Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01023/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01023-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 895
Nature of Suit: Freedom of Information Act of 1974
Cause of Action: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE and

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendants. /

No. C 08-01023 JSW

ORDER GRANTING

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is the motion for a preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Electronic

Frontier Foundation (“Plaintiff”). Having considered the parties’ pleadings, the relevant legal

authority, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s

motion for a preliminary injunction.

BACKGROUND

On August 5, 2007, President Bush signed into law the Protect America Act of 2007,

which amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) to expand the government’s

authority to gather intelligence with the help of domestic communications service providers,

and to protect telecommunications companies from future legal liability for their role in the

surveillance activity. Pub. L. No. 110-55, 121 Stat. 552. 

The Protect America Act was set to expire in February 2008 without further

congressional action. President Bush indicated that the Administration would push for more

extensive, and likely retroactive, legal immunity for the telecommunications companies. 

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(Declaration of Marcia Hofmann (“Hofmann Decl.”), Ex. F.) Since the time of the passage of

the Protect America Act, Congress has continued to consider additional changes to federal

surveillance law, and Congress still is considering whether to give telecommunications carriers

legal immunity for their cooperation in the government’s surveillance program. The House of

Representatives passed the RESTORE Act of 2007, which would not protect

telecommunications carriers from civil liability. H.R. 3773 (as passed by House). On February

21, 2008, however, the Senate passed a version of legislation to amend FISA, which purports to

require dismissal of any state or federal lawsuit against a telecommunications carrier for

facilitating government surveillance, if the Attorney General certifies to the court that the

company was assisting in certain intelligence activity authorized by the President. H.R. 3773,

FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (amendment as agreed to by Senate).

This action arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. 

Plaintiff, the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation, seeks a preliminary injunction ordering

defendants, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“ODNI”) and the Department of

Justice (“DOJ”) to expedite the processing and release of records concerning efforts of the

agencies and the telecommunication industry to push for changes to federal surveillance law,

especially to ensure that telecommunications carriers are not held accountable for their

participation in recent governmental surveillance efforts. Defendants ODNI and the DOJ

acknowledge that the requested information qualifies for expedited processing, but nonetheless,

the defendant agencies have failed to process Plaintiff’s requests within the statutory time frame

of twenty business days for a standard request that is not entitled to expedited treatment. 

Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the timely processing and production of the

requested documents. Plaintiff contends that such production is critical because the information

requested is directly relevant to understanding the agencies’ roles in lobbying on behalf of

telecommunications providers for legislation designed to compel the dismissal of lawsuits

against the telecommunications companies, more than 40 of which are currently consolidated

and pending before this Court. In re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation (MDL

Docket No. 06-1791 VRW). 

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Each request contained the following footnote:

The phrase “representatives or agents of telecommunications companies” is

intended to include lobbyists and lawyers acting on behalf of such

companies. According to Newsweek, these individuals may include, but are

not limited to, “powerhouse Republican lobbyists Charlie Black and Wayne

Berman (who represent AT&T and Verizon, respectively), former GOP

senator and U.S. ambassador to Germany Dan Coats (a lawyer at King &

Spaulding who is representing Sprint), former Democratic Party strategist

and one-time assistance secretary of State Tom Donilon (who represents

Verizon), former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick (whose law firm

also represents Verizon) and Brad Berenson, a former assistant White House

counsel under President George W. Bush who now represents AT&T.” Mark

Hosenball and Michael Isikoff, Case dismissed?, NEWSWEEK, updated Sept.

26, 2007.

3

On December 21, 2007, Plaintiff faxed two letters to ODNI and the DOJ Office of the

Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Legal Policy, Office of Legal

Counsel, and National Security Division, requesting under FOIA all records from September 1,

2007 to December 21, 2007 concerning “briefing, discussions, or other exchanges” that agency

officials

have had with 1) members of the Senate or House of Representatives and 2)

representatives or agents of telecommunications companies concerning

amendment to FISA, including any discussion of immunizing

telecommunications companies or holding them otherwise unaccountable for

their role in government surveillance activities. This request includes, but is

not limited to, all email, appointment calendars, telephone message slips, or

other records indicating that such briefings, discussions, or other exchanges

took place.1

(Hofmann Decl., Exs. K-N.) In each of its letters, Plaintiff requested that the processing of the

requests be expedited because they seek the disclosure of information about which there is “[a]n

urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged [f]ederal [g]overnment activity,” and

were “made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information,” as provided in 5

U.S.C. § 522(a)(6)(E)(v)(II), 32 C.F.R. § 1700.12(c)(2), and 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1)(ii). (Id.) 

