 Memorandum Opinion, ECF No. 40.
Separately, the Court has received the 29 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of attorney Caitriona Fitzgerald. That Motion is GRANTED CONTINGENT on Ms. Fitzgerald filing a declaration, by AUGUST 18, 2017, certifying to the Court that she is familiar with the Local Rules of this Court.
(lcckk1) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
47 RESPONSE TO ORDER OF THE COURT re Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice,,,, Order on Motion for TRO,,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,,,,,,, filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Caitriona Fitzgerald)(Butler, Alan) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
48 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, or in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Stay, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Granting Additional Time to Respond)(Borson, Joseph). Added MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer on 8/28/2017 (znmw). (Entered: 08/25/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has received Defendants' 48 Motion to Stay Proceedings, and hereby sets the following briefing schedule. Plaintiff's response shall be due by SEPTEMBER 8, 2017. Defendants' reply shall be due by SEPTEMBER 15, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 9/5/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
49 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Plaintiff's Response due by 9/8/2017. Defendants' Reply due by 9/15/2017. (dot) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
50 Memorandum in opposition to re 48 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, or in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
51 REPLY to opposition to motion re 48 MOTION to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, or in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE. (Wolfe, Kristina) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
52 Memorandum in opposition to re 49 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Second Declaration of Marc Rotenberg, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Declaration of Deborah C. Peel, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Helen Nissenbaum, # 4 Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Robert Ellis Smith, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Rotenberg, Marc)

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 11 of 12

09/26/2017
10/12/2017 10/16/2017 10/16/2017 10/26/2017
11/02/2017 01/03/2018
01/24/2018
01/25/2018 04/02/2018 04/16/2018

(Entered: 09/19/2017)
53 REPLY to opposition to motion re 49 MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint filed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE. (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 09/26/2017)
54 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Statutes and Regulations, # 2 Exhibit Proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 10/12/2017)
MINUTE ORDER: The Court has received Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint. The parties shall abide by the following briefing schedule. Defendants' response is due by OCTOBER 26, 2017. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due by NOVEMBER 2, 2017. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on 10/16/2017. (lcckk1) (Entered: 10/16/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendants' Response to 54 due by 10/26/2017. Plaintiff's Reply if any to 54 due by 11/2/2017. (dot) (Entered: 10/17/2017)
55 Memorandum in opposition to re 54 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE. (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 10/26/2017)
56 REPLY to opposition to motion re 54 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER. (Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
57 NOTICE of Executive Order by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL R. PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executive Order)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 01/03/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Court of Appeals' decision in Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, 878 F.3d 371 (D.C. Cir. 2017), and the filing of Defendants' 49 Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Second Amended Complaint, the Court DENIES as moot Defendants' 48 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal, or in the Alternative, for Additional Time to Respond to the Second Amended Complaint, with Incorporated Memorandum. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on January 24, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 01/24/2018)
58 Supplemental Record on Appeal transmitted to US Court of Appeals re Minute Order on Motion to Stay, Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; USCA Case Number 17−05171. (znmw) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
59 ORDER of USCA ORDERED that the motion be denied as to 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER ; USCA Case Number 17−5171. (zrdj) (Entered: 04/21/2018)
60 MANDATE of USCA as to 42 Notice of Appeal to DC Circuit Court, filed by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER ; USCA Case Number 17−5171. (Attachments: # 1 judgment filed December 26, 2017)(zrdj) (Entered:

Case: 1:17-cv-1320 As of: 03/19/2019 02:12 PM EDT 12 of 12

06/28/2018
06/29/2018 07/17/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018 08/20/2018 08/22/2018

04/21/2018)
MINUTE ORDER: In order to facilitate the Court's decision as to Defendants' 49 Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint, the Court shall require additional information from Defendants regarding the current status of the state voter data collected by the now−defunct Commission. See Notice of Executive Order, ECF No. 57 (indicating that Commission was terminated by Executive Order).In an affidavit in a related case, Defendant Charles Herndon, Director of White House Information Technology ("WHIT") stated, inter alia, that "[p]ending resolution of outstanding litigation involving the Commission, and pending consultation with [the National Archives and Records Administration], the White House intends to destroy all state voter data. Until such disposition, the data will continue to be maintained by the WHIT technical staff as Presidential Records." 2d Decl. of Charles C. Herndon, Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Comm'n on Election Integrity, No. 17−cv−2361 (D.D.C. Jan. 9, 2018), ECF No. 39−2, &para 4.By JULY 20, 2018, Defendants shall file an updated affidavit from Mr. Herndon identifying the current status of the state voter data, including whether it has been transferred to any individual or entity, as well as Defendants' plans for its disposition.Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on June 28, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant's updated affidavit due by 7/20/2018. (kt) (Entered: 06/29/2018)
61 NOTICE of Compliance with this Court's June 28, 2018 Minute Order by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL R. PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE re Order,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Charles C. Herndon (4th), # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
62 NOTICE of Exhibit by ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER re Order,,,,,, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Rotenberg, Marc) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
63 ORDER. The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants' 49 Motion to Dismiss and DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's 54 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. Defendants shall file a Notice by AUGUST 20, 2018, confirming whether all state voter data collected by the Commission has been deleted, and if not, identifying when Defendants expect to complete that process. See Order for further details. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on July 19, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Defendant shall file a Notice by 8/20/2018, confirming whether all state voterdata collected by the Commission has been deleted, and if not, identifying when Defendantsexpect to complete that process. (dot) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
64 NOTICE of Deletion by EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, CHARLES G. HERNDON, KRIS KOBACH, OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, MICHAEL R. PENCE, PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE re 63 Order on Motion to Dismiss,,, Order on Motion for Leave to File,, (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Fifth) of Charles C. Herndon)(Borson, Joseph) (Entered: 08/20/2018)
65 ORDER. This case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar−Kotelly on August 22, 2018. (lcckk1) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 1 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY; MICHAEL PENCE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity; KRIS KOBACH, in his official capacity as Vice Chair ofthe Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity; EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 1800 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20405
Defendants.

Case: 1:17-cv-01320 Assigned To : Kollar-Kotelly, Colleen Assign. Date : 7/3/2017 Description: TRO/PI

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1. This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-706, the Federal Advisory Committee Act ("FACA"), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, and the United States Constitution for injunctive and other appropriate relief to halt the collection of state voter data by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the "PACEI" or the

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 2 of 23
"Commission"), by officers of the Commission, and by the agencies which oversee and facilitate the activities of the Commission. 2. The Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC") challenges the Commission's intent to collect the personal data of millions of registered voters and to publish partial SSNs as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and a violatiun uf the agem:y 's obligation tu l:umlud a Privacy Impact Assessment ("PIA").
Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and 5 U.S.C. § 704. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 4. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties 5. Plaintiff EPIC is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington, D.C., and established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. Central to EPIC's mission is oversight and analysis of government activities. EPIC's Advisory Board members include distinguished experts in law, technology, public policy, and cybersecurity. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and the security of election infrastructure. EPIC has specific expertise regarding the misuse of the Social Security Number ("SSN") and has sought stronger protections for the SSN for more than two decades. 6. EPIC's members include registered voters in California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. 7. Defendant PACE! is an advisory committee ofthe U.S. government within the meaning ofFACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10. Defendant PACEI is also an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 3 of 23
8. Defendant Michael Pence is the Vice President ofthe United States and the Chair of the PACEI. 9. Defendant Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas and the Vice Chair ofthe PACEI. 10. Defendant Executive Office of the President ofthe United States ("EOP") is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 11. Defendant Office of the Vice President of the United States ("OVP") is a subcomponent of EOP and an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 12. Defendant General Services Administration ("GSA") is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. The GSA is charged with providing the PACEI "such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission ...."Ex. 1. 1
Facts The Commission's Unprecedented Collection of State Voter Data 13. The Commission was established by Executive Order on May 11, 201 7 ("Commission Order"). Ex 1.2 14. The Commission is charged with "study[ing] the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections." Ex. 1.3 The Commission Order contains no authority to gather personal data or to undertake investigations.4 15. On June 28, 2017, the Vice Chair ofthe Commission undertook to collect detailed voter histories from all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Such a request had never been made 1 Exec. Order. No. 13,799,82 Fed. Reg. 22,389,22,390 (May 11, 2017). 2 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,389; see also Voter Privacy and the PACE!, EPIC.org (June 30, 2017), https://epic.org/privacy/voting/pacei/. 3 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,389. 4 See generally id.
3

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 4 of 23
by any federal official in the history of the country. The Vice Chair stated during a phone call with PACEI members that "a letter w[ould] be sent today to the 50 states and District of Columbia on behalf of the Commission requesting publicly-available data from state voter rolls . . . ."Ex. 2. 5 16. According to the U.S. Census, state voter rolls include the names, addresses, and other personally identifiable information of at least 157 million registered voters.6 17. One of the letters from the Commission, dated June 28, 2017, was sent to North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. Ex. 3.7 18. In the letter ("Commission Letter"), the Vice Chair urged the Secretary of State to provide to the Commission the "full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information." Ex. 3.8 19. The Commission Letter also asked "[w]hat evidence or information [the state had] regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud" and "[w]hat convictions for electionrelated crimes ha[d] occurred in [the] state since the November 2000 federal election." Ex. 3.9
5 Press Release, Office of the Vice President, Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (June 28, 2017). 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election ofNovember 2016 at tbl. 4a (May 20 17), https://www.census. govIdata/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20580.html. 7 Letter from Kris Kobach, Vice Chair, PACEI, to Elaine Marshall, Secretary of State, North Carolina (June 28, 2017). 8 !d. at 1-2. 9 !d. at 1.
4

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 5 of 23
20. The Commission Letter stated that "any documents that are submitted to the full Commission w[auld] also be made available to the public." Ex. 3. 10 21. The Commission asked for a response by July 14, 2017. Ex. 3. 11 The "SAFE" URL, recommend by the Commission for the submission of voter data, leads election officials to a nonsel:ure site. Regarding this website, Google Chrome states: "Your connection is not private. Attackers may be trying to steal your information from [the site proposed by the Commission] (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards)." Ex. 4. 12
Many States Oppose the Commission's Demand for Personal Voter Data 22. In less than three days following the release of the Commission Letter, election officials in twenty-four states said that they would oppose, partiallly or fully, the demand for personal voter data. 13 23. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla stated that he would "not provide sensitive voter information to a committee that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally. California's participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud." 14
10 !d. at 2. II Jd. 12 Screenshot: Google Chrome Security Warning for Safe Access File Exchange ("SAFE") Site (July 3, 2017 12:02 AM). 13 Philip Bump & Christopher Ingraham, Trump Says States Are 'Trying to Hide' Things from His Voter Fraud Commission. Here's What They Actually Say, Wash. Post (July 1, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/20 17/07/0 1/trump-says-states-are-trying-tohide- things- from- his- voter- fraud -commission-heres- what-they-actually -say/. 14 Press Release, Secretary of State Alex Padilla Responds to Presidential Election Commission Request for Personal Data of California Voters (June 29, 2017), http :1/www. sos. ca. govIadministration/news-releases-and-advisories/20 17-news-releases-andadvisories/secretary-state-alex-padilla-responds-presidential-election-commission-requestpersonal-data-california-voters/.
5

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 6 of 23
24. Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes stated that "Kentucky w[ould] not aid a commission that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country." 15 25. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe stated that he had "no intention of honoring [Kobach's] request." 16 26. More than fifty experts in voting technology and twenty privacy organizations wrote to state election officials to warn that "[t]here is no indication how the information will be used, who will have access to it, or what safeguards will be established." 17
The Commission's Failure to Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment 27. Under the E-Government Act of 2002, 18 any agency "initiating a new collection of information that (I) will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology; and (II) includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual" is required to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment ("PIA") before initiating such collection. 19 28. The agency must "(i) conduct a privacy impact assessment; (ii) ensure the review of the privacy impact assessment by the Chief Information Officer, or equivalent official, as determined by the head of the agency; and (iii) if practicable, after completion of the review under clause
15 Bradford Queen, Secretary Grimes Statement on Presidential Election Commission's Request for Voters' Personal Information, Kentucky (last accessed July 3, 20 17) http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=SOS&prld=129. 16 Terry McAuliffe, Governor McAuliffe Statement on Request from Trump Elections Commission (June 29, 2017), https:/Igovernor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleid=205 95. 17 Letter from EPIC et al. to Nat'l Ass'n of State Sec'ys (July 3, 2017), https://epic.org/privacy/voting/pacei/Voter-Privacy-letter-to-NASS-07032017.pdf. 18 Pub. L. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note). 19 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note ("Privacy Impact Assessments").
6

