Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03127/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03127-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
Plaintiff
Department of Justice
Defendant

Document Text:

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

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03127-MEJ 

ORDER RE: IN CAMERA REVIEW OF 

DOCUMENTS

After review of the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, the Court finds that an in 

camera review of a sampling of the documents is necessary to assess Defendant’s assertions of 

exemptions and segregability of non-exempt material. At the April 2, 2015 hearing, both parties 

stated they have no objection to an in camera review.

Accordingly, by April 17, 2015, Defendant shall deliver to chambers (not file) unredacted 

copies of the following documents: 

 From the Kornmeier Declaration (Dkt. No. 35-1): 

o Documents 3 and 4 

 From the Third Sprung Declaration (Dkt. No. 47): 

o CRM 39451-39484 (only the portion containing the sealing order)

o CRM 2541 (USA Book)

o CRM 2948 (internal memorandum)

o CRM 3818-3825 (internal memorandum)

o CRM 9853-9897 (internal memorandum)

o CRM 15311-15316 (internal memorandum)

o CRM 28119-28126 (internal memorandum)

Case 3:13-cv-03127-MEJ Document 49 Filed 04/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

o CRM 34065-34066 (internal memorandum)

o CRM 17543-17544 (internal memorandum)

The Court may also consider a sampling of the Criminal Division’s templates/go-bys as 

described in the Third Sprung Declaration, ¶ 8. By April 17, 2015, Defendant shall file in the 

public docket a list of documents that it proposes the Court should view as a representative sample 

of those documents. The list should contain the same identifying information included in the 

corresponding Vaughn Index for these documents. Defendant should also indicate whether any 

such documents are duplicates of, or substantially similar to, other withheld documents. Plaintiff 

shall file any response by April 24, 2015, indicating whether it believes other or additional

documents should be included for the Court’s review. The Court will issue a follow-up Order 

following these submissions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03127-MEJ Document 49 Filed 04/02/15 Page 2 of 2