Doe v. Doe Agency

Opinion

REDACTED

Fll "~"t \_v"?‘t'it 'z -i,.

\

CSO= ' tlg

_Uwiri~:l) &_;T.ATES~ I)tsmrc»'r c_:miru' . _ DA‘I*E:_`___`LL_.`L~/,~i witt T-x~xi;. DI_STRIC.T <)F coLua/nzm ~ ~ t

) £|AN}C I)OE, et al., ) ) 'Piazmm's, y )

v_ ) civil minn Nt». 08-_1419

MI~ZMORA'NDUI\I OPINION

Plztintii`i“s .!zinc D`<>e and her attomey, Mark Zaid, briing this action against the l.)<_)c /\gceicj,»' and the limited Stat'cs alleging violations t).l`tlic l"`irst Amcndrncnt and thc ./\.diiiiiiistrzttive Pr<)cedtire A_ct (“.AP.»X"), 5 § 7t)_l er .s~eq. fn their su_it, t_il::»tintil‘"fs c<.)iitc'_nd that this C.n‘u,rt should review classification decisions regarding documents that were .t"`ouiid to be classified by thc government and wcrc. by agrccment, filed tinder seal pursuant to a court order in a case brought by Ms. l)oc in another_jurisdiction. Tltis mattci' is before thc C ourt on dcij`cndartts" iiiotic)ii to dismiss thc c<)riipl;iint. For the reasons set forth bcl_

Plainti F,Fl§)c)c, a LE.S. citizen whose spo'ulssé is a l`,c>r:ncr employee oi`t`hc Doc Agcric'y_,_ previously sued the Unitccl Stzxtes in a federal clistri_ct court in anotherjttrisdict;to_n. Tlt€ suit was ultimately disinisscd based on thc g<_)\~'clrnnu_cnt"s invocation of the state secrets privilcge, and the di_s.niissz;)l was al`l`inned by the court of appeztls. Plai'iitif`l`?,aid, xvlio has executed sccrcc;v/iion- tlis<;l<)stire agree»ment witli'tlic Doc Agcncy, did not re'pr<:seiit ;~`vls. l)oc in the district court, but did represent ltc_r on appcal. in this Suit, plaintiffs jane l_.)t)c and .hc_r lzi\x~'ycr seek \i\='liztt they

believe slaould bc treated unclassified inf`ori'natioii» that has been filed in the district c:ourt, as

\~t-'cll as the appellate briel`prepared by Mr. Zuid, ‘w'hich izlaintilz`lk claim does'not coritain any clussil`iecl iiit`c>rinatiori_ l lt is undisputed that the documents at issue i'n;this case arc subject to the protective and

sealing orders ot`zt district court and appellate cottrt outside _tliis_jurisdietion. 'l`hc district court`s Stipulotion and Protective ()rdcr (A“lt’r€)tccti~vc (`)rdcr""), which the parties, iitc__luding plaintiff Doc. agreed to, provides as tblloxvs:

a. Pluintitl`s will tile all ofithcir pleadings and other documents under seal with the (`,`t)urt through 'tlie' Ct_)ttrt Sectiri'tv ()t`f;`iccr. 'l`hc time ot`physiczi_l

submission to the (`joiirt Security Ofticcr shall be considered the d ‘ f l`tllng. 'l`lie Court Scctiri.ty C)t"ticcr will arrange l`or their revic\v l)), classification officials to determine vvlicthcr they coritaiii any classified iiil`ori_natit')ti.

b. Any plcading, ntotion or other doc'utncnt that contains classified information will bc iiinrkct‘l with the appropriate clnssit,icati.on_ inurkitig amd will remain tinder seal /'\z,iy plcading, motion or collier cloci.nnciit that cloes not contain classified int`ortncttitirt inimcdiatcly' shall bc unsealctl by thc Couit Security ()t`t`ieer and placed in the ptiblic record. '

c. Plaiittit`fs` cottnscl will be perxnitted ziccess to "_working copies of classified documcnts, tinredacted up to the Sl’~'§(`.`.l€ l%`;'fl` levcl, at an appropriate secure area approved by*l\lotes and documents ~prepzxrecl by thc Plnititit`ts’ attorneys that contain claissit_`t`ed int"t)riziati<;»ri will remain -a.t the nt`orcniciitioiied secure arca. which will bc- accessible to Plaiiitit`t`s’ zttt'c)rne'y's. .»\t the conclusion ot`t he casc, till such notes and clocuinerlts shall be tlestfroy'ed. Only properly _rcdacted, u_nclassilied documents will he 'ttsed as evidence at triall,l tmlcss said trial is in camerzt, or publicly Fled..