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 7 of 23
(ii), make the privacy impact assessment publicly available through the website of the agency, publication in the Federal Register, or other means."20 29. The PACEI is an agency subject to the E-Government Act because it is an "establishment in the executive branch of the Government," a category which "includ[es] the Executive Office of the President."21 30. A Privacy Impact Assessment for a "new collection of information" must be "commensurate with the size of the information system being assessed, the sensitivity of information that is in an identifiable form in that system, and the risk of harm from unauthorized release of that information."22 The PIA must specifically address "(I) what information is to be collected; (II) why the information is being collected; (III) the intended use of the agency of the information; (IV) with whom the information will be shared; (V) what notice or opportunities for consent would be provided to individuals regarding what information is collected and how that information is shared; [and] (VI) how the information will be secured ...."23 31. Under the FACA, "records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by [an] advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the ·advisory committee ceases to exist."24 32. The Commission has not conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment for its collection of state voter data.
20 !d. 21 44 U.S.C. § 3502(1). 22 § 3501 note ("Privacy Impact Assessments") . 23 !d. 24 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 1O(b).
7

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 8 of 23
33. The Commission has not ensured review of a PIA by any Chief Information Officer or equivalent official. 34. The Commission has not published a PIA or made such an assessment available for public inspection.
Count I Violation of APA: Unlawful Agency Action 35. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35. 36. Defendants' collection of state voter data prior to creating, reviewing, and publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) and short of statutory right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(c). 37. Defendants' decision to initiate collection of voter data is a final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 704. 38. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants' actions. 39. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count II Violation of APA: Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld 40. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35. 41. Defendants have failed to create, review, and/or publish a privacy impact assessment for Defendants' collection of voter data, as required by 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note and 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 1O(b).
8

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 9 of 23
42. Defendants' failure to take these steps constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 43. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants' actions and inaction. 44. Plaintiffhas exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count III Violation ofFACA: Failure to Make Documents Available for Public Inspection 45. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35. 46. Defendant PACEI has failed to make available for public inspection a privacy impact assessment for the PACEI's collection of voter data. 47. Defendant PACEI's failure to do so is a violation of 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § lO(b). 48. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendant PACEI's actions and inaction. 49. Plaintiffhas exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count IV Violation of Fifth Amendment: Substantive Due Process/Right to Informational Privacy 50. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35. 51. Defendants, by seeking to assemble an unnecessary and excessive federal database of sensitive voter data from state records systems, have violated the informational privacy rights of millions of Americans, including members of the EPIC Advisory Board, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V; NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134, 138 (2011); Nixon v. Administrator ofGeneral Services, 433 U.S. 425,457 (1977); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977).
9

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 10 of 23
52. Plaintiff, as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants' actions.
CountV Violation of Fifth Amendment: Procedural Due Process 53. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35. 54. Defendants, by seeking to assemble an unnecessary and excessive federal database of sensitive voter data from state records systems, have deprived EPIC's members of their liberty interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters. U.S. Canst. amend. V; NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134, 138 (2011); Nixon v. Administrator ofGeneral Services, 433 U.S. 425,457 (1977); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977). 55. Defendants have done so without providing notice to EPIC's members, without providing EPIC's members an opportunity to challenge the collection oftheir personal data, and without providing for a neutral decisionmaker to decide on any such challenges brought by EPIC's members. 56. Defendants have violated EPIC's members Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V. 57. Plaintiff, as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants' actions and inaction.
Requested Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:
A. Hold unlawful and set aside Defendants' authority to collect personal voter data from the states;
B. Order Defendants to halt collection of personal voter data;
10

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 11 of 23

C. Order Defendants to securely delete and properly disgorge any personal voter data collected or subsequently received;
D. Order Defendants to promptly conduct a privacy impact assessment prior to the collection of personal voter data;
E. Award EPIC costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this action; and F. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: July 3, 2017

Respectfully Submitted,
Is/ Marc Rotenberg MARC ROTENBERG, D.C. Bar# 422825 EPIC President and Executive Director
ALAN BUTLER, D.C. Bar# 1012128 EPIC Senior Counsel
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 483-1140 (telephone) (202) 483-1248 (facsimile)

11

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 12 of 23

Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exec. Order. No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389 (May 11, 2017)
Press Release, Office of the Vice President, Readout ofthe Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (June 28, 2017)
Letter from Kris Kobach, Vice Chair, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, to Elaine Marshall, Secretary of State, North Carolina (June 28, 2017)
Screenshot: Google Chrome Security Warning for Safe Access File Exchange ("SAFE") Website (July 3, 2017 12:02 AM)

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 13 of 23
-
'
Exhibit 1

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 14 of 23

Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 93 Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Presidential Documents

22389

Title 3-
The President

Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017
Establishment of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to promote fair and honest Federal elections, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (Commission) is hereby established.
Sec. 2. Membership. The Vice President shall chair the Commission, which shall be composed of not more than 15 additional members. The President shall appoint the additional members, who shall include individuals with knowledge and experience in elections, election management, election fraud detection, and voter integrity efforts, and any other individuals with knowledge or experience that the President determines to be of value to the Commission. The Vice President may select a Vice Chair of the Commission from among the members appointed by the President.
Sec. 3. Mission. The Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections. The Commission shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President that identifies the following:
(a) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections;
(b) those laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of the voting processes used in Federal elections; and
(c) those vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections that could lead to improper voter registrations and improper voting, including fraudulent voter registrations and fraudulent voting. Sec. 4. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term "improper voter registration" means any situation where an individual who does not possess the legal right to vote in a jurisdiction is included as an eligible voter on that jurisdiction's voter list, regardless of the state of mind or intent of such individual.
(b) The term "improper voting" means the act of an individual casting a non-provisional ballot in a jurisdiction in which that individual is ineligible to vote, or the act of an individual casting a ballot in multiple jurisdictions, regardless of the state of mind or intent of that individual.
(c) The term "fraudulent voter registration" means any situation where an individual knowingly and intentionally takes steps to add ineligible individuals to voter lists.
(d) The term "fraudulent voting" means the act of casting a non-provisional ballot or multiple ballots with knowledge that casting the ballot or ballots is illegal. Sec. 5. Administration. The Commission shall hold public meetings and engage with Federal, State, and local officials, and election law experts, as necessary, to carry out its mission. The Commission shall be informed by, and shall strive to avoid duplicating, the efforts of existing government entities. The Commission shall have staff to provide support for its functions.

22390

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 15 of 23
Federal Register/Val. 82, No. 93/Tuesday, May 16, 2017/Presidential Documents
Sec. 6. Termination. The Commission shall terminate 30 days after it submits its report to the President.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) To the extent permitted by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations, the General Services Administration shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission on a reimbursable basis.
(b) Relevant executive departments and agencies shall endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.
(c) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the "Act"), may apply to the Commission, any functions of the President under that Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act, shall be performed by the Administrator of General Services.
(d) Members of the Commission shall serve without any additional compensation for their work on the Commission, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, to the extent permitted by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service
(5 u.s.c. 5701-5707).
(e) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(f) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(g) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2017-10003 Filed 5-15-17; 0:45 am] Billing code 3295-F7-P

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 11, 2017.

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 16 of 23
-
I
Exhibit 2

7/2/2017

CaseRe1ad:o1u7t o-fcthve-V0ic1e3Pr2es0id-eCnt'Ks CKall wDithothceuPmresiedenntia1l AdvFisiolreydCo0m7m/is0si3on/1on7ElecPtioangIneteg1ri7ty Iowfhi2te3house.gov

the WHITE HOUSE
--

From the Press Office
Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings
.J
I Statements & Releases
Nominations & Appointments Presidential Actions Legislation Disclosures

The White House Office of the Vice President
For Immediate Release

June 28,2017

Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

This morning, Vice President Mike Pence held an organizational call with members of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. The Vice President reiterated President Trump's charge to the commission with producing a set of recommendations to increase the American people's confidence in the integrity of our election systems.
"The integrity of the vote is a foundation of our democracy; this bipartisan commission will review ways to strengthen that integrity in order to protect and preserve the principle of one person, one vote," the Vice President told commission members today.
The commission set July 19 as its first meeting, which will take place in Washington, D.C.

https://www. yvhi tehou se.gov/the-press-offi ce/20 17/06/28/readout-vi ce-presidents-call-presidential-advisory-commission-election

1/2

7/2/2017

CaseRe1ad:o1ut7o-fcthve-V0ic1e3Pr2es0id-eCnt'Ks CKall wDithothceuPmresiedennttia1l AdvFisiolreydCo0m7m/is0si3on/1on7ElecPtioangIneteg1ri8ty Iowfhi2te3house.gov

Vice Chair of the Commission and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach told members a

letter will be sent today to the 50 states and District of Columbia on behalf of the

Commission requesting publicly-available data from state voter rolls and feedback on how

to improve election integrity.

f

BRIEFING ROOM ISSUES THE ADMINISTRATION PARTICIPATE 1600 PENN USA.qov Privacy Policy Copyright Policy

hrlps:I/ww w.wh1tehouse.gov/l hc· 1>rcss-offi ce/20 17/06/28/readoul·vice·pres iden ts-caU-presidenliij1-atl visory-commission-el ection

2/2

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 19 of 23
"
.J
Exhibit 3

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 20 of 23
Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
June 28, 2017
The Honorable Elaine Marshall Secretary of State PO Box 29622 Raleigh, NC 27626-0622
Dear Secretary Marshall, I serve as the Vice Chair for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("Commission"), which was formed pursuant to Executive Order 13799 of May 11,2017. The Commission is charged with studying the registration and voting processes used in federal elections and submitting a report to the President of the United States that identifies laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices that enhance or undermine the American people's confidence in the integrity of federal elections processes. As the Commission begins it work, I invite you to contribute your views and recommendations throughout this process. In particular:
1. What changes, if any, to federal election laws would you recommend to enhance the integrity of federal elections?
2. How can the Commission support state and local election administrators with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities?
3. What laws, policies, or other issues hinder your ability to ensure the integrity of elections you administer?
4. What evidence or information do you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state?
5. What convictions for election-related crimes have occurred in your state since the November 2000 federal election?
6. What recommendations do you have for preventing voter intimidation or disenfranchisement?
7. What other issues do you believe the Commission should consider?
In addition, in order for the Commission to fully analyze vulnerabilities and issues related to voter registration and voting, I am requesting that you provide to the Commission the publiclyavailable voter roll data for North Carolina, including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 21 of 23
security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.
You may submit your responses electronically to ElectionlntegrityStatf(a{ovp.eop.gov or by utilizing the Safe Access File Exchange ("SAFE"), which is a secure FTP site the federal government uses for transferring large data files. You can access the SAFE site at htlps://sa le.arnrdec .arm .mil /sa J'e/Welcome.<l!:ipx. We would appreciate a response by July 14, 2017. Please be aware that any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public. If you have any questions, please contact Commission staff at the same email address.
On behalf of my fellow commissioners, I also want to acknowledge your important leadership role in administering the elections within your state and the importance of state-level authority in our federalist system. It is crucial for the Commission to consider your input as it collects data and identifies areas of opportunity to increase the integrity of our election systems.
I look forward to hearing from you and working with you in the months ahead.
Sincerely,
~p:P
Kris W. Kobach Vice Chair Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 22 of 23
-
'
Exhibit 4

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 1 Filed 07/03/17 Page 23 of 23

