Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page1 of 16

06

I CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, I TINAM. FOSTER, GITANJALI S. GUTIERREZ, I

SEEMA AHMAD, MARIA LAHOOD,

I

RACHEL MEEROPOL,

I

I

Plaintiffs,

I

I

v.

I

co

I

GEORGE W. BUSH,

I

President of the United States;

I

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY,

I

LTG Keith B. Alexander, Director;

I

DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

I

LTG Michael D. Maples, Director;

I

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

I

Porter J. Goss, Director;

I

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, I O (o

Michael Chertoff, Secretary;

I

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, I t, (, F

Robert S. Mueller III, Director;

I

cv 0031>
c fl, s t::

JOHN D. NEGROPONTE,

I

Director of National Intelligence,

I

I

Defendants.

I

c.GL)

INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for injunctive relief, seeking an order that would require President George W. Bush and his agents to halt an illegal and unconstitutional program of electronic surveillance of American citizens and other residents of this country. The President recently admitted to the nation that, pursuant to a secretly issued executive order, the National Security Agency (NSA) has for over four years engaged in a program of widespread electronic surveillance of telephone calls and emails, without warrants from any court, in some cases

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page2 of 16
targeting persons within the United States and/or obtaining the contents of communications of persons within the United States (hereinafter, "NSA Surveillance Program"). 2. Defendants' electronic surveillance without court orders is contrary to clear statutory mandates provided in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. § 1801-62. Indeed, because the NSA Surveillance Program conducts electronic surveillance without statutory authorization, it constitutes a series of criminal acts under FISA. See 50 U.S.C. § 1809. The NSA Surveillance Program also violates the separation of powers, as it exceeds the constitutional powers of the President under Article II of the Constitution, and violates the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. To the extent that electronic surveillance is essential to protect the national security of this country, Congress has provided a comprehensive set of procedures for such surveillance in FISA, which allows for court authorization of such surveillance upon individualized showings that the targets are agents of foreign powers or foreign terrorist groups. FISA includes provisions for short-term emergency surveillance while an application for a court order is being prepared, and for warrantless surveillance during the first fifteen days of a war. Congress has provided that FISA and specified provisions of the criminal code are the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added). Yet the President declined to pursue these "exclusive means," and instead unilaterally and secretly authorized electronic surveillance without judicial approval or Congressional authorization. 3. The Center for Constitutional Rights represents many persons whose rights have been violated by detention and intelligence gathering practices instituted in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Lawyers at the Center represent, among others: representatives of
2

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page3 of 16
a potential class of hundreds of Muslim foreign nationals detained in the wake of September 11 and labeled "of interest" to tbe investigation of the attacks; hundreds of men detained without charge as "enemy combatants" at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station; and a Canadian citizen stopped while changing planes at JFK Airport in New York while on his way home to Canada, and sent to Syria, where he was tortured and detained without charges for nearly a year. 4. The vast majority of these clients are individuals whom tbe government has at some time suspected of a link, however attenuated and unsubstantiated, to al Qaeda, groups supportive of al Qaeda, or to terrorist activity generally. For this reason, Plaintiffs' clients are within the class of people the government has described as the targets of the warrantless NSA surveillance program challenged here. 5. Plaintiffs believe that their conversations and emails with these clients, and with other persons abroad with whom they have communicated in connection with these cases, have been subject to surveillance pursuant to the NSA Surveillance Program. It is likely that Plaintiffs' privileged attorney-client communications were and continue to be intercepted by Defendants. 6. The secretive nature of the NSA Surveillance Program, combined witb Defendants' admission that it is targeted at persons alleged to have some connection to al Qaeda or groups that support it, has inhibited Plaintiffs' ability to represent their clients vigorously.
PARTIES 7. Plaintiff the Center for Constitutional Rights, Inc. ("the Center" or "CCR") is a non-profit law finn maintaining its only office within this district at 666 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York, New York 10012. It sues in its own capacity and on behalf of its lawyers and legal staff.
3

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page4 of 16
8. Plaintiffs Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, and Rachel Meeropol are attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights. Plaintiff Seema Ahmad is a legal worker at the Center. Plaintiff Foster resides in Queens, New York. Plaintiff Gutierrez resides in Ithaca, New York. Plaintiffs LaHood and Meeropol reside in Brooklyn, New York. Plaintiff Ahmad resides in Manhattan, New York. All work primarily out of the Center's Manhattan office, and all are United States citizens. 9. George W. Bush is President of the United States. He personally authorized the NSA Surveillance Program through a secret executive order after September 11, 2001, and has continued to reauthorize it since its inception. He is sued in his official capacity only. 10. Defendant National Security Agency (NSA) is an agency under the direction and control of the Department of Defense that collects, processes and disseminates foreign signals intelligence. It is responsible for carrying out the NSA Surveillance Program challenged herein. 11. Defendant Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander is Director of the NSA and Chief of the Central Security Service. He is responsible for supervising the NSA Surveillance Program. He is sued only in his official capacity. 12. Defendant Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a branch of the Department of Defense headquartered at the Pentagon, provides military intelligence to the armed forces, defense policymakers and force planners, in both the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, in support of U.S. military planning and operations and weapon systems acquisition. Upon information and belief, intelligence information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program was shared with the DIA.
4

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page5 of 16
13. Defendant Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples is the Director of the DIA, and is responsible for overseeing its activities, including its use and dissemination of information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program. He is sued in his official capacity only. 14. Defendant Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of intelligence concerning (primarily) foreign governments, individuals, and corporations. Upon information and belief, intelligence information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program was shared with the CIA. 15. Defendant Porter J. Goss is Director of the CIA, and is responsible for overseeing its activities in connection with obtaining, using, and disseminating intelligence information from the NSA. He is sued in his official capacity only. 16. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a cabinet-level agency of the federal government responsible for prevention of threats to the homeland and response to domestic emergencies. Upon information and belief, intelligence information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program was shared with the DHS. 17. Defendant Michael Chertoff is Secretary of DHS, and is responsible for overseeing its activities in connection with obtaining, using and disseminating intelligence information from the NSA. He is sued in his official capacity only. 18. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is a federal police and intelligence agency. The FBI is a division of the Department of Justice. Upon information and belief, intelligence information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program was shared with the FBI. 19. Defendant Robert S. Mueller III is Director of the FBI, and is responsible for overseeing its activities in connection with obtaining, using and disseminating intelligence information from the NSA. He is sued in his official capacity only.
5

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page6 of 16
20. Defendant John D. Negroponte is Director of National Intelligence, the cabinet-level official coordinating all components of the federal intelligence community, and as such is the principal intelligence adviser to the President and the statutory intelligence advisor to the National Security Council. Upon information and belief, he has access to the intelligence information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program, and is responsible for coordinating its use and dissemination. He is sued in his official capacity only.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 22. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is a proper venue of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 139l(e) because defendants are officers and employees of the United States or its agencies operating under color of law, no real property is involved in this action, and a plaintiff resides in this district. In addition, Defendants' actions caused injury to Plaintiffs in this district, where their law office is located and from which they engaged in international communications.
STATEMENT OF FACTS STATUTORY BACKGROUND 23. In 1978, after the disclosure of widespread spying on American citizens by various federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including the NSA, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA"), Pub. L. 95-511, Title I, 92 Stat. 1796 (Oct. 25, 1978), codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1801-62, as amended. FISA provides a comprehensive statutory scheme for conducting electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence or national security purposes. FISA requires that such surveillance be conducted pursuant to orders from the statutorily created Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, with narrow exceptions that would
6

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page7 of 16
not authorize the surveillance that is the subject of this lawsuit. In enacting this statute, Congress provided that it and specified provisions of the criminal code are the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted." 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f) (emphasis added). Congress further established that conducting electronic surveillance without such statutory authorization is a crime. 50 U.S.C. § 1809 (making it a crime to "(1) engage[] in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or (2) disclose[] or use[] information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute"). 24. FISA specifically addresses the issue of domestic electronic surveillance during wartime. In a provision entitled "Authorization during time of war," FISA dictates that "[n]otwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration ofwar by the Congress." 50 U.S.C. § 1811 (emphasis added). The FISA Conference Report states that "this [15-day] period will allow time for consideration of any amendment to this act that may be appropriate during a wartime emergency. ... The conferees expect that such amendment would be reported with recommendations within 7 days and that each House would vote on the amendment within 7 days thereafter." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1720, at 34 (1978). 25. Thus, existing law provides that the President may conduct electronic surveillance only pursuant to FISA and specified provisions of the criminal code, and that doing so outside of these "exclusive means" is a crime.
7

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page8 of 16
THE NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 26. Since as early as September 2001, the National Security Agency, under authorization from President George W. Bush, has engaged in a systematic program of warrantless eavesdropping upon phone and email communications of thousands of individuals, including American citizens and permanent legal residents, both within and outside of the United States. 27. The government claims that the NSA Surveillance Program targets communications between a party outside the United States and a party inside the United States when one of the parties of the communication is believed to be "a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005). 28. The decision that a person fits these criteria may be made by an operations staffer with approval of a shift supervisor within NSA. There is no review of the decision by other executive agencies prior to implementing the electronic surveillance. There is no review of the decision at any point by a court or by Congress. 29. The NSA Surveillance Program has intercepted both phone and email communications where both parties to the communications were located with the United States. 30. Defendants claim the NSA Surveillance Program is subjected to an internal review within the executive branch approximately every 45 days, and that the President has reauthorized the program over thirty times to date. 31. Upon information and belief, at some point between its inception and the present, the NSA Surveillance Program was suspended for several months due to concerns about its illegality. Nonetheless, Defendants have defended the legality of the NSA Surveillance Program
8

