Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02295/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02295-1/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

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS JOSEPH RAIMONDO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02295-JSC 

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO COMPEL

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Plaintiffs Dennis Raimondo and Eric Garris filed this action under the Freedom of 

Information Act and the Privacy Act against Defendant the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(“FBI”). Plaintiffs seek records regarding a 2004 threat assessment the FBI conducted of a 

website, Antiwar.com, with which the Plaintiffs are affiliated, and related investigations that the 

FBI conducted of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that the FBI’s maintenance of these records 

violates Section 552a(e)(7) of the Privacy Act in that the records reflect how the Plaintiffs

exercised their First Amendment rights. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to 

compel the FBI to produce documents and related information responsive to certain discovery 

requests. (Dkt. No. 43.) The FBI contends that the documents at issue are irrelevant and protected 

from disclosure under the law enforcement privilege. (Dkt. No. 46.) Having considered the 

parties’ arguments and having had the benefit of oral argument on April 23, 2015, the Court 

DENIES the motion in part and orders supplemental briefing as to the remaining issue.

Case 3:13-cv-02295-JSC Document 53 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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 California

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel three categories of information: (1) material redacted from an

April 30, 2004 FBI memorandum (“April 30 Memo”), (2) additional responses to Interrogatory 

Nos. 5-8 which seek information regarding the factual basis for the FBI’s assertion that its 

maintenance of the April 30 Memo is pertinent to and within the scope of authorized law 

enforcement activity, and (3) the identity of the author of a FBI memorandum dated January 7, 

2002.1Plaintiffs’ request as to the second and third categories of information is denied. 

After Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel, the government supplemented its discovery 

responses and clarified the basis for its contention that maintenance of the April 30 Memo is 

authorized by the law enforcement activity exception to the Privacy Act; namely, that the threat 

assessment was conducted in response to discovery of a watch list called “Project Lookout” on the 

antiwar.com website. (Dkt. No. 46 at 12:6-13.) At oral argument, the government confirmed that 

the only basis for its law enforcement activity defense to the Privacy Act claim is that set forth in 

its supplemental interrogatory responses. Given the government’s clarification, Plaintiffs’ motion 

to compel further responses to Raimondo Interrogatory Nos. 5-8 is denied.

With respect to Garris Interrogatory No. 3 regarding the identity of the author of the 

January 2002 Memo, Plaintiffs have not shown that this information is relevant to their Privacy 

Act claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 3 is 

denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ challenge to the redactions in the April 30 Memo is the remaining issue. In 

support of its contention that the memo redactions are protected by the law enforcement privilege, 

the government submitted a declaration from Michael Steinbach, the Assistant Director of the 

FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, along with its opposition brief. (Dkt. No. 47.) Although the 

declaration and opposition were filed publicly, they were both redacted—the former significantly. 

(Dkt. Nos. 46 & 47.) The government submitted under seal for in camera review unredacted 

versions of both documents and filed an Administrative Motion requesting to file these documents 

 

1

Plaintiffs initially moved to compel responses to several other discovery requests, but based on 

the FBI’s opposition and subsequent agreement between the parties, Plaintiffs no longer seek to 

compel further responses to these requests. (Dkt. No. 51 at pp. 1-5.)

Case 3:13-cv-02295-JSC Document 53 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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 California

under seal and ex parte. (Dkt. No. 49.) Under Civil Local Rule 79-5 “[a] sealing order may issue 

only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law” and any such request 

shall be “narrowly tailored.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The government’s conclusory motion to seal fails 

to make such a showing. Further, having reviewed the unredacted information, the Court is not 

persuaded that the general information which has been redacted is in fact confidential or 

privileged. Accordingly, the government’s administrative motion to seal and submit portions of 

the Steinbach Declaration for in camera review is denied and the declaration is stricken.

As set forth at the hearing, the Court sets a supplemental briefing schedule as to the 

redactions within the April 30 Memo. Plaintiffs shall provide the government with a list of the 

redactions which they still challenge by May 1, 2015. The government shall provide Plaintiffs 

with a response by May 20, 2015. Plaintiffs shall then submit a supplemental brief regarding their 

request to compel by June 4, 2015, the government’s opposition brief (accompanied by a revised 

declaration that specifically addresses the redactions at issue) is due June 18, and the optional 

reply brief is due June 25. The Court will hear argument on July 9, 2015 (rather than July 2) at 

9:00 a.m. in Courtroom F, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02295-JSC Document 53 Filed 04/23/15 Page 3 of 3