Privacy error

X

C A Not Secure ~://safe.amrdec.army.mif/safe{Welcome.aspx

Your connection is not private
Attackers might be trying to steal your information from safe.amrdec.army.mU (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards). NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVAUD
0 Automatically send some system information and page content to
Google to help detect dangerous apps and sites. Privacy policy

e ·. , () Was.hington oc. USA - current and ac.•.
1 i Secure https:i;www.timeanddate.com/'NOrl(,
..~,v#-
tin~e .:r 1:.:date
Local Nne In Wastlltlfl~ DC
Monday, July 3, 2017
12:02:40 am
EDT

Back to safety

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY; MICHAEL PENCE, in his official capacity as Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity; KRIS KOBACH, in his official capacity as Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity; CHARLES C. HERNDON, in his official capacity as Director of White House Information Technology; EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DIGITAL SERVICE; EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR PRESIDENTIAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20500
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 1800 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20405
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20301-0001

Civ. Action No. 17-1320 (CKK)

Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 2 of 16
1. This is an action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–706, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (“FACA”), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, and the United States Constitution for injunctive and other appropriate relief to halt the collection of state voter data by the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the “PACEI” or the “Commission”), by officers of the Commission, and by the agencies which oversee and facilitate the activities of the Commission, including the Department of Defense. 2. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (“EPIC”) challenges the Defendants’ intent to collect the personal data of millions of registered voters and to publish partial SSNs as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and a violation of the obligation to conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (“PIA”).
Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and 5 U.S.C. § 704. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. 4. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 703 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Parties 5. Plaintiff EPIC is a nonprofit organization incorporated in Washington, D.C., and established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues. Central to EPIC’s mission is oversight and analysis of government activities. EPIC’s Advisory Board members include distinguished experts in law, technology, public policy, and cybersecurity. EPIC has a long history of working to protect voter privacy and the security of election infrastructure. EPIC has specific expertise regarding the misuse of the Social Security Number (“SSN”) and has sought stronger protections for the SSN for more than two decades. 6. EPIC’s members include registered voters in California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
2

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 3 of 16
7. Defendant PACEI is an advisory committee of the U.S. government within the meaning of FACA, 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10. Defendant PACEI is also an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 8. Defendant Michael Pence is the Vice President of the United States and the Chair of the PACEI. 9. Defendant Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas and the Vice Chair of the PACEI. 10. Defendant Charles C. Herndon is the Director of White House Information Technology. 11. Defendant Executive Office of the President of the United States (“EOP”) is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 12. Defendant U.S. Digital Service is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 13. Defendant Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology consists of the following officials or their designees: the Assistant to the President for Management and Administration; the Executive Secretary of the National Security Council; the Director of the Office of Administration; the Director of the United States Secret Services; and the Director of the White House Military Office. The Executive Committee is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 14. Defendant Office of the Vice President of the United States (“OVP”) is a subcomponent of EOP and an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. 15. Defendant General Services Administration (“GSA”) is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. The GSA is charged with providing the PACEI
3

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 4 of 16
“such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission . . . .” Ex. 1.1 16. Defendant United States Department of Defense (“DoD”) is an agency within the meaning of 44 U.S.C. § 3502 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 701. The DoD manages and controls the Safe Access File System (“SAFE”).
Facts The Commission’s Unprecedented Collection of State Voter Data 17. The Commission was established by Executive Order on May 11, 2017 (“Commission Order”). Ex 1.2 18. The Commission is charged with “study[ing] the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” Ex. 1.3 The Commission Order contains no authority to gather personal data or to undertake investigations.4 19. On June 28, 2017, the Vice Chair of the Commission undertook to collect detailed voter histories from all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Such a request had never been made by any federal official in the history of the country. The Vice Chair stated during a phone call with Commission members that “a letter w[ould] be sent today to the 50 states and District of Columbia on behalf of the Commission requesting publicly-available data from state voter rolls . . . .” Ex. 2.5
1 Exec. Order. No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389, 22,390 (May 11, 2017). 2 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,389; see also Voter Privacy and the PACEI, EPIC.org (June 30, 2017), https://epic.org/privacy/voting/pacei/. 3 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,389. 4 See generally id. 5 Press Release, Office of the Vice President, Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (June 28, 2017).
4

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 5 of 16
20. According to the U.S. Census, state voter rolls include the names, addresses, and other personally identifiable information of at least 157 million registered voters.6 21. One of the letters from the Commission, dated June 28, 2017, was sent to North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall. Ex. 3.7 22. In the letter (“Commission Letter”), the Vice Chair urged the Secretary of State to provide to the Commission the “full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.” Ex. 3.8 23. The Commission Letter also asked “[w]hat evidence or information [the state had] regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud” and “[w]hat convictions for electionrelated crimes ha[d] occurred in [the] state since the November 2000 federal election.” Ex. 3.9 24. The Commission Letter stated that “any documents that are submitted to the full Commission w[ould] also be made available to the public.” Ex. 3.10 25. The Commission asked for a response by July 14, 2017. Ex. 3.11 The “SAFE” URL, recommend by the Commission for the submission of voter data, leads election officials to a non-
6 U.S. Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016 at tbl. 4a (May 2017), https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20580.html. 7 Letter from Kris Kobach, Vice Chair, PACEI, to Elaine Marshall, Secretary of State, North Carolina (June 28, 2017). 8 Id. at 1–2. 9 Id. at 1. 10 Id. at 2. 11 Id.
5

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 6 of 16
secure site. Regarding this website, Google Chrome states: “Your connection is not private. Attackers may be trying to steal your information from [the site proposed by the Commission] (for example, passwords, messages, or credit cards).” Ex. 4.12 26. As of July 7, 2017, the Department of Defense has received voter data from at least one state, Arkansas, in the SAFE system. 27. According to representations made by the Commission in the July 10, 2017 response, the Commission sent a “Follow-up Communication” to the states, requesting that the States not submit any data until this Court rules on EPIC’s motion for a temporary restraining order. 28. The Follow-up Communication from the Commission to the States was not made public as would be required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 29. There is no public confirmation that all of the States received the Follow-up Communication from the Commission. 30. There is no public confirmation that the States that did receive the Follow-up Communication will comply. 31. According to representations made by the Commission in the July 10, 2017 response, the Director of White House Information Technology is “repurposing” a computer system to be used for collecting personal voter data. 32. On July 10, 2017, the Commission stated that it would not send further instructions about how to use the new system pending the Court’s resolution of EPIC’s motion for a temporary restraining order.
12 Screenshot: Google Chrome Security Warning for Safe Access File Exchange (“SAFE”) Site (July 3, 2017 12:02 AM).
6

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 7 of 16
33. On July 10, 2017, the Commission stated that it would not download the data that Arkansas already transmitted via the DoD system, and that the data will be deleted from the site. There has been no confirmation that the data has been deleted.
The General Service Administration’s Role in Providing Support to the Commission 34. The Executive Order provides that the GSA “shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission on a reimbursable basis.”13 35. The Commission Charter designates the GSA as the “Agency Responsible for Providing Support,” and similarly orders that the GSA “shall provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission on a reimbursable basis.”14 36. The GSA routinely conducts and publishes Privacy Impact Assessments when it collects, maintains, and uses personal information on individuals.15 37. There is no authority in the Executive Order of the Commission Charter for any other entity to provide “administrative services,” “facilities,” or “equipment” to “carry out [the Commission’s] mission.”
Many States Oppose the Commission’s Demand for Personal Voter Data 38. In less than three days following the release of the Commission Letter, election officials in twenty-four states said that they would oppose, partially or fully, the demand for personal voter data.16
13 82 Fed. Reg. at 22,390. 14 Charter, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ¶ 6. 15 Privacy Impact Assessments, GSA (Apr. 13, 2017), https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/102237.
7

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 8 of 16
39. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla stated that he would “not provide sensitive
voter information to a committee that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of
Californians voted illegally. California’s participation would only serve to legitimize the false and already debunked claims of massive voter fraud.”17
40. Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes stated that “Kentucky w[ould] not
aid a commission that is at best a waste of taxpayer money and at worst an attempt to legitimize voter suppression efforts across the country.”18
41. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe stated that he had “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.”19
42. More than fifty experts in voting technology and twenty privacy organizations wrote to
state election officials to warn that “[t]here is no indication how the information will be used, who will have access to it, or what safeguards will be established.”20
Failure to Conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment
16 Philip Bump & Christopher Ingraham, Trump Says States Are ‘Trying to Hide’ Things from His Voter Fraud Commission. Here’s What They Actually Say, Wash. Post (July 1, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/01/trump-says-states-are-trying-tohide-things-from-his-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-they-actually-say/. 17 Press Release, Secretary of State Alex Padilla Responds to Presidential Election Commission Request for Personal Data of California Voters (June 29, 2017), http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2017-news-releases-andadvisories/secretary-state-alex-padilla-responds-presidential-election-commission-requestpersonal-data-california-voters/. 18 Bradford Queen, Secretary Grimes Statement on Presidential Election Commission's Request for Voters' Personal Information, Kentucky (last accessed July 3, 2017) http://kentucky.gov/Pages/Activity-stream.aspx?n=SOS&prId=129. 19 Terry McAuliffe, Governor McAuliffe Statement on Request from Trump Elections Commission (June 29, 2017), https://governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/newsarticle?articleId=20595. 20 Letter from EPIC et al. to Nat’l Ass’n of State Sec’ys (July 3, 2017), https://epic.org/privacy/voting/pacei/Voter-Privacy-letter-to-NASS-07032017.pdf.
8

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 9 of 16
43. Under the E-Government Act of 2002,21 any agency “initiating a new collection of information that (I) will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology; and (II) includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual” is required to complete a Privacy Impact Assessment (“PIA”) before initiating such collection.22 44. The agency must “(i) conduct a privacy impact assessment; (ii) ensure the review of the privacy impact assessment by the Chief Information Officer, or equivalent official, as determined by the head of the agency; and (iii) if practicable, after completion of the review under clause (ii), make the privacy impact assessment publicly available through the website of the agency, publication in the Federal Register, or other means.”23 45. The Commission is an agency subject to the E-Government Act because it is an “establishment in the executive branch of the Government,” a category which “includ[es] the Executive Office of the President.”24 46. The Executive Office of the President is an agency subject to the E-Government Act. 47. The U.S. Digital Service is an agency subject to the E-Government Act. 48. The Director of White House Information Technology is subject to the E-Government Act. 49. The Director of White House Information Technology was established in 2015 and has “the primary authority to establish and coordinate the necessary policies and procedures for
21 Pub. L. 107–347, 116 Stat. 2899 (codified as amended at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note). 22 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (“Privacy Impact Assessments”). 23 Id. 24 44 U.S.C. § 3502(1).
9

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 10 of 16
operating and maintaining the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP.”25 This authority includes:
providing “policy coordination and guidance for, and periodically review[ing], all activities relating to the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP by the Community, including expenditures for, and procurement of, information resources and information systems by the Community. Such activities shall be subject to the Director’s coordination, guidance, and review in order to ensure consistency with the Director’s strategy and to strengthen the quality of the Community’s decisions through integrated analysis, planning, budgeting, and evaluating process.26
The Director may also “advise and confer with appropriate executive departments and
agencies, individuals, and other entities as necessary to perform the Director’s duties under this memorandum.”27
50. The Director has the independent authority to oversee and “provide the necessary advice,
coordination, and guidance to” the Executive Committee for Presidential Information
Technology, which “consists of the following officials or their designees: the Assistant to the
President for Management and Administration; the Executive Secretary of the National Security
Council; the Director of the Office of Administration; the Director of the United States Secret Service; and the Director of the White House Military Office.”28
51. A Privacy Impact Assessment for a “new collection of information” must be
“commensurate with the size of the information system being assessed, the sensitivity of
information that is in an identifiable form in that system, and the risk of harm from unauthorized release of that information.”29 The PIA must specifically address “(I) what information is to be
25 Memorandum on Establishing the Director of White House Information Technology and the Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology § 1, 2015 Daily Comp. Pres. Doc. 185 (Mar. 19, 2015), attached as Ex. 5. 26 Id. § 2(c). 27 Id. § 2(d). 28 Id. § 3. 29 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (“Privacy Impact Assessments”).
10