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page9 of 16
since its existence became public knowledge on or about December 15, 2005, and the President has stated that he intends to reauthorize the program "for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups." 32. Upon information and belief, the NSA Surveillance Program collects not only the identities of persons communicating with targets of surveillance, but also the contents of those communications (e.g. recordings or transcripts of a phone call or the text of an email). 33. Upon information and belief, other government agencies and officials, including Defendants DIA, CIA, DHS, FBI, and Defendant Negroponte, have received from the NSA information obtained through the NSA Surveillance Program, without court approval or statutory authorization. 34. Upon information and belief, Defendant DIA has used information obtained from the NSA Surveillance Program as the basis for carrying out further surveillance of persons within the United States.
THE EFFECT OF THE UNLAWFUL NSA SURVEILLANCE SCHEME ON PLAINTIFFS' COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLIENTS AND OTHERS 35. Plaintiff the Center for Constitutional Rights is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR uses litigation proactively to advance the law in a positive direction, to empower oppressed communities, to guarantee the rights of those with the fewest protections and least access to legal resources, and to strengthen the broader international movement for constitutional rights and human rights under international law. CCR and its attorneys consider their legal advocacy and public education work to be modes of political expression and association.
9

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page10 of 16
36. Plaintiffs Tina Foster and Gitanjali Gutierrez are attorneys at the Center whose primary job responsibilities involve managing the litigation of habeas petitions filed on behalf of foreign nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba, often through "next friends"typically relatives of the detained-located overseas. The Center is lead counsel on some of these cases; on most, the Center serves as co-counsel with lead counsel outside the Center, who include lawyers at transnational law firms, located throughout the United States and overseas. In this capacity Plaintiffs Foster and Gutierrez communicate regularly with family members of the detainees, potential witnesses in the habeas cases, officials of foreign governments located in the detainees' home countries, former detainees who have been released and returned to their home countries, and cooperating counsel, located both inside and outside of the United States, who are litigating individual cases. Plaintiff Foster also routinely is required to communicate with translators and interpreters located overseas in the course of her work on these cases. Some of the people Plaintiffs Foster and Gutierrez communicate with in connection with their legal work either have officially been deemed by the United States as "enemy combatants," and therefore fit within the criteria articulated by Attorney General Gonzales, or are reasonably likely to be viewed by the United States as fitting within those criteria. 37. Plaintiff Seema Ahmad is a legal worker at the Center whose primary job responsibilities also involve coordination of the habeas petitions for Guantanamo detainees. Plaintiff Ahmad communicates regularly with family members of the detainees, cooperating counsel, human rights lawyers located overseas, former detainees, and other individuals in relation to these cases. Some of the people she communicates with in connection with her legal team duties either have officially been deemed by the United States as "enemy combatants," and therefore fit within the
10

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page11 of 16
criteria articulated by Attorney General Gonzales for targets of the NSA Surveillance Program, or are reasonably likely to be viewed by the United States as fitting within those criteria. 38. Plaintiffs Gutierrez, Foster and Ahmad participate in frequent training and joint strategy sessions with other counsel on the Guantanamo cases. These meetings generally involve some lawyers attending in person, and others conferencing in via videoconference technology or telephonic conference calls. Co-counsel or other participants frequently use such means to call into these meetings from overseas. Counsel on the Guantanamo cases also rely heavily on an email Iistserv and a private extranet site (accessible via the Internet) to coordinate their efforts in the cases. 39. Plaintiff Maria LaHood is a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights responsible for litigating a number of cases in CCR's International Human Rights docket, including Arar v. Ashcroft, 04-CV-0249 (E.D.N.Y.), a case on behalf of a Syrian-born Canadian citizen detained in New York while changing flights at JFK Airport and sent by United States officials to Syria to be tortured. In the course of her work on that case she communicates frequently by phone and e-mail with the plaintiff, Maher Arar, who lives in Canada, as well as with others abroad. The United States government continues to assert, incorrectly, that Mr. Arar is a member of al Qaeda, and therefore Mr. Arar fits within the criteria for targets of the NSA Surveillance Program described by Attorney General Gonzales. 40. Plaintiff Rachel Meeropol is a staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights responsible for litigating cases in the Center's prisoners' rights docket, and serves as lead counsel in Turkmen v. Ashcroft, 02-CV-2307 (E.D.N.Y.). The Turkmen case involves the detention and abuse of so-called "special interest" immigration detainees swept up in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and held long after their fmal deportation orders so that tl1ey could
11

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page12 of 16
be investigated for links to terrorism. In her capacity as an attorney at the Center, Ms. Meeropol routinely discusses matters by telephone or email with potential clients overseas. In the course of her work on the Turkmen case she communicates with the named plaintiffs and potential class members, all of whom now live overseas, via both e-mail and telephone calls. Some of the individuals outside the United States Ms. Meeropol communicates with are likely to be viewed by the United States as fitting within the broad criteria for NSA surveillance outlined by Attorney General Gonzales. 41. All of the individual Plaintiffs above have traveled internationally in the course of their work with the Center. During these trips, other attorneys and employees of the Center routinely need to communicate with these Plaintiffs concerning work-related matters via email or telephone. 42. The revelation that the government has been carrying on widespread warrantless interception of electronic communications, especially of international communications, has impaired Plaintiffs' ability to communicate via telephone and email with their overseas clients, witnesses, and other persons, out of fear that their privileged communications are being and will be overheard by the NSA Surveillance Program. As a ·matter of professional ethics in their role as attorneys, Plaintiffs are obligated to take reasonable and appropriate measures to reduce the risk of disclosure of certain client confidences, once they have been apprised that a program of unlawful electronic surveillance by the government exists. The risk that their conversations are being overheard has forced Plaintiffs to institute protective measures to reduce the potential impact of such surveillance on their representation of their clients, including not communicating with certain individuals at all by phone or email, and avoiding subjects central to the attorneyclient relationship and work product in electronic communications with others. Plaintiffs are
12

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page13 of 16
compelled to undertake international travel to avoid the risk ofjeopardizing the confidentiality of privileged communications. As a result, Plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm to their ability to advocate vigorously on their clients' behalf. 43. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs' communications, including attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product, have been and continue to be intercepted by the NSA Surveillance Program. 44. The NSA Surveillance Program permits the surveillance of conversations of people for whom the government would not be able to establish probable cause that the subject of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Knowledge that their conversations may be overheard chills persons outside the United States who are not agents of foreign powers from contacting the Plaintiffs through electronic means to seek their legal advice and/or to provide information in connection with legal matters pursued by Plaintiffs. The unlawful NSA Surveillance Program has negatively affected Plaintiffs' ability to communicate with clients, cocounsel, witnesses, and other relevant individuals in the course of carrying out their role as advocates for their clients and others, and has thus done irreparable harm to their ability to effectively advocate for these individuals, and will continue to inflict such harm until it is stopped.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Administrative Procedure Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) 45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 46. The NSA Surveillance Program is not authorized by the statutes that Congress has mandated shall be the "exclusive means by which electronic surveillance ... and the interception
13

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page14 of 16
of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted," 18 U.S .C. § 2511(2)(f), namely FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1801-62, and the specific criminal code provisions listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(f). FISA makes it a crime to obtain electronic surveillance without statutory authorization, and also makes it a crime to disclose or use information obtained through such surveillance. 50 U.S.C. § 1809. Defendants engaged in electronic surveillance, and disclosed and used information obtained therefrom, without statutory authorization. Defendants' actions are therefore contrary to law and subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 702.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Separation of Powers) 47. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 48. Defendants, by carrying out their program of unlawful warrantless surveillance, have acted in excess of the President's Article II authority by failing to take care to execute the laws, and instead violating those laws, and by acting in contravention of clear statutory dictates in an area in which Congress has Article I authority to regulate, and where Congress has specifically prohibited the President from engaging in the conduct at issue here.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Fourth Amendment violations) 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
14

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page15 of 16
50. Defendants have carried out unreasonable surveillance of Plaintiffs' private telephone and email communications without probable cause or warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(First Amendment Violations) 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein. 52. Defendants, by carrying out and/or asserting the right to carry out their program of unlawful warrantless surveillance, have impaired Plaintiffs' ability to freely provide legal advice, to join together in an association for the purpose of legal advocacy, to freely form attorney-client relationships, to vigorously advocate for clients and to petition the government for redress of grievances all of which are modes of expression and association protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (a.) Declare that Defendants' program ofwarrantless surveillance is unlawful, and enjoin any
further such warrantless surveillance; (b.) Order that Defendants disclose to Plaintiffs all unlawful surveillance of Plaintiffs'
communications carried out pursuant to the program; (c.) Order that all Defendants tum over to Plaintiffs all information and records in their
possession relating to Plaintiffs that were acquired through the warrantless surveillance
15

