Court Opinion

ID: 2660328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-03 04:32:45.706069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:58:54.872801
License: Public Domain

FELED

JUL 2 4 2013

Clark, U.S. Distr|ct & Bankruptcy~
mr run s‘r.».rl~:s r)ls'rruc 'r comer Cv\"fs for fha D\Sfri€f of Cf>lvmbla
FOR Tm~i mSTRIc'T <)F C<)LIJMB!A

...._.._.~_._. . ..__- .. ....~.....,_..,. . ..~. .........¢»....... ,...- _. ....... -.,

UNI`I`T~`Z`» _/\:~1!)\1\1r)rzxxoN mrc   
(May 30, 201 3) y

s'?cfcndarzt,

Uci"».~~wd:vz'. Stc~.;\hcn Jin-Woo K§m is charged by ind§r:t=:zcnt ~.~.~Ft}: c):»c crv_u:f cf
z:vnutlx<)riz<‘d disclosure of national defense inf`orznali<\n in violat§on 0." 18 ’.'. S.C. § 7">`5(d), avd
one count of waiving false . IN P '\F'? :,rzd FIZ".?\’H~`..'! F`-`
PAR'T as set ?`r~.r"n. bclc)w. To thc c;\'!.:zu‘@ necessary and re!c~\=ant_ the Cox~r supp}cmc>zzls thc
rcasoxxing set fc>)“€‘r. in this Mcn‘mraxxdum Opinirm in the mcmorandurz~. r>;z§'.*.‘»oz: z'cso!vizug rl)=:‘
Go\'cmmcnt’s ex parre motions for a protective ordcr. Proc.cd.:zral!y, the Cc,u;‘\ addresses the
Dcfexldarr’s and the Govcmnlcxll’_s functions separately-3 but thc decis?¢,zxs regarding each pzr".j,"s

r§:s:_z>€cl§‘.'e xu£§<~')s arc cnns§.~:tcr~.t,

..»._.._.._..___._._ ._..._. -_ _ . _ __ ._._w_._._

'I`hc Cour? addresses the D:rfcndant’s Second, Thirci. :m:a::?or\ under sc¢rion 4 of the Classified Info'matiolu Proccdures Ac:l ("‘('?P.»K"), 18 U.S.(I.
App. 3 § 4, and .T'~`z»<*feval Rulc .~" Cr§mz`xzal I’roccdurc lé(d)(i) for the r¢:r‘.actirnxs. ¢,ubstitutions,
and wit'~.holdirnz.< during discovc :'j' .S'¢»e generally (`xov’l’s Fx`r:d Ex Pa)~!c Mc»l., E¥`F No. [81].
'i`bc Court pc':'.":aiztcd the Defc:~.dant 10 provide an ex p.;:'!e z" :*~.n1§:'_="ox1 to 1hc (.`ourl dctailing, to
the <:.\’icn€ the D.'\f`;'r.dant damned appropriatc, his anticipated dcf`-_‘nso.< at trial_ f`\o:' the Courf’s
cons§dcm:§~'u= in resolving thc Govc_rnrrzczzz’s ex pa)'le '~.~<)Lr`on. Def_’s ]".`)c Pzn‘.'r Morn Con:'.crning
the Theory of the M~f`@z=.se. EC'Z" No. [96]. T§ie Governnxc:zt has ..:."‘;-xad.~.ni"s four ~-'otions to con~.g-cl amd rzo'.'aohr.\'? ~z:=.rcdacted \~'cminvzs of some
of the d»‘ the ;""Jr‘t-.mcrtt is :1‘. least a colorable
o."_€= " ]d. }"inullj/, ?l.o l)sl`t~nda.'\! rnust tillg Rov:}~,»~v v. U)zi!ed .S‘I/)f-.v, 353 U.S. ‘~"). 6()~61
(]957)). ""l ':'.is st.z.nd:rrd applies '~s‘ikt »?#,'ial .‘.\rce to ]'.".:'tially cla.<<:§f':od cloct,ln;,~:‘.s " Al Od./z.¢z v.
Uniled S!a!e.s~, 550 F.3d 539, 544 448 F.3d 436, 456 77 C. (`.ir. 2006) (qu"»tino .S`/"z'ckle)~ v. Gz'."c.ncz, 527

281-82 (199‘))). ""`»Vhilo ?'»’r'="_.?'t.' information is plainlv su‘os'_xxnc'd within the largt‘r
)

'»A.)