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 11 of 16
collected; (II) why the information is being collected; (III) the intended use of the agency of the information; (IV) with whom the information will be shared; (V) what notice or opportunities for consent would be provided to individuals regarding what information is collected and how that information is shared; [and] (VI) how the information will be secured . . . .”30 52. Under the FACA, “records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by [an] advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist.”31 53. None of the Defendants have conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment for the Commission’s collection of state voter data. 54. None of the Defendants have ensured review of a PIA by any Chief Information Officer or equivalent official. 55. The Commission has not published a PIA or made such an assessment available for public inspection.
The DoD’s Privacy Impact Assessment Does Not Permit the Collection of Personal Information from The General Public 56. The DoD last approved a PIA for the Safe Access File Exchange system in 2015.32 57. The 2015 PIA indicates that the SAFE system may “collect, maintain, use and/or disseminate PII” about only “federal personnel and/or federal contractors.”33
30 Id. 31 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b). 32 Army Chief Information Officer, U.S. Dep’t of Def., Privacy Impact Assessments (April 27, 2016), http://ciog6.army.mil/PrivacyImpactAssessments/tabid/71/Default.aspx. 33 EPIC Supp. Ex. 5, ECF No. 20-1, at 1.
11

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 12 of 16
58. The 2015 PIA specifically indicates that the SAFE system may not be used to “collect, maintain, use and/or disseminate PII” from “members of the general public.”34 59. According to the 2015 PIA, the SAFE system may not be used to collect the data set out in the June 28, 2017, from Vice Chair Kobach, directing state election officials to provide voter roll data. 60. The DoD has not issued a PIA for the collection of personal data from the general public. 61. The DoD has not issued a PIA that would permit the receipt of data specified in the June 28, 2017, Kobach letter.
Count I Violation of APA: Unlawful Agency Action 62. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–42. 63. Defendants’ collection of state voter data prior to creating, reviewing, and publishing a Privacy Impact Assessment, 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) and short of statutory right under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(c). 64. Defendants’ decision to initiate collection of voter data is a final agency action within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 704. 65. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’ actions. 66. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count II Violation of APA: Agency Action Unlawfully Withheld
34 EPIC Supp. Ex. 5, ECF No. 20-1, at 1.
12

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 13 of 16
67. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–42. 68. Defendants have failed to create, review, and/or publish a privacy impact assessment for Defendants’ collection of voter data, as required by 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note and 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b). 69. Defendants’ failure to take these steps constitutes agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). 70. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and inaction. 71. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count III Violation of FACA: Failure to Make Documents Available for Public Inspection 72. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–42. 73. Defendants have failed to make available for public inspection a privacy impact assessment for the collection of voter data. 74. Defendants’ failure to make available for public inspection a PIA required by law is a violation of 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b). 75. Plaintiff, by itself and as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and inaction. 76. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.
Count IV Violation of Fifth Amendment: Substantive Due Process/Right to Informational Privacy 77. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–42.
13

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 14 of 16
78. Defendants, by seeking to assemble an unnecessary and excessive federal database of sensitive voter data from state records systems, have violated the informational privacy rights of millions of Americans, including members of the EPIC Advisory Board, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. V; NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134, 138 (2011); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599–600 (1977). 79. Plaintiff, as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’ actions.
Count V Violation of Fifth Amendment: Procedural Due Process 80. Plaintiff asserts and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–42. 81. Defendants, by seeking to assemble an unnecessary and excessive federal database of sensitive voter data from state records systems, have deprived EPIC’s members of their liberty interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters. U.S. Const. amend. V; NASA v. Nelson, 562 U.S. 134, 138 (2011); Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977); Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599–600 (1977). 82. Defendants have done so without providing notice to EPIC’s members, without providing EPIC’s members an opportunity to challenge the collection of their personal data, and without providing for a neutral decisionmaker to decide on any such challenges brought by EPIC’s members. 83. Defendants have violated EPIC’s members Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. V.
14

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 15 of 16
84. Plaintiff, as a representative of its members, is adversely affected and aggrieved by Defendants’ actions and inaction.
Requested Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court:
A. Hold unlawful and set aside Defendants’ authority to collect personal voter data from the states;
B. Order Defendants to halt collection of personal voter data; C. Order Defendants to securely delete and properly disgorge any personal voter data
collected or subsequently received; D. Order Defendants to promptly conduct a privacy impact assessment prior to the collection
of personal voter data; E. Award EPIC costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this action; and F. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Marc Rotenberg MARC ROTENBERG, D.C. Bar # 422825 EPIC President and Executive Director ALAN BUTLER, D.C. Bar # 1012128 EPIC Senior Counsel CAITRIONA FITZGERALD* EPIC Policy Director JERAMIE D. SCOTT, D.C. Bar # 1025909 EPIC Domestic Surveillance Project Director ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
15

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 33 Filed 07/11/17 Page 16 of 16

Dated: July 11, 2017

Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 483-1140 (telephone) (202) 483-1248 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff EPIC
* Pro hac vice motion pending

16

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 1 of 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-1320 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION (July 24, 2017)
This case arises from the establishment by Executive Order of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (the “Commission”), and a request by that Commission for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia to provide it with certain publicly available voter roll information. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s [35] Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, which seeks injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from “collecting voter roll data from states and state election officials” and directing Defendants to “delete and disgorge any voter roll data already collected or hereafter received.” Proposed TRO, ECF No. 35-6, at 1-2.
Although substantial public attention has been focused on the Commission’s request, the legal issues involved are highly technical. In addition to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, three federal laws are implicated: the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (“APA”), the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899 (“E-Government Act”), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. app. 2 (“FACA”). All three are likely unfamiliar to the vast majority of Americans, and even seasoned legal practitioners are unlikely to have encountered the latter two.

1

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 2 of 35
Matters are further complicated by the doctrine of standing, a Constitutional prerequisite for this Court to consider the merits of this lawsuit.
Given the preliminary and emergency nature of the relief sought, the Court need not at this time decide conclusively whether Plaintiff is, or is not, ultimately entitled to relief on the merits. Rather, if Plaintiff has standing to bring this lawsuit, then relief may be granted if the Court finds that Plaintiff has a likelihood of succeeding on the merits, that it would suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief, and that other equitable factors— that is, questions of fairness, justice, and the public interest—warrant such relief.
The Court held a lengthy hearing on July 7, 2017, and has carefully reviewed the parties’ voluminous submissions to the Court, the applicable law, and the record as a whole. Following the hearing, additional defendants were added to this lawsuit, and Plaintiff filed the pending, amended motion for injunctive relief, which has now been fully briefed. For the reasons detailed below, the Court finds that Plaintiff has standing to seek redress for the informational injuries that it has allegedly suffered as a result of Defendants declining to conduct and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment pursuant to the E-Government Act prior to initiating their collection of voter roll information. Plaintiff does not, however, have standing to pursue Constitutional or statutory claims on behalf of its advisory board members.
Although Plaintiff has won the standing battle, it proves to be a Pyrrhic victory. The E-Government Act does not itself provide for a cause of action, and consequently, Plaintiff must seek judicial review pursuant to the APA. However, the APA only applies to “agency action.” Given the factual circumstances presently before the Court—which have changed substantially since this case was filed three weeks ago—Defendants’ collection of voter
2

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 3 of 35
roll information does not currently involve agency action. Under the binding precedent of this circuit, entities in close proximity to the President, which do not wield “substantial independent authority,” are not “agencies” for purposes of the APA. On this basis, neither the Commission or the Director of White House Information Technology—who is currently charged with collecting voter roll information on behalf of the Commission—are “agencies” for purposes of the APA, meaning the Court cannot presently exert judicial review over the collection process. To the extent the factual circumstances change, however—for example, if the de jure or de facto powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body—this determination may need to be revisited. Finally, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated an irreparable informational injury— given that the law does not presently entitle it to information—and that the equitable and public interest factors are in equipoise. These interests may very well be served by additional disclosure, but they would not be served by this Court, without a legal mandate, ordering the disclosure of information where no right to such information currently exists. Accordingly, upon consideration of the pleadings,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, Plaintiff’s [35] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.2
1 The Court’s consideration has focused on the following documents: • Mem. in Supp. of Pl.’s Am. Mot. for a TRO and Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 35-1 (“Pls. Am. Mem.”); • Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Am. Mot. for a TRO and Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 38 (“Am. Opp’n Mem.”); • Reply in Supp. of Pl.’s Am. Mot. for a TRO and Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 39 (“Am. Reply Mem.”).
2 For the avoidance of doubt, the Court denies without prejudice both Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, and its motion for a preliminary injunction.
3

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 4 of 35
I. BACKGROUND The Commission was established by Executive Order on May 11, 2017. Executive Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389 (May 11, 2017) (“Exec. Order”). According to the Executive Order, the Commission’s purpose is to “study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.” Id. § 3. The Executive Order states that the Commission is “solely advisory,” and that it shall disband 30 days after submitting a report to the President on three areas related to “voting processes” in federal elections. Id. §§ 3, 6. The Vice President is the chair of the Commission, and the President may appoint 15 additional members. From this group, the Vice President is permitted to appoint a Vice Chair of the Commission. The Vice President has named Kris W. Kobach, Secretary of State for Kansas, to serve as the Vice Chair. Decl. of Kris Kobach, ECF No. 8-1 (“Kobach Decl.”), ¶ 1. Apart from the Vice President and the Vice Chair, there are presently ten other members of the Commission, including Commissioner Christy McCormick of the Election Assistance Commission (the “EAC”), who is currently the only federal agency official serving on the Commission, and a number of state election officials, both Democratic and Republican, and a Senior Legal Fellow of the Heritage Foundation. Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, No. 17-cv-1354 (D.D.C. July 10, 2017), Decl. of Andrew J. Kossack, ECF No. 15-1 (“Kossack Decl.”), ¶ 1; Second Decl. of Kris W. Kobach, ECF No. 11-1 (“Second Kobach Decl.”), ¶ 1. According to Defendants, “McCormick is not serving in her official capacity as a member of the EAC.” Second Kobach Decl. ¶ 2. The Executive Order also provides that the General Services Administration (“GSA”), a federal agency, will “provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other
4

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 5 of 35
support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission on a reimbursable basis,” and that other federal agencies “shall endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.” Exec. Order, § 7.
Following his appointment as Vice Chair, Mr. Kobach directed that identical letters “be sent to the secretaries of state or chief election officers of each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia.” Kobach Decl. ¶ 4. In addition to soliciting the views of state officials on certain election matters by way of seven broad policy questions, each of the letters requests that state officials provide the Commission with the “publicly available voter roll data” of their respective states, “including, if publicly available under the laws of [their] state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 onward, active/inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.” Kobach Decl., Ex. 3 (June 28, 2017 Letter to the Honorable John Merrill, Secretary of State of Alabama). The letters sent by Mr. Kobach also indicate that “[a]ny documents that are submitted to the full Commission will . . . be made available to the public.” Id. Defendants have represented that this statement applies only to “narrative responses” submitted by states to the Commission. Id. ¶ 5. “With respect to voter roll data, the Commission intends to de-identify any such data prior to any public release of documents. In other words, the voter rolls themselves will not be released to the public by the Commission.” Id. The exact process by which de-identification and publication of voter roll data will occur has yet to be determined. Hr’g Tr. 36:20–37:8.
5

