Source: https://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622
Timestamp: 2018-08-21 02:21:22
Document Index: 33999851

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1806', '§ 1806', '§ 1806', '§ 1806', 'ARTZ 180', 'ART 275']

This is Plaintiffs' sur-reply in opposition to the government's motion to stay the proceedings.
No. M-06-01791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 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 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) cindy@eff.org LEE TIEN (148216) tien@eff.org KURT OPSAHL (191303) kurt@eff.org KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) bankston@eff.org CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) corynne@eff.org JAMES S. TYRE (083117) jstyre@eff.org 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 415/436-9993 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION IN RE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TELECOMMUNICATIONS RECORDS LITIGATION, MDL No. 1791 This Document Relates To: ALL CASES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MDL Docket No. 06-1791 VRW CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Date: February 9, 2007 Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: 6, 17th Floor Judge: The Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 1 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 1 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 The government has long maintained that the secrecy of its surveillance program would be irrevocably compromised by any attempt by this Article III Court to adjudicate the constitutional and statutory legality of the wholesale, suspicionless surveillance it is conducting of the communications of millions of innocent Americans. It has similarly maintained that procedures like those established by Congress in 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), under which the Court protects the government’s interest in the secrecy of its surveillance techniques by first reviewing in camera and ex parte any information provided by the government concerning the surveillance, are insufficient and inadequate. Plaintiffs, in their previous filings have demonstrated to the contrary why the government’s surveillance is not a secret and have submitted independent record evidence of the ongoing surveillance that is occurring. Plaintiffs have thereby shown that they are “aggrieved persons” who may use section 1806(f) to litigate whether the surveillance they are suffering is lawful.1 As Congress provided in that section: “[W]henever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person . . . to discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance . . . the United States district court . . . shall, notwithstanding any other law, . . . review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.” 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f). 1 The government’s argument that plaintiffs have not yet proven they are “aggrieved persons” and must do so before the Court can use the procedures of section 1806(f), Gov’t Reply in Support of Stay at 12, ignores the undisputed record evidence showing wholesale, suspicionless government surveillance of millions of innocent Americans. See, e.g., Declaration of Mark Klein (Hepting Dkt. 230); Declaration of J. Scott Marcus (Hepting Dkt. 231); Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (Hepting Dkt. 20); Declaration of Michael Markman (Hepting Dkt. 182, 194); Declaration of Elena DiMuzio (Hepting Dkt. 298); Declaration of Barry Himmelstein (MDL Dkt. 156). Nor is the state secrets privilege the reason why the government has not disputed the evidence in the Klein and Marcus declarations; the government has confirmed that the information that is the subject of the Klein and Marcus declarations can be litigated without intruding on state secrets. Hepting 6/23/06 RT at 76:16-20 (“THE GOVERNMENT: We have not asserted any privilege over the information that is in the Klein and Marcus declarations. THE COURT: Either in the declaration or its exhibits? THE GOVERNMENT: We have not asserted a privilege over either of those.”). AT&T also has not disputed the authenticity or reliability of the testimony and evidence of Mr. Klein, a disinterested non-party to the litigation, by, for example, showing that Mr. Klein was not Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 2 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 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 The government’s unbidden and sua sponte filing of January 11, 2007 (MDL Dkt. 120), further undermines its assertion that there is no practical way for this litigation to advance pending conclusion of the interlocutory appeal in Hepting. In order to further its own litigation interests, the government has submitted “materials relating to the surveillance,” 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f),“for the Court’s in camera, ex parte consideration,” MDL Dkt. 120 at 2:2-3. In its public notice of this filing, the government stated: “The classified materials lodged with the Court on January 11, 2007 (as reflected in the notice of lodging filed on January 13, 2007), concern the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court orders that were publicly announced today.” MDL Dkt. 127 at 2:12-15. As the Court has noted, section “1806(f), in pertinent part, provides procedures for consideration of the propriety of FISA orders.” Order Denying Remand (MDL Dkt. 130) at 7:20-22. The procedures of section 1806(f) begin with exactly the sort of in camera, ex parte submission of surveillance-related materials that the government made in its January 11 submission. Thus, it appears that the government has no reluctance to utilize procedures like those contemplated by section 1806(f) to submit surveillance-related materials when those procedures suit its own litigation purposes, even while protesting that similar procedures cannot reasonably be used to allow plaintiffs to pursue their case. The government cannot have it both ways.2 Moreover, the information the government has submitted to the Court relates to its surveillance of persons it has probable cause to believe are confirmed terrorists. The FISA orders an AT&T employee at the time of the events in question, that he did not have access to the facilities in question, that he was not present at the facilities at the times he states he was, or that other facts in his declaration are false. Nor has AT&T contested the authenticity of the Klein Exhibits. To the contrary, AT&T has confirmed the status of Mr. Klein as an AT&T employee until May 2004. Declaration of AT&T Managing Director—Asset Protection James Russell, Ex. A (Hepting Dkt. 220). It has also vouched for the authenticity of the documentary evidence attested to by Mr. Klein by asserting that those documents are AT&T’s trade secrets and by asserting that their contents accurately describe AT&T’s networks and facilities. Id. at ¶¶ 5 to 6, 10 to 13, 15, 17, 20-22. It has likewise vouched for the correctness of the percipient observations testified to by Mr. Klein. Id. at ¶¶ 5 to 6, 15, 19. 