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document1-1 Filed02/23/07 Page16 of 16
program or were the fruit of surveillance under the program, and subsequently destroy any such information and records in Defendants' possession; (d.) Award costs, including an award of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(l)(A); (e.) Award such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
ll=fGoio[ilir'ulm)[W;G-Jlt
Shayana Kadidal [SK-1278] Michael Ratner [MR-3357] CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor NewYork,NY 10012-2317 (212) 614-6427 CCR Cooperating Counsel: David Cole c/o Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-9078 Michael Avery NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD c/o Suffolk Law School 120 Tremont Street Boston, MA 92108 (617) 573-8551 counsel for Plaintif.fe
16

 
 Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page1 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8

9

10 IN RE:
11 NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY
12 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION
13

MDL Docket No 06-1791 VRW Case No C 07-1115 VRW ORDER

14 This order pertains to:

15 CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, a New York Nonprofit Law Firm;

16

TINA M FOSTER, GITANJALI S GUTIERREZ, SEEMA AHMAD, MARIA

17

LAHOOD and RACHEL MEEROPOL, United States Citizens and

Attorneys at Law, 18

Plaintiffs,

19 v

20 BARACK H OBAMA, President of the

21

United States; NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY and KEITH B ALEXANDER, its

Director; DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE 22 AGENCY and MICHAEL D MAPLES, its

Director; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

23 AGENCY and PORTER J GOSS, its

Director; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

24 SECURITY and MICHAEL CHERTOFF, its Secretary; FEDERAL BUREAU OF

25

INVESTIGATION and ROBERT S MUELLER III, its Director; JOHN D

26

NEGROPONTE, Director of National Intelligence,

27

Defendants.

28

/

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page2 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

This case is part of multi-district litigation stemming

2 from the Terrorist Surveillance Program (“TSP”), a warrantless

3 surveillance program carried out by the federal government from

4 2001 to 2007. On May 27, 2010, defendants — certain high-ranking

5 government officials and associated government agencies — filed a

6 renewed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary

7 judgment based in part on plaintiffs’ failure to establish

8 standing. Doc #731/39.1 On July 29, 2010, plaintiffs filed a

9 renewed motion for summary judgment and opposition to defendants’

10 motion for summary judgment. Doc ##742/46, 743/47. For the

11 reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion for

12 summary judgment and DENIES plaintiffs’ motion for summary

13 judgment.

14

15

I

16

On January 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed an action in the

17 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

18 Doc #333-1/16-1. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants engaged in

19 electronic surveillance without court order and thereby violated

20 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”), the Separation

21 of Powers Doctrine and the First and Fourth Amendments. Id at 2.

22 Plaintiffs based these allegations primarily upon statements by

23 President George W Bush and other officials in December 2005

24 admitting that the National Security Agency (“NSA”) had monitored,

25 without a warrant, communications between the United States and a

26

27

1 Documents will be cited both to the MDL docket number (No M 06-

28

1791) and to the indiv idual docket number (No C 07-1115) in the following format: Doc #(MDL)/(individual).

2

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page3 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 foreign country where one of the parties was believed to be a

2 member or affiliate of al-Qa’ida. Id at 8.

3

The complaint alleges that plaintiff Center for

4 Constitutional Rights (“CCR”) represented, and continues to

5 represent, clients who are suspected by the United States

6 government of having some link to al-Qa’ida or other terrorist

7 organizations. Doc #333-1/16-1 at 2-3. These clients include

8 Muslim foreign nationals detained after the September 11 terrorist

9 attacks as persons “of interest” and others detained as “enemy

10 combatants” at Guantanamo Bay. Id. Plaintiffs — CCR and five of

11 its attorneys who represent such clients — “believe that their

12 conversations and emails with [CCR clients], and with other persons

13 abroad with whom they have communicated in connection with these

14 cases, have been subject to surveillance pursuant to the [TSP].”

15 Id at 3. Plaintiffs further allege that “[i]t is likely that

16 [p]laintiffs’ privileged attorney-client communications were and

17 continue to be intercepted by Defendants.” Id.

18

Plaintiffs claim that they were harmed by the

19 government’s surveillance program in various ways. Plaintiffs

20 allege that, after they became aware of the program, they were

21 compelled to “institute protective measures to reduce the potential

22 impact of such surveillance on their representation of their

23 clients.” Doc #333-1/16-1 at 12. Plaintiffs allege that they were

24 forced to stop “communicating with certain individuals at all by

25 phone or mail,” “avoid[] subjects central to the attorney-client

26 relationship and work product in electronic communications with

27 others” and “undertake international travel to avoid the risk of

28 jeopardizing the confidentiality of privileged communications.” Id

3

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page4 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 at 12-13. In addition to the expenses these measures imposed on

2 plaintiffs, plaintiffs claim that they have suffered “irreparable

3 harm to their ability to advocate vigorously on their clients’

4 behalf.” Id at 13.

5

Plaintiffs also allege that, because the government’s

6 surveillance program “permits the surveillance of conversations of

7 people for whom the government would not be able to establish

8 probable cause that the subject of surveillance is an agent of a

9 foreign power,” it has “negatively affected [p]laintiffs’ ability

10 to communicate with clients, co-counsel, witnesses, and other

11 relevant individuals in the course of carrying out their role as

12 advocates for their clients and others.” Doc #333-1/16-1 at 13.

13 That is, “[k]nowledge that their conversations may be overheard

14 chills persons outside the United States who are not agents of

15 foreign powers from contacting the [p]laintiffs through electronic

16 means to seek their legal advice and/or to provide information in

17 connection with legal matters.” Id. Plaintiffs allege that this

18 has caused “irreparable harm to their ability to effectively

19 advocate for [their clients], and will continue to inflict such

20 harm until it is stopped.” Id.

21

Plaintiffs’ complaint requests various forms of equitable

22 relief. Plaintiffs request that the court: (1) “[d]eclare that

23 [d]efendants’ program of warrantless surveillance is unlawful, and

24 enjoin any further such warrantless surveillance”; (2) “[o]rder

25 that [d]efendants disclose to [p]laintiffs all unlawful

26 surveillance of [p]laintiffs’ communications carried out pursuant

27 to the program”; (3) “[o]rder that all [d]efendants turn over to

28 [p]laintiffs all information and records in their possession

4

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page5 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 relating to [p]laintiffs that were acquired through the warrantless

2 surveillance program or were the fruit of surveillance under the

3 program, and subsequently destroy any such information and records

4 in [d]efendants’ possession”; (4) “[a]ward costs, including an

5 award of attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28

6 [USC] § 2412(d)(1)(A)” and (5) “[a]ward such other relief as the

7 Court may deem just and proper.” Doc #333-1/16-1 at 15.

8

On March 9, 2006, plaintiffs moved for partial summary

9 judgment. Doc ##333-2/16-2, 333-3/16-3. On May 26, 2006,

10 defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ action or, alternatively,

11 for summary judgment. Doc ##327-1/12-1, 327-3/12-3. Both

12 plaintiffs and defendants received amicus briefs in support of

13 their motions.

14

On February 23, 2007, this case was consolidated with the

15 In re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records

16 Litigation multi-district litigation, Case Number 06-md-1791, and

17 transferred to the undersigned sitting in the Northern District of

18 California. See Doc #179/xxx.2 Judge Lynch in the Southern

19 District of New York did not rule on the outstanding motions to

20 dismiss and for summary judgment before the case was transferred.

21 The parties agreed to file supplemental briefs and have oral

22 argument on the outstanding motions. Doc #289/2. On June 8, 2007,

23 defendants filed a supplemental brief in support of their original

24 motion. Doc #308/3. Defendants also submitted, for ex parte in

25 camera review, a classified memorandum and a classified

26

27

2 Documents contained in the MDL docket but not in the docket for

28

this particular case are listed with “xxx” rather than an individual docket number.

5

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page6 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 declaration. Doc ##309/4 & 310/5. On July 10, 2007, plaintiffs

2 filed a supplemental memorandum in support of their original motion

3 for summary judgment and in opposition to defendants’ motion. Doc

4 #328/13.

5

On August 9, 2007, the court held oral arguments on the

6 parties’ motions. Doc #348/20. On August 10, 2007, plaintiffs

7 moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint challenging the

8 Protect America Act of 2007, which temporarily amended FISA, as

9 unconstitutional under the First and Fourth Amendments. Doc

10 #347/19. Defendants opposed. Doc #381/22. On January 28, 2009,

11 the court denied plaintiffs’ motion as moot on the grounds that the

12 Protect America Act had expired in February 2008 and had not been

13 reauthorized. Doc #555/29.

14

In response to the court’s request on January 20, 2010,

15 Doc #702/31, the parties submitted a joint status report on March

16 19, 2010 explaining the status of the case and the proceedings

17 necessary to resolve it. Doc #716/35. Among the issues addressed

18 by the parties was the fact that the TSP had been discontinued in

19 early 2007. Id. Plaintiffs stated that “[e]ven if the NSA Program

20 challenged in [p]laintiffs’ original summary judgment papers is no

21 longer in active operation with respect to the continuing

22 interception of communications,” plaintiffs’ request for an order

23 requiring defendant to disclose all unlawful surveillance of

24 plaintiffs, turn over all information pertaining to plaintiffs that

25 was acquired through the TSP and destroy any such information in

26 defendants’ possession was still “necessary to remedy the harms set

27 forth in [p]laintiffs’ summary judgment papers.” Id at 3.