(Pt'otecti\»`c (`_`),rdei' §§ 6.) Morcovcr, the Protcctivc Order spccil`icztlly' states that "ltlhc procedures set forth in this l’rotc.ctivc Order arc i,ntcndcd to govern the time period throughout all trial and post-trial ( including uppel.latc) 'r`nattcrs in this case,. and iriziy be morlit`ied'by' the further order ot`

the C,`out't ticting tinder its iiihercnt supervisory utzthorit_i~'."" ('/ti' ‘,.t§ 2.`)

I\J

Acctvrdinglj.~', pursuant to thc l’rt')tcctivc Ordcr. Doe Agcricy' officials were authorized to determine w'licthcr Ms. Doe`s pleadings contained classified iiil`orrtiation and, it`so_, those tlocutiierits were to restrain under scal.' Not -oril'y' did plaintiffs agree to»t)c 'h<)trnd by thcsc carcfull_v clclincatcd proccdures, but the procedures were i-ttc‘orporzttcd in rt court order. 'l`he. appellate court proccctiing, is similarly subject ton separate protective ordcr.l (Sc'e~ ;\'lot. to .l)istitiss tit 4,)

As dct"cntlztnts argtac, this Court may well lack jurisdiction to rnoclif}' thc ord.crs ol`othcr

federal cottrts.," but even it`it has such jurisdictlnn, thc Court wr)ulcl, as_ ct matter ol`coiiiity. refuse

l Sigriilicantlya, the Protcctiv'c Orclcr does not require thc Doc Agcricy to furnish plaintiffs with ttnclztssilicd versions ot` court filings for publication. lle_itce,lt~hc prcpublicz»ttioit rc\~'i.cw' cases on whicliplairt.tit`ls rely arc ii_iapposito. (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 29~31.) Plaiiititi"s do not seek permission to publish a hool<, nrticlc, or otltcr document that contains iril`oranation to which they gained access while working as government enip~loy'ees. 'Ratlier, they seek to acquire criurt tlocuttieitts that corttairi’ government int`ormatiort to which they gained access in n lawsuit by agreeing to certain prt)ccdt.trcs that were atloptcd as pan ot`a court orclcr.

3 Althouglt plz_ii~xitit`f_`s contend that this Court rhay act because "‘ricithcx' ol` the other courts is~s.trcd u.

dctcrn'iinatioxt ats to thc clussi'ficatiort_ status of any documcnt" ((`)pp’n at l_`_l), those cc)tir-t.$i trtloptccl ztgrcccl-ttpon procedures for classification tlctermiitzttit)ns by issuance ol;` their protective ordcrs. lt ;tlso bears noting thin the other tlistrict court clearly found that the gtivcmtticttt’s i,.r_i\:t)c~zrti<;)xi ol` the state secrets privilege was zipproprizxtc~ and that thc c.\'istcncc ot`s_ucli a privilege rcquircd thc distnissttl ot` Ms. l)oc's lawsuit in thatjttrisdic.tioxi. Tliat rt:lixtg titus zxf`tirnictl on uppc:tl. 'l`hus, it is clear that those courts have treated the clocumcnts that plzrinti_l`t`s sack in this Court ns containing information that, it`discloscd, could adversely al`_f`cct rta_tionztl security