Each of the agencies granted Plaintiff’s request for expedition. (Id., Exs. O, P, and S.)

Notwithstanding the agencies’ decisions to process Plaintiff’s requests (made on December 21,

2007) in an expedited fashion, to date, neither defendant has completed the processing of those

requests. The agencies have, therefore, exceeded the generally applicable twenty-day statutory

deadline for processing standard, non-expedited FOIA requests. See 5 U.S.C. § 522(a)(6)(A). 

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

A governmental agency normally must process FOIA requests for agency records on a first-in,

first-out basis. Ordinarily, agencies must respond to FOIA requests within twenty working days

of their receipt of the requests. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(I). In 1996, Congress amended the

FOIA to provide for “expedited processing” of certain requests. See Electronic Freedom of

Information Amendments of 1996 (“EFOIA”), Pub. L. No. 104-231, § 8 (codified at 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(6)(E). Expedited processing entitles the requester to move immediately to front of the

agency’s processing queue. As part of the EFOIA, Congress directed agencies to promulgate

regulations providing for expedited processing of requests for records (i) “in cases in which the

person requesting records demonstrates a compelling need,” and (ii) “in other cases determined

by the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(I). EFOIA defines “compelling need” to mean, “with

respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency

to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C. §

552(a)(6(E)(v). The EFOIA further provides that “[a]n agency shall process as soon as

practicable any request for records for which the agency has granted expedition.” 5 U.S.C. §

522(a)(6)(E)(iii) (emphasis added). 

In response to the current motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants submitted

declarations from various individuals tasked with conducting the subject searches. The

individual declarants each concede that Plaintiff’s requests were given expedited status, and

were moved to the front of the FOIA request queue. However, none of the defendant agencies,

nor defense counsel at oral argument, have adequately demonstrated that compliance with the

FOIA would be impracticable.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions for Preliminary Injunction.

The standards for obtaining a preliminary injunction are well established. It is

appropriate to issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party establishes either (1) a

combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2)

that serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the moving

party. Stuhlbarg Intern. Sales Co. v. John D. Brush and Co., 240 F.3d 832, 839-840 (9th Cir.

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

2001). “‘These formulations are not different tests, but represent two points on a sliding scale

in which the degree of irreparable harm increases as likelihood of success on the merits

decreases.’” Associated Gen. Contractors of Calif. v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d

1401, 1410 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Big Country Foods, Inc. v. Board of Education, 868 F.2d 

1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989)). Under either formulation of the test, a party seeking a preliminary

injunction always must show that a significant threat of irreparable harm exists. American

Passage Media Corp. v. Cass Communications, Inc., 750 F.2d 1470, 1473 (9th Cir. 1985). 

Thus, if the moving party cannot show irreparable harm, a court need not reach the issue of

likelihood of success on the merits. Oakland Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Publ’g Co., 762 F.2d

1374, 1376 (9th Cir. 1985). In addition, within the Ninth Circuit, the Court must also consider

the public interest when it assesses the propriety of issuing an injunction. Sammartano v. First

Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2002).

Preliminary injunctive relief may not be the normal mechanism in FOIA cases. 

However, such relief has been found appropriate where a requesting party has established that

its requests are entitled to expedited processing under the Act, and the government fails to

process them in a timely manner. See Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Office of the Director

of National Intelligence (“EFF”), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89585, *9 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 27, 2007)

(citing cases). 

B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits.

The Court finds this case remarkably similar to the facts presented in EFF, supra,

wherein Judge Illston of this Court found that Plaintiff had carried its burden of demonstrating

that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its claim. In that matter, Plaintiff here made similar

requests to the ODNI for the processing and release of records concerning that office’s

communication with telecommunications carriers and members of Congress regarding the same

pending legislation. Id. In that matter, the Court stated that the FOIA requires each agency to

promulgate regulations providing for the expedited processing of records, meaning that such

requests will be handled “as soon as practicable.” Id., citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii); 32

C.F.R. §§ 1700.12(b), (c)(2). Where an agency fails to comply with the twenty-day deadline

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

applicable to a standard FOIA request, the agency “presumptively also fails to process an

expedited request ‘as soon as practicable.’” Electronic Privacy Information Center v.

Department of Justice (“EPIC”), 416 F. Supp. 2d 30, 39 (D.D.C. 2006). The agency may rebut

the presumption by demonstrating that the twenty-day time period is “truly not practicable,” but

courts are not required simply to “take at face value an agency’s determination that more time is

necessary.” Id. at 37, 39. The assertions made by the government to explain the delay in

processing Plaintiff’s requests in this case are generically applicable to all FOIA requests. 

