Judge Walton Catches The DOJ Withholding Info About NSA Metadata Lawsuits

from the I-may-actually-miss-this-guy-once-he's-gone dept

Another FISC opinion and order has just been released dealing with the NSA's retention of metadata that may be used as evidence in some ongoing lawsuits against the government. The DOJ had originally asked to hold onto the pertinent data past the five-year expiration date because of these pending lawsuits. This request was shot down by FISC judge Reggie Walton, who stated that holding Americans' data past the disposal date put the surveillance programs on shaky Constitutional grounds, while also pointing out that the government's arguments relied on caselaw dealing with the retention of corporate documents, something which clearly wasn't in the same league as data collected on Americans.

Shortly thereafter, a federal court handling two lawsuits (Jewel v. NSA [this is an EFF lawsuit originally filed in 2008], First Unitarian Church v. NSA) centered on NSA domestic surveillance issued a temporary restraining order on the destruction of relevant metadata. This was brought about by the DOJ's announcement that it would begin destroying the relevant data for these two cases based on Walton's February order.

This is where the DOJ starts looking very shady, according to Judge Walton's recounting of the events.

The March 10 Motion further indicated that one of the MDL cases, Virginia Shubert, et al., v. Barack Obama, et al. No. 07-cv-0603 (N .D. Cal.) remains in litigation, and the MDL preservation order remains in effect for that case. Additionally, the March 10 Motion stated that the Jewel case, which was filed in 2008, was designated by the District Court as a related action to the Hepting matter, and that Court entered an evidence preservation order in Jewel, based on the MDL evidence preservation order, which remains in effect. LCL The March 10 Motion noted that the plaintiffs in Jewel and First Unitarian contacted the government on February 26, 2014, regarding the relevance of these preservation orders to the February 25 Motion, and made a "specific request" that the government inform the FISC of their existence.
The plaintiffs asked the government to inform the FISC about their existence so that their data could be retained as well. That never happened. Instead, they were forced to file a Temporary Restraining Order in order to prevent this data destruction. This was granted by the circuit court judge and brought to the FISA Court, where Judge Walton ordered the extended retention of data specifically related to these cases. In its response filing, the DOJ had this to say about the plaintiffs who asked them to speak to the FISA court.
A footnote in the March 13 Response indicated that, "[c]ontrary to their representation . . . [the m]ovants did not make a 'specific request' that the government inform this Court about the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert."
The DOJ included (as an exhibit) email correspondence between it and the plaintiffs of the lawsuit as support for its claim that no request was made. Upon review by Judge Walton, that assertion was false. Walton gives the government an out by claiming it may have just misperceived which surveillance program was being discussed (Section 215 vs. an "executive authority" program -- Section 501), but even then, he points out that the plaintiffs disagreed with the DOJ's reading of the situation.

From this point on, Walton takes the DOJ to task for deceiving the court (whether deliberately or otherwise).
As the govemment is well aware, it has a heightened duty of candor to the Court in ex parte proceedings. Regardless of the government's perception of the materiality of the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert to its February 25 Motion, the government was on notice, as of February 26, 2014, that the plaintiffs in Jewel and First Unitarian believed that orders issued by the District Court for the Northem District of California required the preservation of the FISA telephony metadata at issue in the government's February 25 Motion. [E-mail Correspondence at 6-7.] The fact that the plaintiffs had this understanding of those preservation orders -- even if the government had a contrary understanding - was material to the FISC's consideration of the February 25 Motion. The materiality of that fact is evidenced by the Court's statement, based on the information provided by the government in the February 25 Motion, that "there is no indication that any of the plaintiffs have sought discovery of this information or made any effort to have it preserved.
The above might be written off as a failure to communicate, but Walton's next paragraph details even more DOJ malfeasance.
The government, upon learning this information, should have made the FISC aware of the preservation orders and of the plaintiffs' understanding of their scope, regardless of whether the plaintiffs had made a "specific request" that the FISC be so advised. Not only did the government fail to do so, but the E-mail Correspondence suggests that on February 28, 2014, the government sought to dissuade plaintiffs' counsel from immediately raising this issue with the FISC or the Northern District of Califomia.
The next filing entered should be rather informative, based on Walton's demands.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that the government shall make a filing with this Court pursuant to Rule 13(a) of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Rules of Procedure Rules of Procedure") no later than April 2, 2014. As part of this filing, the government shall explain why it failed to notify this Court of the preservation orders in Jewel and Shubert and of the plaintiffs' understanding of the scope of those orders, upon learning that plaintiffs' counsel viewed those orders as applying to the Section 501 telephony metadata at issue in the February 25 Motion.
This latest order from Judge Walton shows that the government wants to destroy data that might be used as evidence. There was some back-and-forth previous to this, but the DOJ probably had a good idea what Judge Walton would say back in February when it showed up to ask to hold on to domestic surveillance records indefinitely, deploying civil litigation guidelines and common law requirements as its only rhetorical weapons. Walton refused and the DOJ went happily off to tell plaintiffs that the FISA court had overridden their existing preservation orders. If the plaintiffs hadn't asked for a temporary restraining order, it might have gotten away with it.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 1:17pm

    Tap Dancing

    The DoJ and the rest of the alphabet soup will continue the malfeasance until some or all of them are held accountable. Tap dancing faster will only hold out for a while, one tires.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 3:21pm

      Re: Tap Dancing

      So what... just replace the tired tap dancer with another one.

      Judges are stupid like that. Seen the inside of a court room lately?

      Stupid is what it is all about. Court is not about getting the truth, its about a sporting event where 2 teams attempt to outmaneuver each other while secretly cursing or snickering at the judge.

      Justice... ever with a blindfold for the reason you did not expect!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Mar 2014 @ 1:22am

      Re: Tap Dancing

      There's a remarkably simple way to hold these clowncars accountable - destroy anyone who has had a hand in the deliberate and intentional malfeasance deus ex legalis should be removed. By any means necessary.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 1:38pm

    And they would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for those meddling plaintiffs. :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 2:29pm

    So the government wanted to see the evidence destroyed. It's a given you don't destroy evidence that clears you. So that's the next big question...What are they trying to hide this time?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 3:50pm

    Unbelievable...so they argue that they should keep the data indefinitely...you know...just to "help" the people who need that data in the lawsuit...but then go back and DELETE the data that might help in the lawsuit AND get to keep everything else indefinitely because they requested it for the lawsuit.

    These people are absolutely shameless and I hope every single judge dealing with them from now on triple checks what they are saying and asks a lot of questions about what they are doing so they don't let them get away with their lies anymore.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 5:22pm

    Maybe Judge Walton should ask Judge Wright to weight in on what his opinion would be of the DOJ's behavior here is and what repercussions are appropriate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 6:24pm

    Now the DOJ's actions are what I call due process. But Mike Masnick just loves censorship, and hates it when copyright law is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 7:11pm

    There's a cancer at the DOJ, and it starts at the top. It's a malignant disregard for justice and principle.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    Anonymous Coward, 21 Mar 2014 @ 7:20pm

    Reggie is Obama's house negro.

    We did put such "judges" on trial at Nurmeberg.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.