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 6 of 35
Each letter states that responses may be submitted electronically to an email address, ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov, “or by utilizing the Safe Access File Exchange (‘SAFE’), which is a secure FTP site the federal government uses for transferring large data files.” Kobach Decl., Ex. 3. The SAFE website is accessible at https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/ Welcome.aspx. Defendants have represented that it was their intention that “narrative responses” to the letters’ broad policy questions should be sent via email, while voter roll information should be uploaded by using the SAFE system. Id. ¶ 5.
According to Defendants, the email address named in the letters “is a White House email address (in the Office of the Vice President) and subject to the security protecting all White House communications and networks.” Id. Defendants, citing security concerns, declined to detail the extent to which other federal agencies are involved in the maintenance of the White House computer system. Hr’g Tr. 35:2-10. The SAFE system, however, is operated by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, a component of the Department of Defense. Second Kobach Decl. ¶ 4; Hr’g Tr. 32:6–9. The SAFE system was “originally designed to provide Army Missile and Research, Development and Engineering Command (AMRDEC) employees and those doing business with AMRDEC an alternate way to send files.” Safe Access File Exchange (Aug. 8, 2012), available at http://www.doncio.navy.mil/ContentView.aspx?id=4098 (last accessed July 20, 2017). The system allows “users to send up to 25 files securely to recipients within the .mil or .gov domains[,]” and may be used by anyone so long as the recipient has a .mil or .gov email address. After an individual uploads data via the SAFE system, the intended recipient receives an email message indicating that “they have been
6

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 7 of 35
given access to a file” on the system, and the message provides instructions for accessing the file. The message also indicates the date on which the file will be deleted. This “deletion date” is set by the originator of the file, and the default deletion date is seven days after the upload date, although a maximum of two weeks is permitted.
Defendants portrayed the SAFE system as a conduit for information. Once a state had uploaded voter roll information via the system, Defendants intended to download the data and store it on a White House computer system. Second Kobach Decl. ¶ 5. The exact details of how that would happen, and who would be involved, were unresolved at the time of the hearing. Hr’g Tr. 34:3–35:10; 35:23–36:9. Nonetheless, there is truth to Defendants’ description. Files uploaded onto the system are not archived after their deletion date, and the system is meant to facilitate the transfer of files from one user to another, and is not intended for long-term data storage. As Defendants conceded, however, files uploaded onto the SAFE system are maintained for as many as fourteen days on a computer system operated by the Department of Defense. Hr’g Tr. 31:7–32:5; 36:1–9 (The Court: “You seem to be indicating that DOD’s website would maintain it at least for the period of time until it got transferred, right?” Ms. Shapiro: “Yes. This conduit system would have it for – until it’s downloaded. So from the time it’s uploaded until the time it’s downloaded for a maximum of two weeks and shorter if that’s what’s set by the states.”). Defendants stated that as, of July 7, only the state of Arkansas had transmitted voter roll information to the Commission by uploading it to the SAFE system. Hr’g Tr. 40:10–18. According to Defendants, the Commission had not yet downloaded Arkansas’ voter data; and as of the date of the hearing, the data continued to reside on the SAFE system. Id.
Shortly after the hearing, Plaintiff amended its complaint pursuant to Federal Rule
7

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 8 of 35
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(A), and added the Department of Defense as a defendant. Am. Compl., ECF No. 21. The Court then permitted Defendants to file supplemental briefing with respect to any issues particular to the Department of Defense. Order, ECF No. 23. On July 10, Defendants submitted a Supplemental Brief, notifying the Court of certain factual developments since the July 7 hearing. First, Defendants represented that the Commission “no longer intends to use the DOD SAFE system to receive information from the states.” Third Decl. of Kris W. Kobach, ECF No. 24-1 (“Third Kobach Decl.”), ¶ 1. Instead, Defendants stated that the Director of White House Information Technology was working to “repurpos[e] an existing system that regularly accepts personally identifiable information through a secure, encrypted computer application,” and that this new system was expected to be “fully functional by 6:00pm EDT [on July 10, 2017].” Id. Second, Defendants provided the Court with a follow-up communication sent to the states, directing election officials to “hold on submitting any data” until this Court resolved Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief. Id., Ex. A. In light of these developments, Plaintiff moved to further amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), to name as additional defendants the Director of White House Information Technology, the Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology, and the United States Digital Service, which the Court granted. Pl.’s Mot. to Am. Compl., ECF No. 30; Order, ECF No. 31.
Given the “substantial changes in factual circumstances” since this action was filed, the Court directed Plaintiff to file an amended motion for injunctive relief. Order, ECF No. 31. Plaintiff filed the amended motion on July 13, seeking to enjoin Defendants from “collecting voter roll data from states and state election officials” and to require
8

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 9 of 35
Defendants to “disgorge any voter roll data already collected or hereafter received.” Proposed Order, ECF No. 35-6, at 1–2. Defendants’ response supplied additional information about how the voter roll data would be collected and stored by the “repurposed” White House computer system. See Decl. of Charles Christopher Herndon, ECF No. 38-1 (“Herndon Decl.”), ¶¶ 3–6. According to Defendants, the new system requires state officials to request an access link, which then allows them to upload data to a “server within the domain electionintergrity.whitehouse.gov.” Id. ¶ 4. Once the files have been uploaded, “[a]uthorized members of the Commission will be given access” with “dedicated laptops” to access the data through a secure White House network. Id. ¶ 4–5. Defendants represent that this process will only require the assistance of “a limited number of technical staff from the White House Office of Administration . . . .” Id. ¶ 6. Finally, Defendants represented that the voter roll data uploaded to the SAFE system by the state of Arkansas—the only voter roll information known to the Court that has been transferred in response to the Commission’s request—“ha[d] been deleted without ever having been accessed by the Commission.” Id. ¶ 7.
II. LEGAL STANDARD Preliminary injunctive relief, whether in the form of temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)); see also Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (“[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” (emphasis in original;
9

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 10 of 35
quotation marks omitted)). A plaintiff seeking preliminary injunctive relief “must establish [1] that he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Aamer v. Obama, 742 F.3d 1023, 1038 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Sherley, 644 F.3d at 392 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20) (alteration in original; quotation marks omitted)). When seeking such relief, “‘the movant has the burden to show that all four factors, taken together, weigh in favor of the injunction.’” Abdullah v. Obama, 753 F.3d 193, 197 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Davis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 571 F.3d 1288, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). “The four factors have typically been evaluated on a ‘sliding scale.’” Davis, 571 F.3d at 1291 (citation omitted). Under this sliding-scale framework, “[i]f the movant makes an unusually strong showing on one of the factors, then it does not necessarily have to make as strong a showing on another factor.” Id. at 1291– 92.3
III. DISCUSSION A. Article III Standing
As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff has standing to
3 The Court notes that it is not clear whether this circuit’s sliding-scale approach to assessing the four preliminary injunction factors survives the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter. See Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 105 F. Supp. 3d 108, 112 (D.D.C. 2015). Several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) have “read Winter at least to suggest if not to hold ‘that a likelihood of success is an independent, free-standing requirement for a preliminary injunction.’” Sherley, 644 F.3d at 393 (quoting Davis, 571 F.3d at 1296 (concurring opinion)). However, the D.C. Circuit has yet to hold definitively that Winter has displaced the sliding-scale analysis. See id.; see also Save Jobs USA, 105 F. Supp. 3d at 112. In any event, this Court need not resolve the viability of the sliding-scale approach today, as it finds that Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, and that the other preliminary injunction factors are in equipoise.
10

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 11 of 35
bring this lawsuit. Standing is an element of this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, and requires, in essence, that a plaintiff have “a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy . . . .” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Consequently, a plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander or interested third-party, or a selfappointed representative of the public interest; he or she must show that defendant’s conduct has affected them in a “personal and individual way.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). The familiar requirements of Article III standing are:
(1) that the plaintiff have suffered an “injury in fact”—an invasion of a judicially cognizable interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) that there be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the injury must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167 (1997) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61). The parties have briefed three theories of standing. Two are based on Plaintiff’s own interests—for injuries to its informational interests and programmatic public interest activities—while the third is based on the interests of Plaintiff’s advisory board members. This latter theory fails, but the first two succeed, for the reasons detailed below. 1. Associational Standing An organization may sue to vindicate the interests of its members. To establish this type of “associational” standing, Plaintiff must show that “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Ass’n of Flight AttendantsCWA, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 564 F.3d 462, 464 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (internal
11

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 12 of 35
quotation marks omitted). Needless to say, Plaintiff must also show that it has “members” whose interests it is seeking to represent. To the extent Plaintiff does not have a formal membership, it may nonetheless assert organizational standing if “the organization is the functional equivalent of a traditional membership organization.” Fund Democracy, LLC v. S.E.C., 278 F.3d 21, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2002). For an organization to meet the test of functional equivalency, “(1) it must serve a specialized segment of the community; (2) it must represent individuals that have all the ‘indicia of membership’ including (i) electing the entity’s leadership, (ii) serving in the entity, and (iii) financing the entity’s activities; and (3) its fortunes must be tied closely to those of its constituency.” Washington Legal Found. v. Leavitt, 477 F. Supp. 2d 202, 208 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Fund Democracy, 278 F.3d at 25).
Plaintiff has submitted the declarations of nine advisory board members from six jurisdictions representing that the disclosure of their personal information—including “name, address, date of birth, political party, social security number, voter history, active/inactive or cancelled status, felony convictions, other voter registrations, and military status or overseas information”—will cause them immediate and irreparable harm. ECF No. 35-3, Exs. 7–15. The parties disagree on whether these advisory board members meet the test of functional equivalency. For one, Plaintiff’s own website concedes that the organization “ha[s] no clients, no customers, and no shareholders . . . .” See About EPIC, http://epic.org/epic/about.html (last accessed July 20, 2017). Contrary to this assertion, however, Plaintiff has proffered testimony to the effect that advisory board members exert substantial influence over the affairs of the organization, including by influencing the matters in which the organization participates, and that advisory board members are
12

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 13 of 35
expected to contribute to the organization, either financially or by offering their time and expertise. Hr’g Tr. 16:1–18:19; see also Decl. of Marc Rotenberg, ECF No. 35-5, Ex. 38, ¶¶ 8–12. In the Court’s view, however, the present record evidence is insufficient for Plaintiff to satisfy its burden with respect to associational standing. There is no evidence that members are required to finance the activities of the organization; that they have any role in electing the leadership of the organization; or that their fortunes, as opposed to their policy viewpoints, are “closely tied” to the organization. See id.; About EPIC, http://epic.org/epic/about.html (last accessed July 20, 2017) (“EPIC works closely with a distinguished advisory board, with expertise in law, technology and public policy. . . . EPIC is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. We have no clients, no customers, and no shareholders. We need your support.” (emphasis added)); see also Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 48 F. Supp. 3d 1, 22 (D.D.C. 2014) (“defendant raises serious questions about whether EPIC is an association made up of members that may avail itself of the associational standing doctrine”).
Furthermore, even if the Court were to find that Plaintiff is functionally equivalent to a membership organization, the individual advisory board members who submitted declarations do not have standing to sue in their own capacities. First, these individuals are registered voters in states that have declined to comply with the Commission’s request for voter roll information, and accordingly, they are not under imminent threat of either the statutory or Constitutional harms alleged by Plaintiff. See Am. Opp’n Mem., at 13. Second, apart from the alleged violations of the advisory board members’ Constitutional privacy rights—the existence of which the Court assumes for purposes of its standing analysis, see Parker v. D.C., 478 F.3d 370, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2007), aff’d sub nom. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S.
13

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 14 of 35
570 (2008)—Plaintiff has failed to proffer a theory of individual harm that is “actual or imminent, [and not merely] conjectural or hypothetical . . . [,]” Bennett, 520 U.S. at 167. Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of sensitive voter roll information would cause immeasurable harm that would be “impossible to contain . . . after the fact.” Pl.’s Am. Mem., at 13. The organization also alleges that the information may be susceptible to appropriation for unspecified “deviant purposes.” Id. (internal citations omitted). However, Defendants have represented that they are only collecting voter information that is already publicly available under the laws of the states where the information resides; that they have only requested this information and have not demanded it; and Defendants have clarified that such information, to the extent it is made public, will be de-identified. See supra at [•]. All of these representations were made to the Court in sworn declarations, and needless to say, the Court expects that Defendants shall strictly abide by them.
Under these factual circumstances, however, the only practical harm that Plaintiff’s advisory board members would suffer, assuming their respective states decide to comply with the Commission’s request in the future, is that their already publicly available information would be rendered more easily accessible by virtue of its consolidation on the computer systems that would ultimately receive this information on behalf of the Commission. It may be true, as Plaintiff contends, that there are restrictions on how “publicly available” voter information can be obtained in the ordinary course, such as application and notification procedures. Hr’g Tr. 8:2–21. But even granting the assumption that the Commission has or will receive information in a manner that bypasses these safeguards, the only way that such information would be rendered more accessible for nefarious purposes is if the Court further assumes that either the Commission systems are
14