28 Defendants continued to argue that plaintiffs’ claims should be

6

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page7 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 dismissed or summary judgment granted because plaintiffs lack

2 standing. Id at 4-7. The court ordered the parties to renew their

3 cross-motions and file new oppositions and replies. Doc #720/36.

4

On May 27, 2010, defendants filed a renewed motion to

5 dismiss or for summary judgment. Doc #731/39. On July 29, 2010,

6 plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for summary judgment and an

7 opposition to defendants’ motion. Doc ##742/46, 743/47. On

8 September 14, 2010, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs

9 summary judgment motion and in reply to plaintiffs’ opposition.

10 Doc #749/49. On October 5, 2010, plaintiffs filed a reply to

11 defendants’ opposition. Doc #750/50.

12

13

II

14

The following is a statement of the relevant facts of the

15 case, drawn largely from plaintiffs’ declarations and included

16 documents, and construed most favorably to plaintiffs.

17

On December 17, 2005, President Bush gave a radio address

18 stating that shortly after September 11, 2001 he authorized the NSA

19 to intercept “the international communications of people with known

20 links to [al-Qa’ida] and related terrorist organizations.” Doc

21 #333-4/16-4 at 39-40. In a December 19, 2005 press conference,

22 Attorney General Alberto Gonzales explained that the program

23 involved surveillance of communications between a party in the

24 United States and a party outside of the United States where there

25 is “a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the

26 communication is a member of [al-Qa’ida], affiliated with [al-

27 Qa’ida], or a member of an organization affiliated with [al-

28 Qa’ida], or working in support of [al-Qa’ida].” Doc #333-4/16-4 at

7

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page8 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 62. In a speech on January 23, 2006, Deputy Director of National

2 Intelligence (and former NSA Director) Michael Hayden confirmed

3 that under the program this “reasonable basis” determination was

4 made by a NSA intelligence expert without court involvement. Doc

5 #333-4/16-4 at 90-91. This program has been referred to by the

6 government and others as the Terrorist Surveillance Program

7 (“TSP”). See, for example, Doc #308/3 at 5.

8

On January 17, 2007, Attorney General Gonzales sent a

9 letter regarding the TSP to various members of Congress. Doc

10 #127/xxx. In the letter, Gonzales explained that a Foreign

11 Intelligence Surveillance Court judge had issued orders

12 “authorizing the Government to target for collection international

13 communications into or out of the United States where there is

14 probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member

15 or agent of [al-Qa’ida] or an associated terrorist organization.”

16 Doc #127-1/xxx at 1. “As a result of these orders, any electronic

17 surveillance that was occurring as part of the [TSP] will now be

18 conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence

19 Surveillance Court” — that is, in compliance with FISA. See id.

20 Gonzales stated that “under these circumstances, the President has

21 determined not to reauthorize the [TSP] when the current

22 authorization expires.” Id at 1-2.

23

Plaintiffs have “served as counsel in many cases alleging

24 violations of constitutional and human rights as a result of the

25 detention and interrogation practices of the [Bush] administration

26 in connection with anti-terrorism policies and practices.” Doc

27 #333-4/16-4 at 3. Most of plaintiffs’ clients are represented pro

28 bono, with no expectation that they will ever pay any expenses

8

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page9 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 related to their representation. Id at 3. CCR “is committed to

2 the use of law as a positive force for social change” and

3 “considers litigation to be not merely a tool for advancing

4 precedent but also a fulcrum around which to organize mass

5 movements for political change and a means of giving voice to the

6 aspirations of oppressed peoples.” Id at 2-3.

7

The individual attorney plaintiffs regularly communicate

8 with individuals who “fit within the criteria articulated by

9 Attorney General Gonzales for targets of the [TSP] * * * or are

10 reasonably likely to be viewed by the United States as fitting

11 within those criteria.” Doc #333-4/16-4 at 4. Specifically,

12 plaintiffs Gutierrez, Foster and Ahmad work on habeas corpus

13 petitions for designated “enemy combatants” held at Guantanamo Bay.

14 Id at 3-5. They regularly communicate with family members of

15 detainees, “former detainees who have been released and returned to

16 their home countries,” and various witnesses, lawyers and other

17 individuals who reside in foreign countries, including persons who

18 have been designated by the United States as “enemy combatants.”

19 Id. Plaintiff LaHood represents Maher Arar, who resides in Canada

20 and has been declared by the United States to be a member of al-

21 Qa’ida, in a civil suit and regularly communicates with him by

22 phone and email. Id at 5. Plaintiff Meeropol is the lead attorney

23 in the Turkmen v Ashcroft civil class action on behalf of Muslim

24 non-citizens detained shortly after September 11, 2001 and declared

25 to be “of interest” to the September 11 terrorism investigation.

26 Id at 5-6. Meeropol regularly communicates with these actual and

27 potential class members, all of whom reside outside the United

28 States. Id at 5-6.

9

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page10 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs did not produce, in response to defendants’

2 motion for summary judgment, any evidence that they were actually

3 surveilled under the TSP. Instead, plaintiffs limited their

4 evidence and argument to the claim that their constitutional rights

5 were “chilled” by the mere risk that they were surveilled under the

6 TSP. Plaintiffs claim that this risk forced them to review past

7 communications that may have been intercepted by the TSP, take

8 corrective action and implement measures to prevent future

9 communications from being intercepted by the government. See Doc

10 #333-4/16-4 at 6-10. Plaintiffs have attempted to avoid electronic

11 communication concerning sensitive matters with overseas contacts

12 and have traveled internationally to discuss such matters in

13 person. Id at 7-9.

14

In January 2006, CCR and its staff submitted requests to

15 various agencies under the Freedom of Information Act seeking all

16 records obtained through warrantless electronic surveillance, which

17 required “[s]ubstantial expenditures of staff time and effort.” Id

18 at 7. Plaintiffs also drafted interrogatories in Turkmen v

19 Ashcroft seeking to discover any attorney-client communications

20 that were monitored or intercepted, and CCR attorneys have been

21 instructed by CCR’s director to move for such disclosure in other

22 cases where surveillance is suspected. Id at 6, 9. Plaintiffs

23 allege that this “divert[s] staff time and organizational resources

24 away from core mission tasks,” which “hurts [their] organization by

25 reducing the number of cases [they] can bring, and undermin[ing

26 their] ability to litigate [their] existing cases in the most

27 effective manner.” Id at 9-10.

28 //

10

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page11 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs also claim to have suffered less quantifiable

2 harm since learning about the existence of the TSP. Plaintiffs

3 believe that given their knowledge of the existence and nature of

4 the TSP they are ethically required to avoid international

5 electronic communications involving sensitive information. See Doc

6 ##333-7/16-7 at 2-5, 333-8/16-8 at 3-6, 333-9/16-9 at 2-3.

7 Plaintiffs submitted a declaration from Professor Stephen Gillers,

8 a specialist in legal ethics, stating that “[i]n light of what is

9 now known about the [TSP] and given the nature of CCR’s work as

10 detailed in submissions to the Court, CCR attorneys and their

11 support persons have substantial reason to fear that telephonic,

12 fax, and e-mail communications * * * that they may have or have had

13 with CCR clients, or with third persons or each other in the course

14 of representing clients, have been or will be intercepted by the

15 United States. Doc #333-6/16-6 at 4. As a result, “CCR attorneys

16 may not ethically use * * * these electronic means of communication

17 in exchanging or collecting * * * [n]early all communications with

18 or about clients.” Id at 4-5. Because international travel is not

19 an effective substitute for easy electronic communications,

20 plaintiffs have not been able to communicate with overseas clients

21 and contacts as much as desired and believe that the quality of

22 their litigation has been undermined.

23

Plaintiffs have also deemed it necessary to inform

24 persons communicating with them via electronic means that their

25 conversation may be subject to government surveillance. See, for

26 example, Doc ##333-7/16-7 at 3, 333-8/16-8 at 5. William Goodman,

27 the director of CCR, states that “it is difficult to imagine a

28 worse thing to have to say at the onset of a relationship with a

11

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page12 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 client, witness, or other person with whom one wishes to work

2 closely” because it “inevitably [makes] the CCR staffer appear to

3 be in some fashion an agent of the United States government, or

4 [makes] our organization appear suspect due to the fact that

5 communications with us are subject to government surveillance.”

6 Doc #333-7/16-7 at 3. Plaintiffs imply that the lack of trust

7 thereby created has negatively impacted the quality of their

8 litigation activities.

9

10

III

11

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery

12 and affidavits show that there is “no genuine issue as to any

13 material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a

14 matter of law.” FRCP 56(c). A court will grant summary judgment

15 “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to

16 establish the existence of an element essential to that party's

17 case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at

18 trial * * * since a complete failure of proof concerning an

19 essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders

20 all other facts immaterial.” Celotex Corp v Catrett, 477 US 317,

21 322-23 (1986).