U.S. 26 .
catc~;~:~:'y  §_."!`:rr-r:atioxt that is 'a! least ltelpl`ul" to the dcF<‘n:‘fant. ‘rlf`.'vv:nntior\ c:m be helpful
wi;`:mttt l~';~i't;z ‘."a'vc»rol=lc’ in thc B)~z.~.’t _=A;‘nsc." Id. Accordlngly, fl)»~ Dcf`<;'.'x;l;lv.f’s request for
exculpator~j lnf:~~'zx:ntirn tmcl<~r H)"::.{~.) is .~~_:l‘.ation vrottld be useful to the defc'tt;»'e.

Ill. I)ISCI »'SSION

l`~l' ease of rc!`\_~rcz~.»:a flue Couxt addresses thc T`);fcr.-:l;'zz~.t’s s_;\"cif`xc rcou.r.‘,lon.

’/\

REPACTED /CLEARED FOR PUBL|C RELEASE

A. ln!ellig€nce Rc:~or.',¢
lniiiaily, ihe D~_\f~:.~idant s:'vf»DOIL ifwluv’f’s Opp'nawz-

33. 'i`lic Govcrnin cut also rcpi'c.rj»»'” insofar as "thc govcrnn~.cn! has not alleged
that Mr. Kiin disclosed the contents of dry intelligence rcpo't other than thc -
rcport]." Dt‘!"'.s‘ Mot. at 7. Tlze _"~oblcnt with dn's argument is that th¢ Ucfc:zid:ztit r'   ~>>-»mri<=~  if forms r¢@rrdw@_
 are relevant to the subject matter of this case as a

general oriucir\lc, such r'.'poi<.z' wo'.tld not be lzel_z;"'i;l ‘.o thc defonsc ;ihs:::nt some link within the

 
   

'I`hc Defendzznt’s re nest for an re.oits re »ordin
q Y l‘ § g

  as a general matte.r-pzivticularly if drafted and

produced prior to 's nothing more than a fishing expedition

Admittcd'.y. thc §)ct"cnd'ixif is somewhat limited in his ability to cstrtl)lish the relevance of
documents he does not posscss. But the Defcndant did not even attempt to articulate how thc

roqucsto.i int`orrnation ~tvould be helpful to the defense in showing aftcrnative source documcnts

for the Roscn article unless the ramon connects that information to _

7
‘~ REDAcTEo l CLEARED ron Puatic RELEASE

  on the pres-cm rw»rd, any

intelligence rcp-'~“‘ '}1:11 vvr\uld l)c hc!;:t"-_zl to the l’lcf`endalli far the reason cited in his motion
would lx:;\ c been canturcd by ~rc~:xrr:ls:.- nr<~. {r»usly performed by the f`)r.)'.'ernmcn!, Tl'\cr<~l`orc. the
Dcfsnr;lant’s motion 10 c<~,n‘.z~cl additioral intelligence reports 35 defined in the Proposc.d Ordor is
dcn‘.cd.

B. Jrzm' 11, 2!)[)9 Russel ?`.))a:'.'

T`ne Dcs thc Dz~f`.~z~.jzarit"s con\‘."'iiction of this element n‘ lcr.cz‘.li in the Mcnior~aridum
O;)Ziiion :~:~;_;ai:i’.:ig the l`)e:'i~ndrrz~i’s 'lhircl Motion to Compel. l~`or purposes of this inotion,
sull'z<.'¢ it to say that ever if the Dcfenclant’s`intcrpretation of the s&'xtute is correct (whicli it is
n<)f), the vin.'eclacr<=.zl Russel <"~riail and unclerlying doctimczits would rot be relevant and llolpfui to

the defense.