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 15 of 35
more susceptible to compromise than those of the states, or that the de-identification process eventually used by Defendants will not sufficiently anonymize the information when it is publicized. Given the paucity of the record before the Court, this sequence of events is simply too attenuated to confer standing. At most, Plaintiff has shown that its members will suffer an increased risk of harm if their already publicly available information is collected by the Commission. But under the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, an increased risk of harm is insufficient to confer standing; rather, the harm must be “certainly impending.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1143 (2013). Indeed, on this basis, two district courts in this circuit have concluded that even the disclosure of confidential, identifiable information is insufficient to confer standing until that information is or is about to be used by a third-party to the detriment of the individual whose information is disclosed. See In re Sci. Applications Int’l Corp. (SAIC) Backup Tape Data Theft Litig., 45 F. Supp. 3d 14, 25 (D.D.C. 2014); Welborn v. IRS, 218 F. Supp. 3d 64, 77 (D.D.C. 2016). In sum, the mere increased risk of disclosure stemming from the collection and eventual, anonymized disclosure of already publicly available voter roll information is insufficient to confer standing upon Plaintiff’s advisory board members. Consequently, for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff has failed to show that it has associational standing to bring this lawsuit.4
4 This obviates the need to engage in a merits analysis of Plaintiff’s alleged Constitutional privacy right claims, which are based on the individual claims of its advisory board members. See generally Pl.’s Am. Mem., at 30. Nonetheless, even if the Court were to reach this issue, it would find that Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on these claims because the D.C. Circuit has expressed “grave doubts as to the existence of a constitutional right of privacy in the nondisclosure of personal information.” Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFLCIO v. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 118 F.3d 786, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
15

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 16 of 35
2. Informational Standing In order to establish informational standing, Plaintiff must show that “(1) it has been deprived of information that, on its interpretation, a statute requires the government or a third party to disclose to it, and (2) it suffers, by being denied access to that information, the type of harm Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure.” Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d 989, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “[A] plaintiff seeking to demonstrate that it has informational standing generally ‘need not allege any additional harm beyond the one Congress has identified.’” Id. (citing Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 (2016)). Plaintiff has brought suit under the APA, for the failure of one or more federal agencies to comply with Section 208 of the E-Government Act. That provision mandates that before “initiating a new collection of information,” an agency must “conduct a privacy impact assessment,” “ensure the review of the privacy impact assessment by the Chief Information Officer,” and “if practicable, after completion of the review . . . , make the privacy impact assessment publicly available through the website of the agency, publication in the Federal Register, or other means.” E-Government Act, § 208(b). An enumerated purpose of the EGovernment Act is “[t]o make the Federal Government more transparent and accountable.” Id. § 2(b)(9). Plaintiff satisfies both prongs of the test for informational standing. First, it has espoused a view of the law that entitles it to information. Namely, Plaintiff contends that Defendants are engaged in a new collection of information, and that a cause of action is available under the APA to force their compliance with the E-Government Act and to require the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment. Second, Plaintiff contends that it has suffered the very injuries meant to be prevented by the disclosure of information
16

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 17 of 35
pursuant to the E-Government Act—lack of transparency and the resulting lack of opportunity to hold the federal government to account. This injury is particular to Plaintiff, given that it is an organization that was “established . . . to focus public attention on emerging privacy and civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and democratic values in the information age.” About EPIC, https://www.epic.org/epic /about.html (last accessed July 20, 2017). Plaintiff, moreover, engages in government outreach by “speaking before Congress and judicial organizations about emerging privacy and civil liberties issues[,]” id., and uses information it obtains from the government to carry out its mission to educate the public regarding privacy issues, Hr’g Tr. 20:12–23.
Defendants have contested Plaintiff’s informational standing, citing principally to the D.C. Circuit’s analysis in Friends of Animals. See Am. Opp’n Mem., at 14–20. There, the court held that plaintiff, an environmental organization, did not have informational standing under a statute that required the Department of the Interior (“DOI”), first, to make certain findings regarding whether the listing of a species as endangered is warranted within 12 months of determining that a petition seeking that relief “presents substantial scientific or commercial information,” and second, after making that finding, to publish certain information in the Federal Register, including under some circumstances, a proposed regulation, or an “evaluation of the reasons and data on which the finding is based.” Friends of Animals, 828 F.3d at 990–91 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B)). For example, part of the statute in Friends of Animals required that:
17

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 18 of 35
(B) Within 12 months after receiving a petition that is found under subparagraph (A) to present substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the Secretary shall make one of the following findings: . . .
(ii) The petitioned action is warranted, in which case the Secretary shall promptly publish in the Federal Register a general notice and the complete text of a proposed regulation to implement such action in accordance with paragraph (5). 16 U.S.C. § 1533(b)(3)(B)(ii). At the time plaintiff brought suit, the 12-month period had elapsed, but the DOI had yet to make the necessary findings, and consequently had not published any information in the Federal Register. In assessing plaintiff’s informational standing, the D.C. Circuit focused principally on the structure of the statute that allegedly conferred on plaintiff a right to information from the federal government. Friends of Animals, 828 F.3d at 993. Solely on that basis, the court determined that plaintiff was not entitled to information because a right to information (e.g., a proposed regulation under subsection (B)(ii) or an evaluation under subsection (B)(iii)) arose only after the DOI had made one of the three findings envisioned by the statute. True, the DOI had failed to make the requisite finding within 12 months. But given the statutorily prescribed sequence of events, plaintiff’s challenge was in effect to the DOI’s failure to make such a finding, rather than to its failure to disclose information, given that the obligation to disclose information only arose after a finding had been made. As such, the D.C. Circuit concluded that plaintiff lacked informational standing. The statutory structure here, however, is quite different. The relevant portion of Section 208 provides the following:
18

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 19 of 35
(b) PRIVACY IMPACT ASSESSMENTS.— (1) RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGENCIES. (A) IN GENERAL.—An agency shall take actions described under subparagraph (B) before (i) developing or procuring information technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information that is in an identifiable form; or (ii) initiating a new collection of information that— (I) will be collected, maintained, or disseminated using information technology; and (II) includes any information in an identifiable form permitting the physical or online contacting of a specific individual, if identical questions have been posed to, or identical reporting requirements imposed on, 10 or more persons, other than agencies, instrumentalities, or employees of the Federal Government. (B) AGENCY ACTIVITIES.—To the extent required under subparagraph (A), each agency shall— (i) conduct a privacy impact assessment; (ii) ensure the review of the privacy impact assessment by the Chief Information Officer, or equivalent official, as determined by the head of the agency; and (iii) if practicable, after completion of the review under clause (ii), make the privacy impact assessment publicly available through the website of the agency, publication in the Federal Register, or other means.
E-Government Act, § 208(b). As this text makes clear, the statutorily prescribed sequence
of events here is reversed from the sequence at issue in Friends of Animals. There, the DOI
was required to disclose information only after it had made one of three “warranted”
findings; it had not made any finding, and accordingly, was not obligated to disclose any
information. Here, the statute mandates that an “agency shall take actions described under
subparagraph (B) before . . . initiating a new collection of information . . . .” Id. (emphasis
added). Subparagraph (B) in turn requires the agency to conduct a Privacy Impact
Assessment, to have it reviewed by the Chief Information Officer or his equivalent, and to
publish the assessment, if practicable. The statute, given its construction, requires all three
of these events, including the public disclosure of the assessment, to occur before the
19

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 20 of 35
agency initiates a new collection of information. Assuming that the other facets of Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law are correct—namely, that Defendants are engaged in a new collection of information subject to the E-Government Act, that judicial review is available under the APA, and that disclosure of a privacy assessment is “practicable”— then Plaintiff is presently entitled to information pursuant to the E-Government Act, because the disclosure of information was already supposed to have occurred; that is, a Privacy Impact Assessment should have been made publicly available before Defendants systematically began collecting voter roll information. Accordingly, unlike in Friends of Animals, a review of the statutory text at issue in this litigation indicates that, under Plaintiff’s interpretation of the law, Defendants have already incurred an obligation to disclose information.
Defendants make three further challenges to Plaintiff’s informational standing, none of which are meritorious. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks standing because its informational injury is merely a “generalized grievance,” and therefore insufficient to confer standing. Am. Opp’n Mem., at 15 (citing Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FEC, 180 F.3d 277, 278 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). Plainly, the E-Government Act entitles the public generally to the disclosure of Privacy Impact Assessments, but that does not mean that the informational injury in this case is not particular to Plaintiff. As already noted, Plaintiff is a public-interest organization that focuses on privacy issues, and uses information gleaned from the government to educate the public regarding privacy, and to petition the government regarding privacy law. See supra at [•]. Accordingly, the informational harm in this case, as it relates to Plaintiff, is “concrete and particularized.” Moreover, the reality of statutes that confer informational standing is that they are often not targeted at a
20

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 21 of 35
particular class of individuals, but rather provide for disclosure to the public writ large. See, e.g., Friends of Animals, 824 F.3d at 1041 (finding that public interest environmental organization had standing under statutory provision that required the Department of the Interior to publish certain information in the Federal Register). Even putting aside the particularized nature of the informational harm alleged in this action, however, the fact that a substantial percentage of the public is subject to the same harm does not automatically render that harm inactionable. As the Supreme Court observed in Akins: “Often the fact that an interest is abstract and the fact that it is widely shared go hand in hand. But their association is not invariable, and where a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found ‘injury in fact.’” FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24 (1998). The Court went on to hold, in language that is particularly apt under the circumstances, that “the informational injury at issue . . . , directly related to voting, the most basic of political rights, is sufficiently concrete and specific . . . .” Id. at 24–25.
Defendants next focus on the fact that the information sought does not yet exist in the format in which it needs to be disclosed (i.e., as a Privacy Impact Assessment). Am. Opp’n Mem., at 17. In this vein, they claim that Friends of Animals stands for the proposition that the government cannot be required to create information. The Court disagrees with this interpretation of Friends of Animals, and moreover, Defendants’ view of the law is not evident in the controlling Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit precedents. As already detailed, the court in Friends of Animals looked solely to the statutory text to determine whether an obligation to disclose had been incurred. No significance was placed by the D.C. Circuit on the fact that, if there were such an obligation, the federal government would potentially be required to “create” the material to be disclosed (in that case, either a
21

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 22 of 35
proposed regulation, or an evaluative report). Furthermore, Friends of Animals cited two cases, one by the D.C. Circuit and the other by the Supreme Court, as standing for the proposition that plaintiffs have informational standing to sue under “statutory provisions that guarantee[] a right to receive information in a particular form.” Friends of Animals, 828 F.3d at 994 (emphasis added; citing Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’y of State, 444 F.3d 614, 615–19 (D.C. Cir. 2006), and Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 373– 75 (1982)). Furthermore, in Public Citizen, the Supreme Court found that plaintiff had informational standing to sue under FACA, and thereby seek the disclosure of an advisory committee charter and other materials which FACA requires advisory committees to create and make public. Presumably those materials did not exist, given defendants’ position that the committee was not subject to FACA, and in any event, the Court made no distinction on this basis. Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 447 (1989). And in Akins, the information sought was not in defendants’ possession, as the entire lawsuit was premised on requiring defendant to take enforcement action to obtain that information. 524 U.S. at 26. Ultimately, the distinction between information that already exists, and information that needs to be “created,” if not specious, strikes the Court as an unworkable legal standard. Information does not exist is some ideal form. When the government discloses information, it must always first be culled, organized, redacted, reviewed, and produced. Sometimes the product of that process, as under the Freedom of Information Act, is a production of documents, perhaps with an attendant privilege log. See, e.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 449 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (explaining the purpose of a Vaughn index). Here, Congress has mandated that disclosure take the form of a Privacy Impact Assessment, and that is what Plaintiff has standing to
22