22

“It goes without saying that those who seek to invoke the

23 jurisdiction of the federal courts must satisfy the threshold

24 requirement imposed by Article III of the Constitution by alleging

25 an actual case or controversy.” City of Los Angeles v Lyons, 461

26 US 95, 101 (1983). Standing is a jurisdictional requirement

27 grounded in Article III of the Constitution. Lujan v Defenders of

28 Wildlife, 504 US 555, 559 (1992). To establish Article III

12

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page13 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 standing, a plaintiff must establish: (1) it suffered an “injury-

2 in-fact,” which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual

3 or imminent;” (2) a causal connection between the injury and the

4 conduct complained of and (3) that it is likely that the injury

5 will be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Id at 560-61. The

6 party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of

7 establishing these elements, and each element must be supported

8 with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive

9 stages of the litigation. Id at 561. “At the pleading stage,

10 general factual allegations of injury resulting from the

11 defendant’s conduct may suffice * * *. In response to a summary

12 judgment motion, however, the plaintiff can no longer rest on such

13 ‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other

14 evidence ‘specific facts’[].” Id. An affidavit that contains

15 “only conclusory allegations, not backed up by statements of fact,

16 * * * cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Shane v

17 Greyhound Lines, Inc, 868 F2d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir 1989).

18

19

IV

20

The court first turns to whether plaintiffs have

21 introduced sufficient evidence to establish standing for their

22 claim under the First Amendment. Defendants contend that

23 “[p]laintiffs’ allegations of a subjective chill coupled with an

24 unwillingness to communicate are insufficient to establish injury-

25 in-fact.” Doc #731/39 at 16. According to defendants, “where the

26 challenged conduct has unquestionably ceased, as here, plaintiffs’

27 allegations of a subjective chill * * * are insufficient to confer

28 standing for their First Amendment claim.” Id at 21.

13

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page14 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

Plaintiffs maintain that they continue to suffer harm to

2 their “First Amendment interest in litigating against the

3 government.” Doc #743/47 at 12. Plaintiffs argue that “any

4 responsible attorney would have to conform their behavior to

5 account for the possibility that potential clients and witnesses

6 might be tainted by the possibility of past government

7 interception,” meaning that “CCR will have to exercise caution

8 going forward in using such individuals in litigation.” Id at 12-

9 13. This “need for caution interferes with [CCR’s] ability to

10 construct a case under the ordinary assumptions of confidentiality

11 that underpin our adversary system of justice.” Id at 13.

12

Plaintiffs also argue that “third parties might sensibly

13 be hesitant to communicate freely with CCR staffers even absent a

14 risk of current unlawful interception,” creating “a current risk

15 that third parties who communicated with [CCR] previously will now

16 be less willing to do so, knowing that the government may have been

17 listening in on those earlier calls.” Doc #743/47 at 11.

18

Other than references to “possibilities” and “risks,”

19 plaintiffs do not argue and have presented no evidence that they

20 were unlawfully surveilled. Instead, plaintiffs characterize the

21 uncertainty about whether they were surveilled, the possible

22 existence of records of that surveillance and the purportedly

23 reasonable actions taken in response to it as the harm, alleging

24 that it exerts a “chilling effect” on the exercise of their First

25 Amendment rights. Doc #743/47 at 21-22.

26

The question, then, is whether such chilling effects —

27 where there is no evidence that plaintiffs were actually surveilled

28 under the TSP — are sufficient to establish the “concrete and

14

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page15 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 particularized” injury required for Article III standing. Lujan,

2 504 US at 560.

3

4

A

5

In Laird v Tatum, 408 US 1 (1972), the Supreme Court

6 considered whether the chilling of First Amendment rights by the

7 existence of an allegedly unlawful government surveillance program

8 presented a justiciable controversy. The Court recognized that

9 “constitutional violations may arise from the deterrent, or

10 ‘chilling,’ effect of governmental regulations that fall short of a

11 direct prohibition against the exercise of First Amendment rights.”

12 Id at 11. The Court, however, found no case that involved a

13 “chilling effect aris[ing] merely from the individual’s knowledge

14 that a governmental agency was engaged in certain activities or

15 from the individual’s concomitant fear that, armed with the fruits

16 of those activities, the agency might in the future take some other

17 and additional action detrimental to that individual.” Id at 11.

18 The Court emphasized that “[a]llegations of a subjective ‘chill’

19 are not an adequate substitute for a claim of specific present

20 objective harm or a threat of specific future harm.” Id at 14-15.

21

Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish Laird by relying

22 heavily on Presbyterian Church (USA) v United States, 870 F2d 518

23 (9th Cir 1989). In Presbyterian Church, the plaintiff churches

24 claimed that their First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated

25 when “INS agents entered the churches wearing ‘body bugs’ and

26 surreptitiously recorded church services.” Id at 520. The

27 plaintiffs alleged that their right to free exercise of religion

28 and association was abridged and that “as a result of the

15

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page16 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 surveillance of worship services, members have withdrawn from

2 active participation in the churches.” Id at 520-22. The court

3 ruled that the plaintiffs had established standing because “[w]hen

4 congregants are chilled from participating in worship services * *

5 * because they fear the government is spying on them and taping

6 their every utterance, * * * a church suffers organizational injury

7 because its ability to carry out its ministries has been impaired.”

8 Id at 522. The court distinguished Laird as involving a chilling

9 effect “caused, not by any specific action of the Army directed

10 against the plaintiffs, but only by ‘the existence and operation’

11 of the surveillance program in general.” Id. That is, the

12 plaintiffs in Laird did not allege that they were actually

13 surveilled, but “only that they could conceivably become subject to

14 the Army’s domestic surveillance program.” Id.

15

In this case, the fear that plaintiffs describe as

16 chilling the exercise of their First Amendment rights is far closer

17 to Laird than Presbyterian Church. The alleged injury here is, in

18 fact, more speculative than in Laird given that (unlike Laird) the

19 government has ceased the activities that gave rise to the lawsuit.

20 Instead, there is only a fear that plaintiffs may have been subject

21 to unlawful surveillance in the past combined with a fear that some

22 “agency might in the future take some other and additional action

23 detrimental to [them].” Laird, 408 US at 11. Moreover, at least

24 some of the ongoing burdens described by plaintiff cannot fairly be

25 traced to the TSP itself. Plaintiffs’ declarations describe at

26 length the disruption to their operations resulting from their

27 inability to use quick and efficient electronic communications.

28 Even assuming (without deciding) that such fears and measures were

16

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page17 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 reasonable and that such an injury is sufficiently concrete to

2 confer standing, the TSP cannot provide a justification for

3 continuing to incur such costs. The TSP ended in 2007. Doc

4 #127/xxx. With no reason to believe that they or their clients are

5 being illegally monitored, there is no imperative (ethical or

6 otherwise) to avoid the use of electronic communications.

7

The facts of this case are simply not analogous to

8 Presbyterian Church, in which the chilling effect was caused by

9 actual, substantiated unlawful surveillance of four churches

10 lasting almost a year. 870 F2d at 520. That set of facts

11 demonstrated “specific present objective harm or a threat of

12 specific future harm” in a way that plaintiffs here cannot. See

13 Laird, 408 US at 15; Presbyterian Church, 870 F2d at 522. In

14 short, there is no “specific action * * * directed against the

15 plaintiffs,” only a fear that plaintiffs may have been unlawfully

16 surveilled, may conceivably suffer an unfair disadvantage in

17 litigation at some point in the future and that some third parties

18 may be unwilling to communicate or cooperate with plaintiffs based

19 on their uncertainty about the details of the TSP. That is

20 insufficient to establish injury in fact for purposes of Article

21 III standing.

22

23

B

24

Even if the possibility of harm in this case were

25 sufficiently concrete to constitute injury in fact, the injury

26 claimed by plaintiffs is not itself cognizable under the First

27 Amendment. Although litigation is unquestionably protected by the

28 First Amendment when it is used as a means of political expression

17

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page18 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 and advocacy, the First Amendment does not protect against every

2 conceivable burden or difficulty that may arise during litigation.

3 Plaintiffs rely upon NAACP v Button, 371 US 415 (1963), to support

4 their First Amendment claim, arguing that “[w]hat was true of the

5 NAACP in the 1960’s is certainly true of CCR today” and “the [TSP]

6 intrudes on plaintiffs’ right to ‘petition for redress of

7 grievances,” * * * and on their ‘political expression.’” Doc #333-

8 3/16-3 at 47.

9

In NAACP, the NAACP and its Legal Defense and Education

10 Fund frequently sought out aggrieved persons, informed them of

11 their legal rights and offered to represent them without charge in

12 school desegregation and other such cases. NAACP, 371 US at 419-

13 22. Typically, the NAACP did so at meetings of parents and

14 children at which its representatives would explain the steps

15 necessary to achieve school desegregation and offer legal

16 representation. Id at 421. Litigation was just one strategy used

17 to promote the ultimate goal of the NAACP, “to secure the

18 elimination of all racial barriers which deprive Negro citizens of

19 the privileges and burdens of equal citizenship rights in the

20 United States.” Id at 419. In 1956, the state of Virginia enacted

21 a statute making it a criminal violation to solicit legal business

22 through the use of “an agent for an individual or organization

23 which retains a lawyer in connection with an action to which it is

24 not a party and in which it has no pecuniary right or liability.”