'i`hc Dcfc~~.r!:i:=.i draws f\'r¢ inferoziees from the Ru;f.’s l`?,;»;. ?_at l. 'I`he :noss: ge indicated that

 

Id. 'l`hc Dcfci“.dant sacks an order compelling thc Go\'crrn:ric~n€ to ;~.i'o:lucc: (l) "[a]ny cmail

descr:`bin

 
   

(2) a list of all

recipients ot`*lie-'cniail; (3) an unrcdactcd copy of th¢;~_cznail; and (4¥ a
list of ali recipients of thc_enmil. Proposcd Ordcr 1[ 4_ `f`li's. f'iovernmcnt
provided ?hc Courl with u::rcdacted copies of both cmails.g In his niot'l-')n, the Dcfcndmit asserts
that thc -ecnail is unclassified and thus not subject to the heightened relevance standard
under l`.'.'nis. lt is not clear from the face of the_cmail or the Gc~vornxnenr‘s opposition
wli:‘t‘.icr thc message is classificd. Ti:c Courf zlecd not resolve this i.<..s=.zi.~ lvc=;.ause L:r.dcr ci'.‘h:r
Rulc l()(c) or the Yunz'.r standard, the Govcrnmexzt would be required to produce a redacted

crsion oi`the _crnail to the Dcfcndant.

3 .‘~'=‘v Azf.rc!~.mcnt to Gov’t`s "l`hird Ex Przri'e Mot.

r

l l `
REDACTED ICLEARED FOR PUBLlC RELEAS:

B;Lq¢¢l on the (_‘~:~,;-t’g r¢v§t;~.=.' of l\o!‘~: ':r.iails, the Co'~.zzt finds the infor:nation redacted
frc)ri') thc_¢~mail is not relevant and is cen::inly r.r~z helpful to the cl’t‘l`<~,lisc. 'l'he
(‘ourt agrcc~s with the Dei`<'zvla,~.t that insofar as ;'o:t‘ons of thc_cmail were quoted
verbatim in the rmredz:c‘.:d poz“tioos of -cmatl, there ".'~ no apparent justification for the

Govcmmcnt to withhold thc _cmail in tr)tr). 'l`h<~.r:~fo.“r. thc Go\'crnmo:~.t must produce

rhe_er~~.ail referenced in the __cmail to the Dcfcndant.
Af`tcr rc\+"icvvi~:~; thc-entail the (`,ourt iinds the ?:‘»;1 of the-entail that was m)!
quoted in the _cmail is not niatcrial to the pr:‘v:=.r:tt"r\v: of thc defense as required

by Rulc l6(e) and thus need not ho produced 'l`o the extent any r»ortion of the curtail is also

c!assif`ted, the Cot:)'t finds the text not quoted in the_ entail is neither

relevant nov liclot`ttl to the d‘:‘.`<‘tis:. 'l`lt=:~c,orc. thc Go'vcrr.rrtcz~.t may redact thc portions of thc

_vmail w quoted by_ mail

With respect to the f)<"`:i~.d.'s.",:’s rcc;i;cxt F»~r a list of :'cci_rzic:i?i= of each cmail, the

Defcnda:it argues that ‘hc threatened ac!§ons listed in the - entail arc -
  and thus m recipient

list would rc(‘<~.:»t cth¢r potcn‘cl. leak,rs of thc information contained in the Rosen report Def.’s

   

Mot. nt ]2, 13.

and the Roscn a"ti:lc. As a threshold matter,

or the Rosezi :u‘.icle. Th

 

l 2
REDACTED ICLEARED FOR PUBLlC RELEASE

  
   

 

    
  

Ultimatt:ly, a pcr@f'.f"'@'"_

Sz`,\'!lz, thc i’)»f`.~za.isnl :'cqiz~:.-.ts a amy c)f` the rc;~»i\n !`ri»m 
rel`crmd m intcrvicw_ ':Tlzr: l`)cl`crzdant has received the

irxforrnaLinzz r~<‘t`c:~rcl to by_during his intcrvicw, making tl‘is request moo‘..
e'?.  and .Relaied Docunz€ms
Nc~)' do ~~1 "dfsws_ G<»~"f’s Oi>v’n

at 38; see also id. ("'I“iie body of the cmail

    

does not dz'scix.<:.< its contcnts). Thc

Court reviewed the 2:41 PM cmail and attachment in crmzera. 'Z`;ic» :n:ail does not attach a