Defendants’ declarations and defense counsel’s representations at oral argument demonstrate

that expedited processing is not impracticable. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has met its

burden to show that an expedited deadline for processing of its pending documents requests is

practicable. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is likely to prevail on the merits of its

claims.

C. Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Harm.

The Court finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of demonstrating that it will suffer

irreparable injury in the absence of relief. The information it seeks is essential to inform the

public debate over the possible FISA amendments now considered by the two houses of

Congress. Although the government contends that there is a stalemate and that legislation may

not be imminently forthcoming, the requested information will be rendered useless in the effort

to educate the American public about the issues pertinent to the legislation if such information

is produced after Congress amends the law. As this Court has found, irreparable harm can exist

in FOIA cases such as this because it involves ongoing public and congressional debates about

issues of vital national importance that “cannot be restarted or wound back.” Gerstein v. CIA,

2006 WL 3462659 at *4 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2006); see also EPIC, 416 S. Supp. 2d at 41

(finding an adequate showing of irreparable harm to support a preliminary injunction); see also

EFF, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89585 at *19.

Since the Protect America Act has expired, the debate in Congress has been ongoing,

and the White House continues to press the legislature for action to shield carriers from liability

for their participation in the surveillance activities. On February 22, 2008, just after the

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

expiration of the Protect America Act, the Attorney General and Director of National

Intelligence wrote a letter to the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence concerning the “urgent need” to amend the FISA, declaring that it is “critical to our

national security that Congress acts as soon as possible” to pass the Administration’s preferred

version of the amendments. (Declaration of Marcia Hofmann in support of reply, Ex. C.) On

March 13, 2008, the House passed another version of proposed amendments that removed

language that had been approved by the Senate, and that did not provide prospective or

retroactive immunity for telecommunications carriers. H.R. 3773 (with House amendment to

Senate amendment). In response, also on March 13, President Bush pushed for an immediate

vote on the Senate versions of the legislation, stating that members of the House “should not

leave for their Easter recess without getting the Senate bill to my desk.” (Id., Ex. D; see also

Ex. E (Administration press release states “[i]t is time for the House Democratic leaders to get

serious about our national security, put aside these partisan games, and bring the bipartisan

Senate bill to a vote immediately.”).) 

The Court finds, just as the Court in EFF found, that irreparable harm exists where

Congress is considering legislation that would amend the FISA and the records may enable the

public to participate meaningfully in the debate over such pending legislation. See also

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260 (D.D.C. 2005)

(“FOIA requests could have a vital impact on development of the substantive record in favor of

reauthorizing or making permanent the special voting provisions of the Voting Rights Act”);

ACLU v. Department of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24, 30 (D.D.C. 2004) (“a principle aim of

plaintiff’s FOIA request is to provide information for the ongoing national debate about whether

Congress should renew Section 215 and other Patriot Act surveillance provisions before they

expire”). Although, and perhaps because, the Court cannot predict the timing of passage of the

legislation in light of the ongoing debate in the legislature and with the Administration, the

Court finds that delayed disclosure of the requested materials may cause irreparable harm to a

vested constitutional interest in “the uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate about matters of

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

public importance that secures an informed citizenry.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376

U.S. 254, 270 (1964).

D. Public Interest Favors Relief.

The government contends that the public interest would be injured by complicating and

disrupting the processing of other FOIA requests. However, the defendant agencies shall only

be ordered to process the documents according to their preexisting obligations under the FOIA. 

In addition, the hastened processing of Plaintiff’s requests will allow the agencies to return to

the orderly and expeditious processing of other pending requests. Defendants have already

identified responsive documents, segregated the potentially classified portions, and have had

ample time to process and release the documents. The Court finds that the public interest favors

the requested relief.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction and

requires Defendants to comply with the law and process Plaintiff’s FOIA requests

expeditiously. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA request and provide an initial

release of documents no later than April 17, 2008. Defendants are further ordered to provide a

final release of all responsive, non-exempt documents no later than April 21, 2008. Lastly, also

on April 21, 2008, Defendants are ordered to file with the Court and serve upon Plaintiff’s

counsel, an affidavit or declaration attesting to Defendants’ compliance and setting forth the

basis for withholding any responsive documents it does not release.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2008 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-01023-JSW Document 43 Filed 04/04/08 Page 8 of 8