Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04480/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-04480-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TWITTER, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, ET AL., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 14-cv-04480-YGR 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING 

IN PART TWITTER’S REQUEST TO COMPEL 

FURTHER RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY;

SETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Dkt. No. 167 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 167), filed three days 

after the Court heard argument on the Motion of defendants Jefferson B. Sessions, III, et al. (“the 

Government”) for Summary Judgment. Subsequent to the filing of the Joint Letter Brief, the 

Court issued the following orders: (1) granting the stipulated protective order submitted by the 

parties (Dkt. No. 170); (2) denying without prejudice the Government’s motion for summary 

judgment, and granting plaintiff Twitter’s motion for an order directing the Government to 

expedite a security clearance for Twitter’s counsel (Dkt. No. 172, “MSJ Order”); and (3) denying 

the Government’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of summary judgment (Dkt. 

No. 186, “Recon Order”). The Court is informed that the discovery disputes stated in the Joint 

Letter Brief remain at issue and the security clearance has not yet issued. 

Having carefully considered the Joint Letter Brief, and the pleadings, papers, arguments, 

and rulings issued in this matter, the Court ORDERS that Twitter’s request to compel further 

responses from the Government and overrule its objections is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN 

PART, as detailed and for the reasons stated below. 

In addition, the Court SETS this matter for a further case management conference on April 

9, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 1, Federal Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland. 

Case 4:14-cv-04480-YGR Document 188 Filed 02/12/18 Page 1 of 4
2 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

I. DISCUSSION 

The parties’ Joint Letter Brief indicates that they met and conferred but were unable to 

“resolve their disputes over the relevance of the discovery set out below.” (Joint Letter Brief at 1.) 

Twitter seeks discovery regarding the national security justification for categorically prohibiting 

more granular reporting than the reporting bands set forth in the USA FREEDOM Act, and the 

original January 2014 declassification decision by the Director of National Intelligence (“DAG 

Letter”) that preceded it. The information is relevant to the question of whether the Government 

can satisfy its burden under the strict scrutiny analysis. Twitter therefore seeks an order overruling 

the Government’s relevance objections, compelling production of, at least, the unclassified 

documents responsive to the Requests for Production Numbers 1-5 and 8-16, and compelling 

further responses to Interrogatory Numbers 2-17. 

The Government disputes the relevance of Twitter’s requests for information about: (1) the 

basis for the conclusions contained in the Declaration of (now-former) FBI Executive Assistant 

Director (EAD) Michael Steinbach that Twitter’s proposed numerical disclosures in its April 1, 

2014 Draft Transparency Report are classified information, including discovery as to the sources 

upon which EAD Steinbach relied in making that determination; (2) the Government’s original 

January 2014 declassification of certain aggregate data that it contended would otherwise be 

prohibited from disclosure; and (3) the policies, procedures, and bases upon which the 

Government decides what information in a National Security Letter (“NSL”) or Foreign 

Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) request is classified. 

The Government, in the Joint Letter Brief, took the position that the discovery sought by 

Twitter conflicts with the appropriate standard of review. However, the Court subsequently 

determined that the deferential standard urged by the Government is incorrect, and that strict 

scrutiny applies to the restrictions imposed. (MSJ Order at 15; see also Recon Order at 5.) In 

denying summary judgment, the Court concluded that the Government had “fail[ed] to provide 

sufficient details indicating that the decision to classify the information in the Draft Transparency 

Report was based on anything more specific than the reporting bands in section 1874 and the 

FBI’s position that more granular information ‘could be expected to harm national security.’” 

Case 4:14-cv-04480-YGR Document 188 Filed 02/12/18 Page 2 of 4
3 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(MSJ Order at 17.) Further, the declarations relied mainly on a “generic, and seemingly 

boilerplate, description of the mosaic theory and a broad brush concern that the information at 

issue will make more difficult the complications associated with intelligence gathering in the 

internet age.” (Id. at 18.) Thus, the Court found that “[w]ithout some more specific articulation of 

the inference the Government believes can be drawn from the information Twitter itself seeks to 

publish . . . the Court cannot find that the Government has met the high burden to overcome a 

presumption that its restrictions are unconstitutional.” Id. at 18. 

The Government’s citation to authorities requiring the Court to defer to the Executive’s 

classification decisions are inapposite. As the Court previously found, the classification decision 

of an Executive branch official, alone, is not sufficient to meet the standards of strict scrutiny 

review. Id. at 10-12, see also N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 713, 727-28 (Government 

could not obstruct the flow of information to its citizenry based solely on a statement that the 

matters were classified). 

Thus, the Court finds that the discovery at issue here is, in the main, appropriate and 

further responses are required. 

II. RULING ON SPECIFIC REQUESTS:

The Government’s relevance objections are OVERRULED. Turning to specific requests, the 

following requests are DENIED: 

Interrogatory Number 7: the Government’s objection on the grounds that the response 

would require consideration of a hypothetical and the burden outweighs the likely benefit is 

SUSTAINED. No further response is required. 

Interrogatory Numbers 10 and 11: the Government’s objection on the grounds that the 

requests are duplicative is SUSTAINED. No further response is required. 

Interrogatory Number 15: No further response is required. However, the Government may 

supplement this response regarding its legal contentions if it so desires. 

Request for Production of Documents Number 11: No further response is required. 

However, the Government may supplement this response regarding its legal authorities if it so 

desires. 

Case 4:14-cv-04480-YGR Document 188 Filed 02/12/18 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

As to Requests for Production Numbers 1-5 and 8-10, and 12-16, and Interrogatory 

Numbers 2-6, 8, 9, and 12-17, Twitter’s request to compel further responses is GRANTED. The 

Government shall provide further responses no later than March 5, 2018. 

To the extent the Government is withholding responsive information or documents based 

upon privilege, it shall produce a privilege log listing the documents withheld, their date and 

author, and the asserted privilege(s). 

To the extent the Government is withholding responsive documents based upon an 

assertion that the responsive information is classified, it shall detail provide the non-classified 

portion along with an explanation of why other information is withheld as classified, the 

classifying authority who determined it was classified, what level of classification, and when 

determination made, and be prepared to submit for in camera review if ordered. 

All of the Government’s responses as stated herein shall be provided no later than March 

5, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2018 

______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:14-cv-04480-YGR Document 188 Filed 02/12/18 Page 4 of 4