`l in addition to'tltc prohlcxns ol` S'tutttling, thc Cfottr~t cannot ti nd. and plaintiffs ltn\~'c not cited, any law that gives them a l"irst Arncxidntcnt right (as opposed to a right 'undcr IFOIA) to have a Court review classification decisions ol` thc l}§xccutive Hrzmclt. On the coritrzlry, the Executivc 'Branch has "zttitliority to classify total cotitrol access to itit`c')rmat_iori hearing on tra.tional sccurity',""` Der]) ’1 o_f!!)t' ,,~'\"uv_t» 11 E§>cz)), 434 U.S. 5 l 8, 527 (] 983). and the Stzprctitc Couxt lists explained that ""[l]ot'

'_rcz~v:r)n;~; . . . too obvious to call 't`or cnlargccl discussion,’ thc prcrtcction ol` classified inl`orittzttion

xnust he cominittctl to the broad rl_iscrctiti)`ri ol"tl'\c tigcticy rcsponsihlc, un<.l this must intvlndc broad discretion to dctoiftniric who twitty liuvc ttcccss to it,"’ iri. (:tiuoting (_}`L»l ta .S'inr.\~, 471 .U.S. ]59, l70

( !985) (iittcrttnl citation ornittc‘tl`)f). "l`liis t:lztssiticattion authority has been repeatedly recognized in this C`.ircttit. S’t~'t~'_ e. Fz`lzgih/)t)n v, C`crzlr¢rl `/)z/cll)`,gcrrce .-'lge)zc?_t>, ‘)ll l".2tl 755, 762 (D.C. Cir. 19‘)0) ("'l`l'ic St.tprcrnc court hus ttncqtiix’<:)cally licld that the Dircctor otj`_tf`.crttr;~tl lnlc.l.ligeticc may protect all intclligcricc sourccs, regardless ol.`thcit' provcrialtcc.."’ (Citztt`iott omittct'l)v)_

to modify those ordcrs. Wiiile Ms. l,)oe"s case in the tother jurisdiction has ended, thc life ot` thc sealing and protective orders o,t` the courts in that jurisdiction \ivzt;~t intentied to extend past those ec)'urts" ,_jtidgriicrits, Tlieireibre, as the Prt')tecti.ve ()rder rnnl

\\"l'ien a court is confronted wilhoit ttctioii that wot'tl_ti iiivol\=c it in a serious

inter~t`ererice with or usurpation oi` this coritinuiiig po\vei‘ [c)l`;-txiot:iier court to

supervise and r_iiodit`_v its‘irijtiri<:'tions]`, considerations oi`coirtity and.-orderly

ttdriiirtistrz:ctiort ot`_justice denia’nd that the rionrcridcri‘ng court should decline

_}i.trisdict'ic)ri . . . and remand the parties for their rcliel` to the rendcriii_<__; court so

long rts-it is zipparcrit that a remedy is available thi:re. Ma)m .-l/{ Im': in 1 /rir/e,x', l')ic., 439 F.Zd 4()3, 408 (.“`)'"` Cir. 1971') (citatioii and iriterrial quotation tn'.-trks ornitted) (direetiiig tiistrict ct)ur't to dissolve irijurictiori harding dct`enduiit l`rorii bringing on l`or liearitig n certain iiiotior) in a separate ttetioii before unothe'r district ec;)tirt, that had itself zrlrczidy i`ss'ttctl nn iri_'jnnct`itiri in thc m;~tttcr). in this cztse, pl:-;tiritii`t`s do riot disptite their ability to seek the lifting or rnt;>diticatiori of`thc district and appetlate court settling and protective orders 'l`lierct`orc, the zipproprizite-nctr`oii is t"or them to seek such .relict"in the .issttiri_g, courts rather than to er)llatterz)ll_\-' elt;~tllcrt;_;c those courts’ orders liere. C,}`/'.` Dr¢.s‘hki)z Ptt/,)! `g (,)`r'ou;;), Z)zc. v. /i'i)i/'tzri't`ct’ (f,.'r.)/y)_, 136 F.R.D, `334, 335~36 {D.D.C`. 1991) (rct`tts§’itig to cornpel production ot` pleztdings, hrict`.s' and discovery documents gen'erzitetl in iinother district ec)urt ease xvherc those tloctiiiients were sttl)_ject to the protective order o l` at sister court`).