2 Significantly, the government’s submission occurred months after the Court denied the government’s state secrets privilege motion to dismiss and while that issue is up on appeal. Thus, the January 11 submission cannot have been made for the purpose of invoking the state secrets privilege, as the government’s earlier ex parte, in camera filings were (see Hepting Dkt. 124), but instead must be directed to other issues in the litigation. Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 3 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 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 that the materials in the government’s submission concern are “orders authorizing the Government to target for collection international communications into or out of the United States where there is probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.” MDL Dkt. 127 at 2:4-7 (emphasis added).3 The government’s willingness to submit these materials to the Court belies its assertion that it cannot similarly submit in camera and ex parte, under the protective procedures of section 1806(f) as Congress intended, information concerning its surveillance of law-abiding Americans who are not “members or agents of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.” Information about targeted surveillance of known terrorists is obviously more, not less, sensitive than information about suspicionless mass surveillance of ordinary Americans. The government’s refusal to submit these less sensitive materials, in addition to being self-contradictory, is also contrary to the Court’s recognition of its fundamental Article III duty in this case: “While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it. See Hamdi v Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004) (plurality opinion) (‘Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake.’). To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired.” Hepting v. AT&T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 995 (N.D. Cal. 2006). The government’s willingness to make its recent voluntary ex parte, in camera submission to the Court during the pendency of the Hepting interlocutory appeal supports the conclusion that procedures like those established by Congress in section § 1806(f) can reasonably be utilized by the Court to proceed forward with this litigation, and that the Court can reasonably do so without awaiting the conclusion of the Hepting interlocutory appeal. 3 Plaintiffs note that even the government does not agree with Defendant Sprint Nextel’s argument that the FISA orders render plaintiffs’ case moot. (MDL Dkt. 141 at 5:5-11). Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 4 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 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 DATED: February 5, 2007 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION By /s/Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997) Lee Tien, Esq. (SBN 148216) Kurt Opsahl, Esq. (SBN 191303) Kevin S. Bankston, Esq. (SBN 217026) Corynne McSherry, Esq. (SBN 221504) James S. Tyre, Esq. (SBN 083117) 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 ATTORNEYS FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND CO-CHAIR OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Additional Plaintiffs’ Counsel: ROGER BALDWIN FOUNDATION OF ACLU HARVEY GROSSMAN ADAM SCHWARTZ 180 North Michigan Avenue Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 201-9740 Facsimile: (312) 201-9760 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR AT&T SUBSCRIBER CLASS AND CO-CHAIR OF PLAINTIFFS’ EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP ERIC ALAN ISAACSON 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-3301 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 ATTORNEYS FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS’ LIASON COUNSEL LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP JEFF D. FRIEDMAN SHANA E. SCARLETT 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 ATTORNEYS FOR AT&T CLASS PLAINTIFFS AND PLAINTIFFS’ LIASON COUNSEL LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP ELIZABETH J. CABRASER BARRY R. HIMMELSTEIN MICHAEL W. SOBOL ERIC B. FASTIFF ALLISON S. ELGART 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR MCI Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 5 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 5 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 SUBSCRIBER CLASS MOTLEY RICE LLC RONALD MOTLEY DONALD MIGLIORI JODI WESTBROOK FLOWERS JUSTIN KAPLAN 28 Bridgeside Boulevard P.O. Box 1792 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 216-9163 Facsimile: (843) 216-9680 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR VERIZON SUBSCRIBER CLASS AND MISCELLANEOUS SUBSCRIBER CLASSES GEORGE & BROTHERS, L.L.P. R. JAMES GEORGE, JR. DOUGLAS BROTHERS 1100 Norwood Tower 114 W. 7th Street Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 495-1400 Facsimile: (512) 499-0094 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR CINGULAR SUBSCRIBER CLASS THE MASON LAW FIRM, PC GARY E. MASON NICHOLAS A. MIGLIACCIO 1225 19th St., NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR SPRINT SUBSCRIBER CLASS WHITFIELD & COX P.S.C. JOHN C. WHITFIELD 29 East Center Street Madisonville, KY 42431 (270)-821-0656 (270)-825-1163 (fax) PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR SPRINT SUBSCRIBER CLASS BRUCE I AFRAN, ESQ. 10 Braeburn Drive Princeton, NJ 08540 609-924-2075 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS LISKA, EXNICIOS & NUNGESSER ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW VAL PATRICK EXNICIOS One Canal Place, Suite 2290 365 Canal Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 410-9611 Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 6 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 6 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 Facsimile: (504) 410-9937 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. CLINTON A. KRISLOV W. JOEL VANDER VLIET 20 North Wacker Drive Suite 1350 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 606-0207 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN E. SCHWARZ, ESQ. STEVEN E. SCHWARZ 2461 W. Foster Ave., #1W Chicago, IL 60625 Telephone: (773) 837-6134 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS MAYER LAW GROUP CARL J. MAYER 66 Witherspoon Street, Suite 414 Princeton, New Jersey 08542 Telephone: (609) 921-8025 Facsimile: (609) 921-6964 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL FOR BELLSOUTH SUBSCRIBER CLASS Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 7 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622MDL-1791-VRW PLAINTIFFS’ SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY 7 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 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 5, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all parties whose e-mail addresses have been registered in the case as required by the Court.. DATED: February 5, 2007 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION By /s/Cindy A. Cohn, Esq. (SBN 145997) ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 x108 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 cindy@eff.org Case M:06-cv-01791-VRW Document 157-1 Filed 02/05/2007 Page 8 of 8Document hosted at http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=9ef0a755-c617-415e-97b8-7b49ed73c622