Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=13769&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:00:48+00:00

Document:
On October 26, 2011, the ACLU filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to compel the defendants to comply with its request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U. S. C. § 552. The plaintiff sought the release of any and all records about the government's use and interpretation of USA Patriot Act Section 215 that authorized the government to obtain "any tangible thing" that was "relevant to" a terrorism investigation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had violated 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), 552(a)(4), and 552(a)(6) by failing to make responsible efforts to search for the requested records, and failing to grant the plaintiff’s requests for waivers and/or limitations of fees, and failing to promptly process the plaintiff’s request and release the requested records. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had wrongfully withheld records under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security and that it had exhausted its administrative remedies to obtain them.
On December 9, 2011, Judge William H. Pauley approved the parties’ stipulation to narrow the scope of the plaintiff’s FOIA request to the following documents.
5.	Legal opinions or memoranda concerning rulings, opinions, or memoranda of the FISC interpreting USA Patriot Act Section 215.
Judge Pauley also issued an order that gave the defendants until March 15, 2012 to process and produce these documents or notify the plaintiff of any complete or partial withholdings of these documents pursuant to FOIA exemptions.
1.	They had properly withheld the report under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security because public disclosure of the requested report would expose sensitive intelligence sources and methods to adversaries of the United States.
2.	They had also properly withheld the report under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for being exempted from disclosure by statute because the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Protection Act of 2004, protected intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
3.	The report cannot be withheld in its entirety under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) or 552(b)(3) because it contains “secret law” in the form of the government’s legal interpretation of its authority to collect “any tangible things” pursuant to USA Patriot Act Section 215.
4.	The court, at a minimum, should conduct a private judicial review of an unredacted version of the report and order the defendant to the release segregable portions of it that describe the defendants’ legal interpretation of US Patriot Action Section 215.
On May 17, 2012, Judge Pauley, having conducted a private judicial review of the requested report, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The judge held the defendants had properly withheld the report in its entirety because it contained information that could be used by the United States’ adversaries to threaten its foreign intelligence capacities and all non-exempt portions of the report were inextricably intertwined with the report’s exempt portions that they could not be released in a redacted version of the report (872 F.Supp. 2d. 309).
In the meantime, from March 2012 to August 2012, the defendants released several hundred pages of documents but withheld several documents for reasons of personal privacy, national security, and interagency or intra-agency deliberative process.
On December 13, 2012, the plaintiff limited the scope of its FOIA request to information about the types of information and “tangible things” the government believed Patriot Act Section 215 allowed it to collect and relevance standard the government used to determine whether Section 215 applied.
4.	More than Seventy-four documents in possession of the NSD under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security; twenty-four related to congressional reporting; nine of which related to internal government communication and analyses; forty of which related to guidelines and training documents; and an unspecified number related to FISC materials, opinions, and/or orders.
2.	They had produced all reasonably segregable portions of the documents.
On April 26, 2013, the defendants filed a supplemental memorandum to their motion for summary judgment. They clarified that one of the withheld NSD document was also exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) for being part of the interagency or interagency deliberative process. They also noted that all the NSD documents were also withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for reasons of statutory exemption pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947.
1.	Submitting a classified Vaughn Index for private judicial review without disclosure to the plaintiff, was procedurally improper as the defendants had yet not released a sufficiently detailed public explanation of their withholdings.
2.	Legal interpretations of public law were not exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) or 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3).
4.	The Census Memorandum could not be withheld as a deliberative product under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) because it embodied the defendants’ working law, or alternatively, because the defendant had adopted and relied upon it.
On June 6, 2013, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) decided to declassify certain information related to the “business records” provision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in response to publication of FISC orders in the Guardian.
On July 31, 2013, the defendants released parts of two congressional reports to the plaintiff and withheld the remaining parts under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security and under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for reasons of statutory exemption pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947.
On August 13, 2013, the parties agreed to withdraw their motions for summary judgment because the defendants required additional time to reprocess the documents contested in this lawsuit and determine what effect, if any, the DNI’s declassification decision had on their disclosure.
From September 2013 to January 2014, the defendants released parts of more than a thousand pages from dozens of documents, including parts of several FISC orders and legal opinions.
On February 7, 2014, the plaintiff further revised the scope of its FOIA request to fully withheld FISC opinions or orders that related to bulk collection of any information.
On April 4, 2014, the defendants filed motion for summary judgment and a Vaughn Index that referenced at least eight FISC orders and legal opinions that they were withholding in full and provided justifications for these withholdings. The defendants argued that these orders and opinions were properly withheld under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security and under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for reasons of statutory exemption pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947.
2.	Judge Pauley should evaluate the withheld FISC orders listed in the Vaughn Index in a private judicial review.
On July 8, 2014, the defendants released parts of three FISC orders in the public record that the plaintiff had identified as being absent in the Vaughn Index and the defendants had failed to locate in their previous search for documents within the scope of the plaintiff’s revised FOIA request.
On October 6, 2014, Judge Pauley granted in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He found that the defendants did not have to confirm or deny the existence of FISC orders and legal opinions that related solely to the bulk collection of information other than telephone metadata or release these orders and opinions if they existed. Lacking faith in the defendants’ segregation determinations, the Judge also ordered the defendants release the remaining items in their Vaughn Index for private judicial review. (59 F.Supp.3d 584).
On October 24, 2014, the defendants submitted copies of the FISC orders and legal opinions withheld in full for private judicial review. They also filed a supplemental memorandum to their motion for summary judgment. They reiterated their argument that the FISC orders and legal opinions contained no reasonably segregable, disclosable information and were properly withheld in full under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security and under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for reasons of statutory exemption pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947.
On March 31, 2015, Judge Pauley granted the remaining part of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He found that the FISC orders and legal opinions contained no reasonably segregable, disclosable information and were properly withheld in full under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1) for reasons of national security and under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3) for reasons of statutory exemption pursuant to the National Security Act of 1947. (2015 WL 1566775).
The case is cross-referenced to New York Times v. Department of Justice, which is also closed.

References: § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 § 552
 v.