25 Id at 424. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held that the

26 NAACP, its members and its attorneys had practiced criminal

27 solicitation as defined in the statute. Id at 433-34. On appeal,

28 the United States Supreme Court read the Virginia statute as

18

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page19 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 “proscribing any arrangement by which prospective litigants are

2 advised to seek the assistance of particular attorneys.” Id at

3 433. The court held that the statute “unduly inhibit[s] protected

4 freedoms of expression and association” and posed “the gravest

5 danger of smothering all discussion looking to the eventual

6 institution of litigation on behalf of the rights of members of an

7 unpopular minority.” Id at 434, 437.

8

Unlike the plaintiffs in NAACP, whose legal activities on

9 behalf of minorities were criminalized by an exceedingly broad

10 state law, plaintiffs in the present case claim to be harmed

11 because there is a risk “that the government may have access to

12 aspects of CCR’s litigation strategy” as well as a risk “that third

13 parties who communicated with [CCR] previously will now be less

14 willing to do so.” Doc #743/47 at 11. Plaintiffs also claim to be

15 harmed by the need to take steps to assess the scope of any past

16 surveillance and to ensure that no confidential communications are

17 disclosed in the future. Id at 10, 13. Although plaintiffs appear

18 to have established that their litigation activities have become

19 more costly due to their concern about the TSP, plaintiffs remain

20 free to pursue their political goals by litigating against the

21 government, and continue to do so vigorously. Plaintiffs have not

22 provided any precedent for the notion that the First Amendment

23 protects against a “risk * * * that the government may have access

24 to aspects of [a plaintiff’s] litigation strategy” where there is

25 no proof that any surveillance in fact occurred. Id at 11. Nor

26 have plaintiffs provided precedent for a protected First Amendment

27 right “to litigate * * * cases in the most effective manner.” Doc

28 #333-4/16-4 at 9-10.

19

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page20 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1

In short, plaintiffs have not shown that they “personally

2 ha[ve] suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the

3 putatively illegal conduct,” Valley Forge Christian College v

4 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc, 454 US

5 464, 472 (1982), especially in light of the “clear precedent

6 requiring that the allegations of future injury be particular and

7 concrete.” Steel Co v Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 US

8 83, 109 (1998). Plaintiffs have therefore failed to establish

9 standing for their First Amendment claim.

10

11

V

12

In their renewed motion for summary judgment and

13 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs

14 make little attempt to establish standing for their remaining

15 claims under FISA, the Fourth Amendment and the separation of

16 powers doctrine. Nevertheless, the court will briefly examine

17 whether plaintiffs have established standing for these other

18 claims.

19

FISA establishes a cause of action for an “aggrieved

20 person * * * who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance

21 or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of

22 such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section

23 1809.” 50 USC § 1810. As discussed at length by this court in the

24 related case Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, Case No C 07-

25 0109, only by presenting evidence of actual surveillance can a

26 plaintiff establish the “aggrieved person” status necessary to

27 proceed with a FISA claim. See In re NSA Telecoms Records

28 Litigation, 564 F Supp 2d 1109, 1131-35 (ND Cal 2008). Because

20

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page21 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 plaintiffs have presented no evidence of such surveillance, they

2 have failed to establish standing for their FISA claim.

3

The same is true of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim.

4 “[T]he rights assured by the Fourth Amendment are personal rights,

5 [which] * * * may be enforced * * * only at the instance of one

6 whose own protection was infringed by the search and seizure.”

7 Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128, 133-38 (1978) (quotation omitted).

8 Plaintiffs therefore cannot establish Fourth Amendment standing

9 without showing that they were in fact subject to unreasonable

10 search or seizure. Plaintiffs have not done so.

11

Finally, plaintiffs’ claim based on the separation of

12 powers doctrine also fails. Plaintiffs have failed to establish

13 that they were subjected to the unlawful program at issue: the TSP.

14 Plaintiffs cannot establish, therefore, that the government’s

15 alleged violation of separation of powers principles by

16 implementing the TSP caused plaintiffs any “actual injury

17 redressable by the court.” United States v Hoyt, 879 F2d 505, 514

18 (9th Cir 1989) (ruling that a defendant not subject to the statute

19 at issue did not have standing to challenge it); see also

20 Immigration and Naturalization Service v Chadha, 462 US 919, 935-36

21 (1983) (claims asserted under the separation of powers doctrine are

22 subject to the traditional Article III standing requirements).

23 Unlike other cases in which standing to bring a separation of

24 powers claim was found, plaintiffs cannot establish that they were

25 actually subjected to the conduct alleged to have violated the

26 separation of powers. See, for example, Chadha, 462 US at 923,

27 935-36 (reviewing whether one house of Congress could order the

28 plaintiff deported); Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1, 117 (1976)

21

Case3:07-cv-01115-VRW Document51 Filed01/31/11 Page22 of 22

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

1 (reviewing whether the Federal Election Commission could make

2 rulings regarding the plaintiff); Glidden Co v Zdanok, 370 US 530,

3 532-33 (1962) (reviewing whether the plaintiffs’ cases could be

4 adjudicated by judges from non-Article III courts).

5

Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to establish standing

6 for any of their claims and summary judgment in favor of defendants

7 is appropriate.

8

9

VI

10

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion for

11 summary judgment is GRANTED. Doc #39. Plaintiffs’ motion for

12 summary judgment is DENIED. Doc #47. Defendants are ordered to

13 submit and serve a proposed form of judgment in accordance with

14 this order no later than February 7, 2011; plaintiffs shall submit

15 and serve any objections to defendants’ form of judgment not later

16 than February 14, 2011.

17

Upon entry of judgment, the clerk is directed to

18 terminate all motions and close the file for Center For

19 Constitutional Rights v Obama, Case Number 07-cv-1115. The clerk

20 is further directed upon entry of judgment herein to terminate all

21 motions and close the file for the multi-district litigation In re

22 National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation,

23 Docket No MDL-1791.

24

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

27

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Judge

28

22

 
 CCaassee33::0077--ccvv--0011111155--VVRRWW DDooccuummeenntt5524 FFiilleedd0022//1057//1111 PPaaggee11 ooff 42

1 MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 DOUGLAS N. LETTER Terrorism Litigation Counsel
3 JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch
4 VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director
5 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation Counsel
6 MARCIA BERMAN Senior Counsel
7 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
8 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102 Washington, D.C. 20001
9 Phone: (202) 514-4782 Fax: (202) 616-8460

10 Attorneys for the Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

)

IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY )

15 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS

)

LITIGATION

)

16

)

_______________________________________)

17

)

This Document Relates Only To:

)

18

)

Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v.

)

19 Obama, et al.

)

(Case No. 07-1115)

)

20

)

)

21

)

_______________________________________

22

No. 3:06-md-1791-VRW

SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

Judge: Date: Time: Courtroom:

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker (No Hearing Set) 6, 17th Floor

23

Pursuant to this Court’s January 31, 2011 Order, granting defendants’ motion for

24 summary judgment, denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and directing defendants

25 to file a proposed form of judgment, defendants respectfully submit the attached Proposed Form

26 of Judgment.

27

28
Defendants’ Submission of Proposed Form of Judgment (3:06-md-1791-VRW) Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

CCaassee33::0077--ccvv--0011111155--VVRRWW DDooccuummeenntt5524 FFiilleedd0022//1057//1111 PPaaggee22 ooff 42

1 Date: Feb. 7, 2011

Respectfully Submitted,

2

MICHAEL F. HERTZ

3

Acting Assistant Attorney General

4

DOUGLAS N. LETTER

Terrorism Litigation Counsel

5

JOSEPH H. HUNT

6

Director, Federal Programs Branch

7

VINCENT M. GARVEY

Deputy Branch Director

8

9

s/ Anthony J. Coppolino

ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO

10

Special Litigation Counsel

11

s/ Marcia Berman

MARCIA BERMAN

12

Senior Counsel

U.S. Department of Justice

13

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102

14

Washington, D.C. 20001

Phone: (202) 514-4782—Fax: (202) 616-8460

15

Attorneys for Defendants

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ Submission of Proposed Form of Judgment (3:06-md-1791-VRW) Center for Constitutional Rights,

et al. v. Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

2

CCasaes3e:30:70-7c-vc-v0-101151-5V-VRRWW DDocoucmumenetn5t25-41 FFileilde0d20/21/50/71/11 PPagaeg3e1ofo4f 2

1 MICHAEL F. HERTZ Deputy Assistant Attorney General
2 DOUGLAS N. LETTER Terrorism Litigation Counsel
3 JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch
4 VINCENT M. GARVEY Deputy Branch Director
5 ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Special Litigation Counsel
6 MARCIA BERMAN Senior Counsel
7 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
8 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 6102 Washington, D.C. 20001
9 Phone: (202) 514-4782 Fax: (202) 616-8460

10 Attorneys for the Defendants

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

)

IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY )

15 TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS

)

LITIGATION

)

16

)

_______________________________________)

17

)

This Document Relates Only To:

)

18

)

Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v.