"longc.."’ vcr.<'§on of ties 12:16 PM _as suggested by the `i`i"il 302 for-s July
12, 2012 intc.'vi¢:\\; Del"_’s Ex. 14 at 2. As the Govcrnmcm indicated the cnzail rcl`crencus the
_ re'f~\:\n but zic§?hc,r that z'cfcrence nor the rcmainder of the cniail is relevant or

hclpfuf to the dcl`::n:zx~..

9 S€: Atia:~hment to \7<)‘."1'$ T"nird Ex Pan‘e Mc>t.
m 'l`l~.c Dc€cn:!nnt withdrew his request for intelligence reports identified by -

and additional materials related to that cmployce’s efforts to idc-ratify
source clcicu)n<:nts f`f».~ the R<»s:.~z: Arliclc, Proposed Or ':.'1}1] '7-8. Gnv’t`s Opp’n 211 3711.]6.

14
REDACTED l CLEARED FOR PUBL|C RELEASF

 

 

Mc>rco‘_'<=r» nothing in either document is relevant or helpful to the issue of

Dc‘£’s Mot’. at 21-22 & n.]4. The
Court tal;:riding '.:;~on ‘-.h~:‘ Govemniont’s rcsj)onsc.

REDACTED l CLEAPED FOR PUBl_l(` REl EASF

 
 
   

 
 
   

1 _P~bffca»f<>~
Durin;z his july '12, 2012 intcr'sic‘. _also produced to the FBT a _

Dcf.'s  14 at 2. !?:n'ing not ser the doeunient. the Dcfcndant offers a number of theories

regarding how the do"iini!_~nt voight be liclnful ‘»»'» the defense dc~<'\ite post-dating the Rosen

article. including ‘.li;it it rniglit have "tic.hunl-;ed the intclligcnre contained in the 

rc~,~‘ort." or that it".hc- pul)lit‘.=‘ioii was being draf`tcd i)el"c»:'c the Roz=cza article v-':L~z puhlished,
it could he a potential source docum:~r:t for tim disclosure to Mr. Roscn. De%`.’s Mot. at ?.4-25.
'l`he Gr~.~.'crximcn: '~~spo:~.d.< by station t .:iz the document did not discuss fhc issues mentioned in
the Def`cndaiit’s mnt_ion. Gov’t’s Opp’xi at 39. Upon review of the - publication in camera
the Court finds the ;=tiblicati-_~s is not liel;~fl`ul to the'l)cfcndant and therefore is not discoverable

J. t')!hr'f' Doci/,»z:cnts
The Det`enclruit seeks two inlellitzenec re~,\orts, idc:ztifi':d as_ and
h waive md i@wm¢m mrs

ot`t`xcer. identified the first report as a possible source doc.iirnent for the leak when interviewed by
the FHI on Att_au.<:* 28, 2009. Del`.’s l§'»;. 17 (8/28/09 FBI-$OZ) at 2. During a subsequent
interview in March 2011, _stated that she mistakenly referred to the report, but meant
to .~¢r¢r'io me _repon. Der_'s t:t-. 18 (3/2/11 FBi-zoz). _
identified the sct:oziti i:;‘~.'nt as a potential source document in response to an investigative
questionna?.~c. Dc"`.’s F:;. 19 (1/1 l.~'l0 investigative Questioniiairel at 5. Ncarly two years latcr,
the .FBI iiitcrvicwed - at which time he indicated he must have confused certain

inforrnetioxi in the report leading hitz~ to list it as a potential sotirc.e ciocixmcnt. Id. m 2. Aft):r

reviewing th<:_rcport,_indicatcd he believed time _rcport was

-‘* te

-\»--\~ »\v~- ~»-¢ c~¢v~.»¢\ run nunn la v~c~v r*¢r\r'

the source :loci'.nic`n' fo~.' thc Roscn nz'ricle. Id. 'l`lxc Court reviewed both r<"ports irc camera and
€`zr.rl:< that neither d<)c;tin“.c;~»‘. is zi possible source docui‘.~.c-::t ‘.`\;v:' the Ro.sc;) a\‘ticle. nor arc the
documents othe."v~'isc rcl':'vant or helpful to the d-:."cnse. Accordingly, the Go\-cmir~.cnt need not
oroduce  to the Dc;"cr_dnnt.