l~`tirtlierni~ore, pluintit`l`_\;' claim of unreuso_itttble delay is iiioot, and their request i"<`)r iirospe,etivc rci_i,e.t`is not ripc. in their first cause ot`zre'tioii, plziinti;t`t`zz" ttllcgc that tict`cndztrtts

violated the hirst z\tncndinciit and the AI.’A l:)_\," ttnrezts'orinbly delaying conipletion ol` the

classit`rcutiori review t_'.$"ue C'fonipl ‘ _ l.`)-lf).) 'l`litts, plnint`it`t`s"coiiteitcl flint this Cotxrt "ctiti

ct)rnpcl ugcricy action." i_'_/¢/. 8.) ilo\x~'ever, p.lttintit’t`s" concede that the l_)c)e Agericy has

eornple»tetl its cltt:;§,il"ic-zrtir')ii review ot` both the district court tloetrinents and the z.tppellate brief

-.;_

sought ltcrc. (.S`t'e. '/,aid Decl. l `l . 21.`) z\cc;_)tlc s.hoxvirtg that {tltey'_} \vill again he $ttb_jectccl to tile alleged illcga,lity." 1<.!.

l.ilnecl on this precliction, plaintiffs request that the Cottrt establish z;t time l`ramc. t`or the cotnpletit‘)n by the l_)<')e Ageney ol`z~t_ll future classification re\t'ie»vs. (_Coxttpl. l.’r::ty'cr for Rt:lic.l` 51) `Pl;titttil`t-'S` St,)¢<:ttlati\’e cl;)imS rot_zztrdizt_g lt_vpothctica`l t`ttture violzzti<)rts sure not 't'ipe. Not only tn;ty these cotttingencies never occur, but whether the 4

Doe Agcttey has cornplefe

proper clz:ssihezttion decisions clepetttls on t_lte: facts ol`.tho` put'ticttlat' sense "./\ clzxint is not ri pc

t`or atl`jttciiczitiott if it rests ttport eont_it.tgo)_tt t`ttture events _thztt tn:ty not occur its ztnticiptttcrl, or iit

iltt-'rrtt.tl qu€>lutiolt rn:)rl

discerned to cxist»nnd remedied ro»t,rospcctivcl§-'_." the relief requested is inappropriate/l :Vader v. /i)ernc)c')'¢‘/tit~ ;’\"ut'/ (_'r)/))/))., 555 li`. Supp. 2d l_`~.'/`_. 1132 ’(D.l).‘(';". ZOOS`). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasr)ns, defendzmts’ inotiott to dismiss will he grzn.tted. A separate

order ztccr)mpttt'tie`$ this ,.h-l`cmorztritltntt Opittiott.

/»l )S/

l:`.~ l..-l Sl:`.(_i Al . Hl \~' l_ii_..l_.l_.§ lfl';nitcd Statcs Dist'rit:t. .lttdgc

l_)t\te: April 7._ 2009

4 l°l,ztittt.iff.~t assert in their opposition that their claim is ri _pe because it tnzty "‘ztlsr) b<: viewed ass cha`llcxigiitg the ttnderlyittg policy than would govern the»authori/_atioxt of the cc)nd'uct that crimes the tlclt=tys"` ratltcr than sinipl_\-' as objoe.tittg to future ifiolzttions;. (Opp`xt at 21.`~,.,`) As defendants eorrcctly' point otn, lto\ve\~'cr, plaintiffs did not plead this claim. 'l.`htxs. thc C.`ourt will not Coxtsitler it, S’c.'t' .»-'l)'l)/`/r<{/'Q C.§`¢').'\'z: de (.'i.'cn)z})io\ ,‘€`. .-1. de C§.Y. i/'_ tr U.~.'S’_ ]’r).s~/cl/ iS`cz)'t\` 297 F, Sttpp. 2d 165, 170 (_D..D.C. 20'03) ("`lt is ztx_ionttttic that tr complaint tnay not he tuttendetl by the briefs in opposition to a motion to clismiss."' (citatiort on.tittetl)).

_@_