)

19 Obama, et al.

)

(Case No. 07-1115)

)

20

)

)

21

)

_______________________________________

22

No. 3:06-md-1791-VRW

[PROPOSED FORM OF] JUDGMENT Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

Judge: Date: Time: Courtroom:

Hon. Vaughn R. Walker (No Hearing Set) 6, 17th Floor

23

This action having come before the court and the court having considered the same and

24 ordered entry of judgment in favor of defendants, now therefore:

25

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in accordance with the Court's

26 January 31, 2011 Order, judgment is hereby entered in this case in favor of defendants and

27 against plaintiffs.

28
Defendants’ Proposed Form of Judgment (3:06-md-1791-VRW) Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v. Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

CCasaes3e:30:70-7c-vc-v0-101151-5V-VRRWW DDocoucmumenetn5t25-41 FFileilde0d20/21/50/71/11 PPagaeg4e2ofo4f 2

1 2 Date: February 15, 2011

3

For the Clerk,

4

______________________________

5

Cora Klein, DEPUTY CLERK

6

United States District Court

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ Proposed Form of Judgment (3:06-md-1791-VRW) Center for Constitutional Rights, et al. v.

Obama, et al. (07-cv-1115-VRW)

2

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 1 of 13
APPEAL,CLOSED,E−Filing
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−01115−VRW

Center for Constitutional Rights et al v. Bush et al Assigned to: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Lead case: 3:06−md−01791−VRW Member case: (View Member Case)
Case in other court: Southern District of New York, 06−00313 GEL
Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 02/23/2007 Date Terminated: 02/15/2011 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Center for Constitutional Rights

represented by David Cole Georgetown University Law Center 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202−662−9078 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Avery National Lawyer's Guild Suffolk Law School 120 Tremont Street Boston, MA 92108 617−573−8551 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayana Devendra Kadidal Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212−614−6438 Fax: 212−614−6499 Email: kadidal@ccr−ny.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan L. Hafetz Brennan Center for Justice 161 Avenue of the Americas, 12th Floor New York, NY 10013 212−998−6730 Fax: 212−995−4550 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Ratner Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212−614−6464 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Goodman Center for Constitutional Rights 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 212−614−6439 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 2 of 13

Plaintiff Tina M. Foster
Plaintiff Gitanjali S. Gutierrez
Plaintiff Seema Ahmad

represented by David Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Avery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Ratner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Avery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Ratner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 3 of 13

Michael Avery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Ratner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Maria LaHood

represented by David Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Avery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Ratner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Rachel Meeropol

represented by David Cole (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Avery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shayana Devendra Kadidal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 4 of 13
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Ratner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Goodman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant George W. Bush President of the US
Defendant National Security Agency LTD Keith B. Alexander, Director
Defendant Defense Intelligence Agency LTG Michael D. Maples, Director

represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Divisi 20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Room 6102 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514−4782dc Email: tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas United States Department of Justice Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307−3937 Email: Alexander.Haas@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Berman U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Room 7204 Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3330 Fax: 202−616−8470 Email: marcia.berman@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 5 of 13

Defendant Central Intelligence Agency Porter J. Gross, Director
Defendant Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Secretary
Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation Robert S. Mueller, III, Director
Defendant John D. Negroponte Director of National Intelligence
Defendant

Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Berman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Berman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Berman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Berman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander Kenneth Haas (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 6 of 13

Barack Obama

represented by Anthony Joseph Coppolino (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Berman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Movant Roland Algrant
Movant Adam Kanzer
Movant Michael Kieschnick
Movant Joe Sibilia
Movant Peter Strugatz
Movant Mal Warwick
Movant American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee Movant Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund

represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , Stroock & Stroock &Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 212−806−5400 Fax: Email: rdaignault@stroock.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald Marc Daignault , (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 7 of 13

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant Japanese American Citizens League

represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
League of United Latin American Citizens

represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant United for Peace and Justice

represented by Jonathan L. Hafetz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
The Association of the Bar of the City of New York

represented by Peter T. Barbur Cravath Swaine &Moore LLP 825 8th Ave Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10019 (212) 474−1000 Email: pbarbur@cravath.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Certain Members of Congress

represented by David Usher Gourevitch Law Office of David Gourevitch P.C. 228 East 45th Street 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 212−355−1300 Fax: 212−355−1531 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Washington Legal Foundation

represented by Timothy Alfred Valliere Bushell &Valliere, LLP The Lincoln Building 60 East 42nd Street Suite 2925 New York, NY 10165 212−949−4700 Fax: 212−286−0513 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Louis Fisher

represented by Vera Mary Scanlon Beldock Levine &Hoffman LLP 99 Park Avenue, 16th Floor

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 8 of 13

New York, NY 10016 212−490−0400 Fax: 212−490−0400 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus William G. Weaver

represented by Vera Mary Scanlon (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Professors of Ethics and Lawyers Practicing in the Professional Responsibility Field

represented by Jennifer Alison Klear Drinker, Biddle &Reath, LLP 140 Broadway, 39th Floor New York,, NY 10005 212−248−3140 Fax: 212−248−3140 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/23/2007
02/23/2007 05/24/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/08/2007

# Docket Text
1 Case transferred in from the Southern District of New York; Case Number 1:06−383 GEL. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received.. Filed byTina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights, Roland Algrant, Adam Kanzer, Michael Kieschnick, Joe Sibilia, Peter Strugatz, Mal Warwick, American−Arab Anti−Discrimination Committee, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Japanese American Citizens League, League of United Latin American Citizens, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, United for Peace and Justice, The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Certain Members of Congress, Washington Legal Foundation, Louis Fisher, William G. Weaver, Professors of Ethics and Lawyers Practicing in the Professional Responsibility Field. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/27/2007 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/26/2007)
CASE DESIGNATED for Electronic Filing. (gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2007) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
2 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule in CCR v. Bush et al. (07−1115) by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 5/24/2007) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 1 Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment filed byGeorge W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) Modified on 6/13/2007 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/08/2007)
4 NOTICE by Andrew H Tannenbaum of Lodging by the United States of Classified Supplemental Memorandum (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
5 NOTICE by Andrew H Tannenbaum of Lodging by the United States of Classified Declaration of Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
6 NOTICE by Andrew H Tannenbaum of Prior Lodging by the United States of Classified Memorandum (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) (Entered: 06/08/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 9 of 13

06/08/2007 06/08/2007 06/26/2007 06/28/2007 06/28/2007 07/06/2007 07/09/2007
07/10/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007

7 NOTICE by Andrew H Tannenbaum of Prior Lodging by the United States of Classified Declaration of John D. Negroponte (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
8 NOTICE by Andrew H Tannenbaum of Prior Lodging by the United States of Classified Declaration of Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 6/8/2007) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
9 STIPULATION (MODIFIED) and Proposed Order to Set Briefing and Hearing Schedule in CCR v. Bush et al. (07−cv−1115) by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 6/26/2007) (Entered: 06/26/2007)
10 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 9 AS MODIFIED BY THE COURT: On 7/6/2007, Plaintiffs in CCR will file a response to the Govt's submission and their own supplemental points and authority in support of their position on their motion. Defendants will file a reply brief no later than 7/19/2007. Hearing is scheduled for 8/9/2007 at 2:00 PM. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on 6/28/2007. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Motion Hearing set for 8/9/2007 02:00 PM in Courtroom 6, 17th Floor, San Francisco. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2007) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
11 STIPULATION to Alter Briefing Schedule in Center for Constitutional Rights v. Bush (07−1115) by Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/6/2007) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
12 NOTICE by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte of Filings Related to Upcoming Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment# 2 Defendants' Motion to Stay Consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment# 3 Defendants' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of the State Secrets Privilege, Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, and Motion to Stay# 4 Defendants' Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment# 5 Public Declaration of John D. Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence# 6 Public Declaration of Maj. Gen. Richard J. Quirk, Signals Intelligence Director, National Security Agency# 7 Defendants' Notice of Lodging of In Camera, Ex Parte Material (May 26, 2006)# 8 Defendants' Supplemental Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment# 9 Defendants' Notice of Lodging of Classified Supplemental Memorandum# 10 Defendants' Notice of Lodging of Classified Declaration of Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency# 11 Defendants' Notice of Prior Lodging of Classified Memorandum# 12 Defendants' Notice of Prior Lodging of Classified Declaration of John D. Negroponte# 13 Defendants' Notice of Prior Lodging of Classified Declaration of Maj. Gen. Ricahrd J. Quirk# 14 Transcript of oral argument held on Sept. 5, 2006)(Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 7/9/2007) (Entered: 07/09/2007)
13 Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Supplemental) filed byTina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/10/2007) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
14 Reply Memorandum Defendants Supplemental Reply Memorandum filed byGeorge W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
15 STIPULATION and Proposed Order to Extend Page Limitations for Supplemental Briefs by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 10 of 13

07/21/2007
07/24/2007 08/08/2007 08/09/2007 08/10/2007 09/05/2007 09/28/2007 10/05/2007 12/14/2007

Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 7/20/2007) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
16 NOTICE by Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights of Filings Related to Upcoming Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Complaint (stamped copy)# 2 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 5]# 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 6]# 4 Affirmation of William Goodman in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 9]# 5 Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 56]# 6 Affirmation of Professor Stephen Gillers [Dkt. No. 58]# 7 Supplemental Affirmation of William Goodman [Dkt. No. 59]# 8 Affirmation of Rachel Meeropol [Dkt. No. 60]# 9 Affirmation of Maria Couri LaHood [Dkt. No. 61]# 10 Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment [Dkt. No. 74]# 11 Amicus brief of business leaders [Dkt. No. 14]# 12 Amicus brief of NAACP and other organizations [Dkt. No. 18−1]# 13 Amicus brief of Assn of the Bar of the City of New York (in support of Plaintiffs motion for Summary Judgment) [Dkt. No. 22]# 14 Amicus brief of 72 Members of Congress [Dkt. No. 37]# 15 Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation [Dkt. No. 44]# 16 Amicus brief of Assn of the Bar of the City of New York (re. state secrets privilege) [Dkt. No. 53]# 17 Amicus brief of Dr. Louis Fisher and Dr. William Weaver [Dkt. No. 54−1]# 18 Amicus brief of professors of legal ethics et al. [Dkt. No. 63−1])(Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/21/2007) (Entered: 07/21/2007)
17 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 15 filed by Department of Homeland Security, Defense Intelligence Agency, John D. Negroponte, Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, George W. Bush. The page limit on Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum filed on 7/9/2007 shall be extended to the length of 26 pages of text. The page limit on Defendants' Supplemental Reply Memorandum shall be extended to 20 pages. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on 7/24/2007. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2007) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
18 NOTICE by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte of Statutory Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 8/8/2007) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
20 Minute Entry: Hearing on the Govt's Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment held on 8/9/2007 before Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker. The Court heard argument from counsel. The Court submitted the matter(s).Court to issue written ruling. (Court Reporter Kathy Powell.) (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/9/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
19 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint filed by Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Proposed Supplemental Complaint)(Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 8/10/2007) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
21 ORDER setting briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion to supplement complaint. Signed by Judge VRW on 9/5/07. (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/5/2007) (Entered: 09/05/2007)
22 Memorandum in Opposition re 19 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint filed byGeorge W. Bush, National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte. (Haas, Alexander) (Filed on 9/28/2007) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
23 Reply Memorandum re 19 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Complaint filed byTina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Seema Ahmad, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol, Center for Constitutional Rights. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 10/5/2007) (Entered: 10/05/2007)
24 NOTICE by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte of Manual Filing (Haas, Alexander)

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 11 of 13

02/05/2008 03/25/2008 03/31/2008 11/06/2008
01/28/2009 07/31/2009 01/20/2010 02/18/2010 02/25/2010 02/26/2010 03/19/2010 03/26/2010 04/22/2010

(Filed on 12/14/2007) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
25 NOTICE by George W. Bush, National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, John D. Negroponte of Withdrawal of Counsel (Tannenbaum, Andrew) (Filed on 2/5/2008) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
26 REVISED PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER re (370 in M:06−cv−01791−VRW) Order filed September 10, 2007 signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 3−24−08. (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2008) (Entered: 03/25/2008)
27 ORDER. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 3−28−08. (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2008) (Entered: 03/31/2008)
28 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9−12−2008, before Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra L. Pas, Telephone number (415) 431−1477. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/2/2009. (Pas, Debra) (Filed on 11/6/2008) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
29 ORDER by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker DENYING AS MOOT [Doc 19 in C07−1115] Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to supplement their complaint. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2009) (Entered: 01/28/2009)
30 ERRONEOUS DOCKET ENTRY − Please ignore NOTICE OF APPEAL. Filing fee $ 455. (Attachments: # 1 2nd part of Notice of Appeal)(gsa, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2009) Modified on 8/7/2009 (gsa, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/05/2009)
31 ORDER. The parties are directed to submit to the court, on or before 2/26/2010, a joint status report advising the court of the status of this case, what proceedings are necessary to resolve it and proposing a tentative schedule for such proceedings if applicable. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R Walker on 1/20/2010. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2010) (Entered: 01/20/2010)
32 STIPULATION (re extension of time for compliance with order, dkt 31) by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 2/18/2010) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
33 STIPULATION re 31 Order, to Extend Time to Submit Joint Status Report by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 2/25/2010) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
34 ORDER re (709 in M:06−cv−01791−VRW) (33 in 3:07−cv−01115−VRW) Stipulation. Date by which to file joint status report and proposed schedule extended to March 19, 2010. Signed by Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker on 2/26/2010. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2010) (Entered: 02/26/2010)
35 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Barack Obama. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 3/19/2010) Modified on 3/22/2010 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/19/2010)
36 ORDER Setting Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 3/26/2010. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2010) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
37 STIPULATION and Request to Extend and Modify Briefing Schedule by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Barack Obama. (Coppolino, Anthony) (Filed on 4/22/2010) (Entered: 04/22/2010)

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 12 of 13

04/28/2010 05/27/2010 06/11/2010 06/17/2010 06/21/2010 07/16/2010 07/21/2010
07/29/2010 07/29/2010 07/29/2010
08/09/2010

38 ORDER revising briefing schedule pursuant to stipulation. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 4/28/2010. (hlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2010) (Entered: 04/28/2010)
39 MOTION for Summary Judgment Government Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; Memorandum in Support thereof filed by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Barack Obama. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Berman, Marcia) (Filed on 5/27/2010) (Entered: 05/27/2010)
40 CLERKS NOTICE Advising Counsel of Change in MDL Master Case Number Format (rcs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2010) (Entered: 06/11/2010)
41 STIPULATION and Request to Extend and Modify Briefing Schedule by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 6/17/2010) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
42 REVISED STIPULATION AND ORDER re doc 41 . Plaintiffs file an opposition to Defendants' renewed motion and renew Plaintiffs' cross−motion for summary judgment by 7/22/2010. Defendants file a reply and file an opposition to Plaintiffs cross−motion by 9/2/2010. Plaintiffs may file a cross−reply by 9/23/2010. Signed by Judge Vaughn R Walker on 6/21/2010. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2010) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
43 REVISED STIPULATION and REQUEST to Extend and Modify Briefing Schedule; [PROPOSED] ORDER by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/16/2010) Modified on 7/16/2010 (far, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 07/16/2010)
44 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting Joint Motion for Extension of Time. Upon consideration of the parties' revised stipulation and request to extend and to modify the current briefing schedule in this action, the court HEREBY REVISES the current briefing schedule set forth in its order of June 21, 2010 (Doc #737/042) as follows: (i) plaintiffs must file an opposition to defendants' renewed motion and may renew their cross−motion for summary judgment by July 29, 2010; (ii) defendants must file an opposition to plaintiffs' cross motion and may file a reply to plaintiffs' opposition by September 14, 2010; and (iii) plaintiffs may file a cross−reply by October 5, 2010. There now having been three stipulated extensions of briefing, the court will not permit any further extensions or delays. IT IS SO ORDERED. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2010) (Entered: 07/21/2010)
45 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Stipulation Regarding Consent filed by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/29/2010) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
46 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Notice of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, with Proposed Order) filed by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/29/2010) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
47 Brief re 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Notice of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, with Proposed Order) MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Notice of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, with Proposed Order), 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment Government Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; Memorandum in Support thereof (Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss) filed bySeema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Related document(s) 46 , 39 ) (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 7/29/2010) (Entered: 07/29/2010)
48 ORDER by Judge Vaughn R Walker granting doc 45 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file a memorandum in opposition to defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment of up to 30 pages. (cgk, COURT STAFF)

Case: 3:07-cv-01115-VRW As of: 09/23/2013 11:01 AM PDT 13 of 13

09/14/2010
10/05/2010 01/31/2011 02/07/2011 02/14/2011 02/15/2011 04/15/2011 04/18/2011 04/18/2011

(Filed on 8/9/2010) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
49 Memorandum in Opposition re 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Notice of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, with Proposed Order) MOTION for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs' Notice of Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment, with Proposed Order), 39 MOTION for Summary Judgment Government Defendants' Notice of Motion and Renewed Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment; Memorandum in Support thereof and Reply Brief filed byCentral Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Barack Obama. (Berman, Marcia) (Filed on 9/14/2010) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
50 Reply Memorandum in Support of (Plaintiffs') Motion for Summary Judgment filed bySeema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol. (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 10/5/2010) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
51 ORDER granting 39 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 46 Motion for Summary Judgment. (vrwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2011) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
52 Proposed Order re 51 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Submission of Proposed Form of Judgment by Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Security Agency, Barack Obama. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Form of Judgment)(Berman, Marcia) (Filed on 2/7/2011) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
53 NOTICE by Seema Ahmad, Center for Constitutional Rights, Tina M. Foster, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Maria LaHood, Rachel Meeropol re 52 Proposed Order, Statement re. Form of Judgment (Kadidal, Shayana) (Filed on 2/14/2011) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
54 JUDGMENT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that in accordance with the Court's January 31, 2011 Order, judgment is hereby entered in this case in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. (cgk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2011) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
55 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 54 Judgment by Center for Constitutional Rights. Filing fee $ 455, Receipt Number 34611058758.(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
56 Copy of Notice of Appeal and Docket sheet mailed to all counsel (Attachments: # 1 06−1791 docket sheet, # 2 07−1115 docket sheet)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)
57 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals by Center for Constitutional Rights re 55 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1 07−1115 docket sheet, # 2 cover letter, # 3 USCA appeal notification form, # 4 06−1791 docket sheet)(far, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011) (Entered: 04/18/2011)