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 23 of 35
seek, regardless of whether an agency is ultimately required to create the report. Lastly, Defendants contend that Plaintiff lacks informational standing because
Section 208 only requires the publication of a Privacy Impact Statement if doing so is “practicable.” Am. Opp’n Mem., at 17 n.2. As an initial matter, Defendants have at no point asserted that it would be impracticable to create and publish a Privacy Impact Assessment; rather, they have rested principally on their contention that they are not required to create or disclose one because Plaintiff either lacks standing, or because the E-Government Act and APA only apply to federal agencies, which are not implicated by the collection of voter roll information. Accordingly, whatever limits the word “practicable” imposes on the disclosure obligations of Section 208, they are not applicable in this case, and therefore do not affect Plaintiff’s standing to bring this lawsuit. As a more general matter, however, the Court disagrees with Defendants’ view that merely because a right to information is in some way qualified, a plaintiff lacks informational standing to seek vindication of that right. For this proposition, Defendants again cite Friends of Animals, contending that the D.C. Circuit held that “informational standing only exists if [the] statute ‘guaranteed a right to receive information in a particular form . . . .’” Id. (citing Friends of Animals, 828 F.3d at 994). That is not what the D.C. Circuit held; rather that language was merely used to describe two other cases, Haven and Zivotofsky, in which the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit determined that plaintiffs had informational standing. See supra at [•]. One only need to look toward the Freedom of Information Act, under which litigants undoubtedly have informational standing despite the fact that the Act in no way provides an unqualified right to information, given its numerous statutory exemptions. See Zivotofsky, 444 F.3d at 618. Moreover, the available guidance indicates that the qualifier “practicable” was meant
23

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 24 of 35
to function similarly to the exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, and is therefore not purely discretionary. See M-03-22, OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Sept. 26, 2003) (“Agencies may determine to not make the PIA document or summary publicly available to the extent that publication would raise security concerns, reveal classified (i.e., national security) information or sensitive information (e.g., potentially damaging to a national interest, law enforcement effort or competitive business interest) contained in an assessment. Such information shall be protected and handled consistent with the Freedom of Information Act . . . .” (footnote omitted; emphasis added)). Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has satisfied its burden at this stage regarding its informational standing to seek the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment pursuant to Section 208 of the E-Government Act.
Moreover, because the Court assumes the merits of Plaintiff’s claims for standing purposes, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has informational standing with respect to its FACA claim, which likewise seeks the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 583 F.3d 871, 873 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“Here the injury requirement is obviously met. In the context of a FACA claim, an agency’s refusal to disclose information that the act requires be revealed constitutes a sufficient injury.)
3. Organizational Standing Under PETA For similar reasons to those enumerated above with respect to informational standing, the Court also finds that Plaintiff has organizational standing under PETA v. USDA, 797 F.3d 1087 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In this circuit, an organization may establish standing if it has “suffered a concrete and demonstrable injury to its activities, mindful that,
24

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 25 of 35
under our precedent, a mere setback to . . . abstract social interests is not sufficient.” Id. at 1093 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (citing Am. Legal Found. v. FCC, 808 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The organization must allege that discrete programmatic concerns are being directly and adversely affected by the defendant’s actions.”)). “Making this determination is a two-part inquiry—we ask, first, whether the agency’s action or omission to act injured the organization’s interest and, second, whether the organization used its resources to counteract that harm.” Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsack, 808 F.3d 905, 919 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). In PETA, the D.C. Circuit found that an animal rights organization had suffered a “denial of access to bird-related . . . information including, in particular, investigatory information, and a means by which to seek redress for bird abuse . . . .” PETA, 797 F.3d at 1095. This constituted a “cognizable injury sufficient to support standing” because the agency’s failure to comply with applicable regulations had impaired PETA’s ability to bring “violations to the attention of the agency charged with preventing avian cruelty and [to] continue to educate the public.” Id.
Under the circumstances of this case, Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for organizational standing under PETA. Plaintiff has a long-standing mission to educate the public regarding privacy rights, and engages in this process by obtaining information from the government. Pl.’s Reply Mem. at 17 (“EPIC’s mission includes, in particular, educating the public about the government’s record on voter privacy and promoting safeguards for personal voter data.”). Indeed, Plaintiff has filed Freedom of Information Act requests in this jurisdiction seeking the disclosure of the same type of information, Privacy Impact Assessments, that it claims has been denied in this case. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr.
25

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 26 of 35
v. DEA, 208 F. Supp. 3d 108, 110 (D.D.C. 2016). Furthermore, Plaintiff’s programmatic activities—educating the public regarding privacy matters—have been impaired by Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with Section 208 of the E-Government Act, since those activities routinely rely upon access to information from the federal government. See Hr’g Tr. at 20:8–16. This injury has required Plaintiff to expend resources by, at minimum, seeking records from the Commission and other federal entities concerning the collection of voter data. See Decl. of Eleni Kyriakides, ECF No. 39-1, ¶ 6. Accordingly, Plaintiff has organizational standing under the two-part test sanctioned by the D.C. Circuit in PETA.
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Having assured itself of Plaintiff’s standing to bring this lawsuit, the Court turns to
assess the familiar factors for determining whether a litigant is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief; in this case, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The first, and perhaps most important factor, is Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits.
The E-Government Act does not provide for a private cause of action, and accordingly, Plaintiff has sought judicial review pursuant to Section 702 of the APA. See Greenspan v. Admin. Office of the United States Courts, No. 14CV2396 JTM, 2014 WL 6847460, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2014). Section 704 of the APA, in turn, limits judicial review to “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy . . . .” As relevant here, the reviewing court may “compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The parties principally disagree over whether any “agency” is implicated in this case such that there could be an “agency action” subject to this Court’s review. See Pl.’s Am. Mem., at 19–30; Am. Opp’n Mem., at 20–33.
“Agency” is broadly defined by the APA to include “each authority of the
26

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 27 of 35
Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(1). The statute goes on to exclude certain components of the federal government, including Congress and the federal courts, but does not by its express terms exclude the President, or the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”). Id. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has concluded that the President is exempted from the reach of the APA, Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 800–01 (1992), and the D.C. Circuit has established a test for determining whether certain bodies within the Executive Office of the President are sufficiently close to the President as to also be excluded from APA review, see Armstrong v. Exec. Office of the President, 90 F.3d 553, 558 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). In determining whether the Commission is an “agency,” or merely an advisory body to the President that is exempted from APA review, relevant considerations include “whether the entity exercises substantial independent authority,” “whether the entity’s sole function is to advise and assist the President,” “how close operationally the group is to the President,” “whether it has a selfcontained structure,” and “the nature of its delegated authority.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Office of Admin., 566 F.3d 219, 222 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“CREW”) (internal quotation marks omitted). The most important consideration appears to be whether the “entity in question wielded substantial authority independently of the President.” Id.
The record presently before the Court is insufficient to demonstrate that the Commission is an “agency” for purposes of the APA. First, the Executive Order indicates that the Commission is purely advisory in nature, and that it shall disband shortly after it delivers a report to the President. No independent authority is imbued upon the
27

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 28 of 35
Commission by the Executive Order, and there is no evidence that it has exercised any independent authority that is unrelated to its advisory mission. Defendants’ request for information is just that—a request—and there is no evidence that they have sought to turn the request into a demand, or to enforce the request by any means. Furthermore, the request for voter roll information, according to Defendants, is ancillary to the Commission’s stated purpose of producing an advisory report for the President regarding voting processes in federal elections. The Executive Order does provide that other federal agencies “shall endeavor to cooperate with the Commission,” and that the GSA shall “provide the Commission with such administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission.” Exec. Order § 7(a). Nonetheless, Defendants have represented that the GSA’s role is currently expected to be limited to specific “administrative support like arranging travel for the members” of the Commission, and that no other federal agencies are “cooperating” with the Commission. Hr’g Tr. at 27:25–28:6; 30:10–13. Finally, although Commissioner Christy McCormick of the Election Assistance Commission is a member of the Commission, there is currently no record evidence that she was substantially involved in the decision to collect voter information, or that her involvement in some fashion implicated the Election Assistance Commission, which is a federal agency. Hr’g Tr. 28:24–30:4; cf. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat’l Energy Policy Dev. Grp., 219 F. Supp. 2d 20, 39–40 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Ryan v. Dep’t of Justice, 617 F.2d 781 (D.C. Cir. 1980)).
This would have ended the inquiry, but for the revelation during the course of these proceedings that the SAFE system, which the Commission had intended for states to use to transmit voter roll information, is operated by a component of the Department of
28

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 29 of 35
Defense. Moreover, the only voter roll information transferred to date resided on the SAFE system, and consequently was stored on a computer system operated by the Department of Defense. Given these factual developments, the Department of Defense—a federal agency—was added as a defendant to this lawsuit. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 21, ¶¶ 37– 42. Shortly after that occurred, however, Defendants changed gears, and represented that “[i]n order not to impact the ability of other customers to use the [SAFE] site, the Commission has decided to use alternative means for transmitting the requested data.” ECF No. 24, at 1. In lieu of the SAFE system, Defendants had the Director of White House Information Technology (“DWHIT”) repurpose “an existing system that regularly accepts personally identifiable information through a secure, encrypted computer application within the White House Information Technology enterprise.” Id. Furthermore, Defendants have represented that the data received from the State of Arkansas via the SAFE system has been deleted, “without ever having been accessed by the Commission.” Herndon Decl. ¶ 7. Accordingly, while the legal dispute with respect to the use of the SAFE system by Defendants to collect at least some voter roll information may not be moot—data was in fact collected before a Privacy Impact Assessment was conducted pursuant to the EGovernment Act—that potential legal violation does not appear to be a basis for the prospective injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff’s amended motion for injunctive relief; namely, the prevention of the further collection of voter roll information by the Commission. In any event, Plaintiff has not pursued the conduct of the Department of Defense as a basis for injunctive relief.
Given the change of factual circumstances, the question now becomes whether any of the entities that will be involved in administering the “repurposed” White House system
29

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 30 of 35
are “agencies” for purposes of APA review. One candidate is the DWHIT. According to the Presidential Memorandum establishing this position, the “Director of White House Information Technology, on behalf of the President, shall have the primary authority to establish and coordinate the necessary policies and procedures for operating and maintaining the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and the EOP.” Mem. on Establishing the Director of White House Information Technology and the Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology (“DWHIT Mem.”), § 1, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD201500185/pdf/DCPD-201500185.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2017). The DWHIT is part of the White House Office, id. § 2(a)(ii), a component of the EOP “whose members assist the President with those tasks incidental to the office.” Alexander v. F.B.I., 691 F. Supp. 2d 182, 186 (D.D.C. 2010), aff’d, 456 F. App’x 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011); see also Herndon Decl. ¶ 1. According to the Memorandum, the DWHIT “shall ensure the effective use of information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President, and EOP in order to improve mission performance, and shall have the appropriate authority to promulgate all necessary procedures and rules governing these resources and systems.” DWHIT Mem., § 2(c). The DWHIT is also responsible for providing “policy coordination and guidance” for a group of other entities that provide information technology services to the President, Vice President, and the EOP, known as the “Presidential Information Technology Community.” Id. § 2(a), (c). Furthermore, the DWHIT may “advise and confer with appropriate executive departments and agencies, individuals, and other entities as necessary to perform the Director’s duties under this memorandum.” Id. § 2(d).
Taken as a whole, the responsibilities of the DWHIT based on the present record
30