K. Emzzr` ’ .S`€c)'c~ .'=:'.~,~

l"inally, thc [)cfcrid:nif ‘~r~.»:idl_y' .<:cl:‘.

'l`hc Govc’mmcn‘ indicates it reviewed the omails of the individuals who assessed the
_rcpon during thai time f`ramc, and produced all "dis<‘ovcrztl)lc" c:naiis. (ic»\"t’s
Opp’n at 41. 'l`l-,c YF-:f.'~:;tl:.;:t :t:';zi.cs this re:<;)r»szse is insu§`fx~;ic~z:t, suggesting that thc Govcrnmczv
failed to produce cmails (l) "in which - analysis comment on the content of the
_ rcrort  discuss the .'.~‘.iability of the information contained thercin," (.'Z,`)
"discussing thc alleged significance of the __rcpoitl," or c_'.”)} "in wltich one cmploj.»'cc

or contractor iii.=trlzcrcd z~xno'.hor cnn‘~loyec or contractor to view thc rcpon:.” Dci`.’s Mot. at 30.

1 7
newman 1 cLEAREn ron Puauc RELEAsE

Thc Govemnxon*, idc:::'if`le,s cmnils produced to the Dcfend:w.l that the Govcrzinzcm »~iiggcst;~ fall

into crash oi`lhosc three ca?e;"\.'ics. Gov’t’s Opp'n at -'-ll. l`lzc Courr notc= that the (`rnvcrr.mcni

objccls to the discovembility of cmails discussing  
_ rcp:»rr, except 10 r‘ie extent such cn‘.ails are separately rcl»:\ e.nl, among other thing."..

to “identi»'f\’ othc:' potential so‘.~.'cc d 1 uni;~:lt= or other individuals who nzzzj»‘ have l):xd access m

[rhc_ rcport]." [d. at 41 n.lél_ Ulti"lsately, the Co\m is uzialale to determine from the

(`vovcr",iiien!`s rcspol'sc wh‘=‘l)er it has pcrl`v._<._zh §’ovcrnnxcnt employee and contractor
email fur pc)lcnliully di\;c,ei~:<»r:~.‘lwlu c,ziiail."). 'l`l)crci`orc, prior to the luna !1. 20§3 status hearing §l`
pr».<~'.=ililc, hut in z=.v:< c='»:nl by no later than Junc 6, 2013, the Go\'ernr:\cnt shall indians wl'zich_ il`
anj~'_ cf the l`c~n“ccn top/las thc Govewr~.,::icut has not included in its .~“~\‘.arche.<. and adiculatc why
such cmails ~~:<»uld not he lie!_r~.§zl to the dcf`czu:e.

l\'. CON(.`I ,USTON

l`he Dcfcndarl has inadc a sufficient showing as to the _ernail.
as well as tl~,c total xmmbc.-' of recipients of the _ and _

cmails. M<\rcn\'c‘r, the Courl shall ren,uirc the Gf"»"rn:n<~,nt m supplement its response 10 thc
Dcf`<‘ndant’s rcqilcat f`-wr a~xviails fmc individuals wlir viewed ll:c_ report lhc Cour‘l
shall also raise two disa'rcfc issuc¢ \vilh the Governmenl :>' pads thai rr.ay lead the Cour! tai
revisit the holdings wills respect 10 the Junc ll and june 12, 2009 _ cmails.
Ho\\'cvcr, on thc '»rcsrnt rccord, tl~<: Cou:’c finds the Dcr"cndnzi! has failed to show that the
reznain