Opinion ID: 1188885
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Invocation of the Privilege and the Motion To Dismiss

Text: After the redacted complaint was filed, the government requested, and the district court granted, an extension of several additional months' time within which to respond. The government eventually did so, submitting for the court's public files a declaration by Porter J. Goss, the Director of the CIA at the time, asserting a claim of state secrets privilege over the classified information described in [a supplementary] classified declaration ... submitted for the Court's ex parte, in camera review. Formal Claim of State Secrets Privilege by Porter J. Goss, Director Central Intelligence Agency, Mar. 16, 2006, ¶ 5. Director Goss declared that he was asserting the privilege as the head of the CIA and after personal consideration of the matter. Id. Goss's public declaration did not describe the classified information at issue because, he said, he had determined that the bases for [the] assertion of the state secrets privilege cannot be filed on the public court record, or in any sealed filing accessible to the plaintiffs or their attorneys, without revealing the very information that [the government sought] to protect. Id. ¶ 7. According to Goss, neither plaintiffs nor their attorneys possess the need to know all of the classified information covered by the privilege assertion, id. ¶ 8, notwithstanding the prior access by the plaintiffs and their counsel to a subset of that information pursuant to their limited security approvals, id. ¶ 10. Goss based his conclusion on his determination that the information was not necessary for the plaintiffs and counsel to `perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function' under Section 4.1(c) of Executive Order 12958, id. ¶ 11. The possible damage from even an inadvertent slip was too great, in Goss's judgment, to permit disclosure ... even under protective provisions that the Court might be asked to enter. Id. ¶ 13. According to Goss's public declaration, moreover, the classified information ... is so integral to the plaintiffs' claims that further litigation of this matter would necessarily result in the disclosure of such classified information and reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. Id. ¶ 6. Goss also stated that unspecified additional classified and purportedly privileged information might be at risk of disclosure through discovery or trial. Id. ¶ 12. Based on the asserted need to keep the information secure, the government moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiffs could not establish a prima facie case without access to the information covered by the assertion of the state-secrets privilege, and the defendants could not defend the case without disclosing it.