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 31 of 35
amount to providing operational and administrative support services for information
technology used by the President, Vice President, and close staff. Furthermore, to the extent
there is coordination with other federal agencies, the purpose of that coordination is
likewise to ensure the sufficiency and quality of information services provided to the
President, Vice President, and their close staff. Given the nature of the DWHIT’s
responsibilities and its proximity to the President and Vice President, it is not an agency
for the reasons specified by the D.C. Circuit in CREW with respect to the Office of
Administration (“OA”). In that case, the D.C. Circuit held that the OA was not an “agency” under FOIA5 because “nothing in the record indicate[d] that OA performs or is authorized
to perform tasks other than operational and administrative support for the President and his
staff . . . .” CREW, 566 F.3d at 224. Relying on its prior holding in Sweetland, the court
held that where an entity within the EOP, like the DWHIT, provides to the President and
his staff “only operational and administrative support . . . it lacks the substantial
5 Plaintiff argues that CREW and similar cases by the D.C. Circuit interpreting whether an entity is an agency for purposes of FOIA are not applicable to determining whether an entity is an agency for purposes of the APA. See Pl.’s Reply Mem. at 2. The Court disagrees. The D.C. Circuit established the “substantial independent authority” test in Soucie, a case that was brought under FOIA, but at a time when the definition of “agency” for FOIA purposes mirrored the APA definition. In that case, the D.C. Circuit held that “the APA apparently confers agency status on any administrative unit with substantial independent authority in the exercise of specific functions.” Soucie v. David, 448 F.2d 1067, 1073 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (emphasis added); Meyer, 981 F.2d at 1292 n.1 (“[b]efore the 1974 Amendments, FOIA simply had adopted the APA’s definition of agency”); see also Dong v. Smithsonian Inst., 125 F.3d 877, 881 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[o]ur cases have followed the same approach, requiring that an entity exercise substantial independent authority before it can be considered an agency for § 551(1) purposes”—that is, the section that defines the term “agency” for purposes of the APA). The CREW court applied the “substantial independent authority” test, and the Court sees no basis to hold that the reasoning of CREW is not dispositive of DWHIT’s agency status in this matter.
31

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 32 of 35
independent authority we have required to find an agency covered by FOIA . . . .” Id. at 223 (citing Sweetland v. Walters, 60 F.3d 852, 854 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). This conclusion was unchanged by the fact that the OA, like the DWHIT here, provides support for other federal agencies to the extent they “work at the White House complex in support of the President and his staff.” Id. at 224. Put differently, the fact that the DWHIT coordinates the information technology support provided by other agencies for the President, Vice President, and their close staff, does not change the ultimate conclusion that the DWHIT is not “authorized to perform tasks other than operational and administrative support for the President and his staff,” which means that the DWHIT “lacks substantial independent authority and is therefore not an agency . . . .” Id. However, to the extent that DWHIT’s responsibilities expand either formally or organically, as a result of its newfound responsibilities in assisting the Commission, this determination may need to be revisited in the factual context of this case.
The other candidates for “agency action” proposed by Plaintiff fare no better. The Executive Committee for Presidential Information Technology and the U.S. Digital Service, even if they were agencies, “will have no role in th[e] data collection process.” Herndon Decl. ¶ 6. According to Defendants, apart from the DWHIT, the only individuals who will be involved in the collection of voter roll information are “a limited number of . . . technical staff from the White House Office of Administration.” Id. Finally, Plaintiff contends that the entire EOP is a “parent agency,” and that as a result, the activities of its components, including those of the DWHIT and the Commission, are subject to APA review. However, this view of the EOP has been expressly rejected by the D.C. Circuit and is at odds with the practical reality that the D.C. Circuit has consistently analyzed the
32

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 33 of 35
agency status of EOP components on a component-by-component basis. United States v. Espy, 145 F.3d 1369, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“it has never been thought that the whole Executive Office of the President could be considered a discrete agency under FOIA”). Accordingly, at the present time and based on the record before the Court, it appears that there is no “agency,” as that term is understood for purposes of the APA, that is involved in the collection of voter roll information on behalf of the Commission. Because there is no apparent agency involvement at this time, the Court concludes that APA review is presently unavailable in connection with the collection of voter roll information by the Commission.
The last remaining avenue of potential legal redress is pursuant to FACA. Plaintiff relies on Section 10(b) of FACA as a means to seek the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment, as required under certain circumstances by the E-Government Act. See Am. Compl, ECF No. 33, ¶¶ 73–74. That section provides that an advisory committee subject to FACA must make publicly available, unless an exception applies under FOIA, “the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by [the] advisory committee . . . .” 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(b). The flaw with this final approach, however, is that FACA itself does not require Defendants to produce a Privacy Impact Assessment; only the E-Government Act so mandates, and as concluded above, the Court is not presently empowered to exert judicial review pursuant to the APA with respect to Plaintiff’s claims under the E-Government Act, nor can judicial review be sought pursuant to the EGovernment Act itself, since it does not provide for a private cause of action. Consequently, for all of the foregoing reasons, none of Plaintiff’s avenues of potential legal redress appear
33

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 34 of 35
to be viable at the present time, and Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.
C. Irreparable Harm, Balance of the Equities, and the Public Interest Given that Plaintiff is essentially limited to pursuing an informational injury, many
of its theories of irreparable harm, predicated as they are on injuries to the private interests of its advisory board members, have been rendered moot. See Pl.’s Am. Mem., at 34–40. Nonetheless, the non-disclosure of information to which a plaintiff is entitled, under certain circumstances itself constitutes an irreparable harm; specifically, where the information is highly relevant to an ongoing and highly public matter. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice, 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 41 (D.D.C. 2006) (“EPIC will also be precluded, absent a preliminary injunction, from obtaining in a timely fashion information vital to the current and ongoing debate surrounding the legality of the Administration’s warrantless surveillance program”); see also Washington Post v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 459 F. Supp. 2d 61, 75 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Because the urgency with which the plaintiff makes its FOIA request is predicated on a matter of current national debate, due to the impending election, a likelihood for irreparable harm exists if the plaintiff’s FOIA request does not receive expedited treatment.”). Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has held that “stale information is of little value . . . [,]” Payne Enters, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988), and that the harm in delaying disclosure is not necessarily redressed even if the information is provided at some later date, see Byrd v. EPA, 174 F.3d 239, 244 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (“Byrd’s injury, however, resulted from EPA’s failure to furnish him with the documents until long after they would have been of any use to him.”). Here, however, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is not presently entitled to the information that it seeks, and accordingly, Plaintiff
34

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 40 Filed 07/24/17 Page 35 of 35
cannot show that it has suffered an irreparable informational injury. To hold otherwise would mean that whenever a statute provides for potential disclosure, a party claiming entitlement to that information in the midst of a substantial public debate would be entitled to a finding of irreparable informational injury, which cannot be so. See, e.g., Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Justice, 15 F. Supp. 3d 32, 45 (D.D.C. 2014) (“surely EPIC’s own subjective view of what qualifies as ‘timely’ processing is not, and cannot be, the standard that governs this Court’s evaluation of irreparable harm”).
Finally, the equitable and public interest factors are in equipoise. As the Court recently held in a related matter, “[p]lainly, as an equitable and public interest matter, more disclosure, more promptly, is better than less disclosure, less promptly. But this must be balanced against the interest of advisory committees to engage in their work . . . .” Lawyers’ Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm’n on Election Integrity, No. CV 17-1354 (CKK), 2017 WL 3028832, at *10 (D.D.C. July 18, 2017). Here, the disclosure of a Privacy Impact Assessment may very well be in the equitable and public interest, but creating a right to such disclosure out of whole cloth, and thereby imposing an informational burden on the Commission where none has been mandated by Congress or any other source of law, is not.
IV. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s [35] Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
35

 
 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Int... Page 1 of 2 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 57-1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 2
Skip to content

Share

White House Logo

• Economy • National Security • Budget • Immigration • Healthcare

Executive Orders
Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity
Issued on: January 3, 2018
• Share: • • •
All News By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Executive Order 13799 of May 11, 2017 (Establishment of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity), is hereby revoked, and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is accordingly terminated. Sec. 2. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party (other than by the United States) against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, January 3, 2018.

The White House
• Live • Jobs • Get Involved • Copyright Policy • Privacy Policy
• Twitter • Facebook • Instagram • Contact
• News • Issues

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-termination-presidential-a... 1/3/2018

Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Int... Page 2 of 2 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 57-1 Filed 01/03/18 Page 2 of 2
• The Administration • About The White House • Get Involved
• Economy • National Security • Budget • Immigration • Healthcare

Close Search
Type Your Search

Press enter to search

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-termination-presidential-a... 1/3/2018

 
 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 63 Filed 07/19/18 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 17-1320 (CKK)

ORDER (July 19, 2018)
Currently pending before the Court are Defendants’ fully briefed [49] Motion to Dismiss, addressing the operative Second Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff’s fully briefed [54] Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. The factual predicates for these motions have changed substantially since briefing concluded.
First, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (“Commission”) was terminated on January 3, 2018. Notice of Executive Order, ECF No. 57. There can be no further collection of state voter data by the Commission. The Director of White House Information Technology (“WHIT”) has also stated under penalty of perjury that “[t]he White House stands ready to destroy the state voter data” that was collected, pending the resolution of litigation holds in this case and related litigation concerning the Commission. 4th Decl. of Charles C. Herndon, ECF No. 61-1, ¶¶ 5, 7. Moreover, “[n]o member of the former Commission has ever been provided access to the state voter data,” nor has it ever “been transferred to any entity or individual” outside of the “four members of the WHIT’s staff [who] have ever had access to the data.” Id. ¶ 2. “These staff members are not authorized to transfer or utilize this data.” Id.
Second, on June 20, 2018, Defendants sent a letter to plaintiffs in six cases against the Commission requesting plaintiffs’ consent to destruction of the state voter data. Defendants attributed the continued retention of the data to litigation holds, “as [these records] may be relevant to claims brought in [the six] cases.” Defs.’ Letter, Disposal of State Voter Data Obtained by the Former Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, ECF No. 61-2, at 2. A notice that Plaintiff in this case submitted to the Court today contains a response letter to the Government, dated July 19, 2018, from the plaintiffs in all six cases. Notice, ECF No. 62. All of the plaintiffs make clear that they “do not oppose the deletion of data from state voter rolls that was provided to the Commission in response to Mr. Kobach’s request” and “do not assert

1

Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 63 Filed 07/19/18 Page 2 of 2
any litigation hold over the data.” Pl.’s Letter, Disposal of State Voter Data Obtained by the Former Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, ECF No. 62-1.
Because the pending motions do not reflect these material factual developments, the Court shall DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ [49] Motion to Dismiss and DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s [54] Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.
The Court is of the view that no further adjudication in this matter is necessary. Plaintiff itself acknowledges that “the Defendants will have unilaterally provided all substantive relief that [Plaintiff] sought in its Complaint” once Defendants complete “the deletion of all state voter data collected by the [now-defunct] Commission.” Notice, ECF No. 62, at 2.
Defendants shall file a Notice by AUGUST 20, 2018, confirming whether all state voter data collected by the Commission has been deleted, and if not, identifying when Defendants expect to complete that process. Upon Defendants’ confirmation of deletion, the Court expects that this case can be dismissed.
SO ORDERED. Dated: July 19, 2018
/s/ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge
2

 
 Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential..., Not Reported in Fed.... 2018 WL 1896522

2018 WL 1896522 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia
Circuit.
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, Appellant v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, et al., Appellees
No. 17–5171 |
Filed On: April 2, 2018

1:17–cv–01320–CKK
Attorneys and Law Firms
Alan Jay Butler, Marc Rotenberg, Washington, DC, Appellant.
Elizabeth J. Shapiro, Mark B. Stern, Daniel Tenny, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellees.
BEFORE: Garland, Chief Judge; Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, and Katsas*, Circuit Judges; Williams and

Footnotes

*

Circuit Judge Katsas did not participate in this matter.

Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judges
ORDER
Per Curiam *1 Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc or, in the alternative, for vacatur and remand, the opposition thereto, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition and the alternative request for vacatur and remand be denied. FOR THE COURT:
All Citations Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2018 WL 1896522

1

 
 Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Presidential..., 139 S.Ct. 791 (Mem)...

139 S.Ct. 791 Supreme Court of the United States
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER, petitioner, v.
PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, et al.
No. 18–267. |
Jan. 7, 2019.
Synopsis Case below, 878 F.3d 371.

Opinion
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Justice KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. All Citations 139 S.Ct. 791 (Mem)

© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1