7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
1/35
UNITED STATES
DISTRI T
COURT
SOUTHERN
DISTRI T
OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
NICHOLAS MERRILL
Pla in t i f f ,
-
agains t
-
LORETTA
E. LYNCH in her o f f i c i a l
Capacity as Attorney General of
The
United
Sta tes , and
JAMES B. COMEY in his of f ic ia l
Capacity
as Director of
the
Federal
Bureau
of Invest iga t ion ,
Defendants.
14-CV-9763
VM)
DE ISION AND ORDER
-----------------------------------x
VICTOR
MARRERO
United States i s tr i c t Judge
Pla in t i f f Nicholas Merri l l ( Merr i l l ) brought su i t
seeking in junct ive r e l i e f agains t defendants
Loret ta
E.
Lynch, in her o f f i c i a l
capaci ty
as At torney General of the
United Sta tes , and James
B. Corney,
in h i s o f f i c i a l
capaci ty
as
Director
of
the
Federal
Bureau of
Invest iga t ion
(col lec t ive ly, Defendants or the Government )
.
(Dkt.
No.
1
( Complaint
o r Compl. ) .
Now
before the
Court
i s
M err i l l s motion for summary judgment, made
pursuant
to
Rule
56 of the
Federal
Rules
of
Civi l
Procedure ( Rule
1
The Court
notes
tha t ,
a t the
t ime Merr i l l
i n i t i a t ed th i s l i t i ga t ion ,
Er ic
Holder,
J r .
served as
the
Attorney
General of the United Sta tes ,
and
i n t h a t of f i c i a l capaci ty ,
was
a
named
defendant .
Pursuant to
Federa l Rule of
Civ i l Procedure
25(d), the
Court subs t i tu te s
Lore t ta
E.
Lynch
fo r Er ic
Holder,
J r .
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
2/35
56 )
/
seeking t ha t an
order
to li t a non-disc losure
requirement imposed by a National Secur i ty Let te r ( NSL )
from
the Federal
Bureau
of Inves t iga t ion (the FBI )
(Dkt.
Nos.
16,
17.)
The Government opposes Merr i l l ' s
summary
judgment
motion,
and
a lso
moves to
dismiss
the Complaint
or
for summary judgment.
(Dkt. Nos.
24,
25.)
I
BACKGROUND
In 2004, Nicholas Merr i l l was the
owner
and
opera tor
of Calyx
In te rne t Access ( Calyx ) , a
now-defunct
company
tha t provided a
number
of in te rne t services to i t s c l ien t s ,
including an in te r face
for maintaining
t he i r own
websi tes ,
2
The fac tua l
summary presented
here in der ives from
the fol lowing
documents:
Complaint, f i l ed Dec.
11,
2014, Dkt.
No.
l ; P l a i n t i f f ' s
Memorandum of Law in Support of i t s Motion
fo r Summary Judgment,
dated
Mar. 10, 2015, Dkt. No.
16
( Pl .
Mem. );
P l a i n t i f f ' s Rule
56. l
Statement , dated Mar. 10,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
18;
the Declara t ion of
Nicholas Merr i l l in
Support
of
Pla in t i f f ' s
Motion fo r Summary Judgment,
dated
Mar.
10,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
19
( Merr i l l
Deel . ) ;
the Declara t ion
of
Jonathan Manes in Support of
Pla in t i f f ' s
Motion for Summary Judgment,
dated Mar. 10,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
20
( Manes Deel . ) ; Government 's
Memorandum
of
Law in Support
of
the Government 's Motion to
Dismiss
or
for Summary Judgment, and in Opposi t ion to P l a i n t i f f ' s Motion for
Summary Judgment, dated Apr.
24,
2015,
Dkt.
No. 25 ( Gov' t Mem. ); the
Declara t ion of Gary Perdue in
Support
of the Government Motion, dated
Apr.
23,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
30
( Perdue Deel . ) ; the Government 's
Rule
56.1
Counter-Statement , dated Apr. 24,
2015,
Dkt. No. 26; Reply Memorandum
of Law in Fur ther
Support
of
P l a i n t i f f ' s
Motion for
Summary
Judgment
and in Opposi t ion
to
Government Motion
to Dismiss
or fo r Summary
Judgment,
dated June
11, 2015,
Dkt.
No.
36
( Pl .
Reply
Mem. );
Pla in t i f f ' s
Rule
56. l
Counter-Statement , dated
June
11,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
37; the Second Declara t ion of Jonathan Manes in Support of
Pla in t i f f ' s
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment
and
in
Opposi t ion
to
Government
Motion
to
Dismiss
or for
Summary Judgment, dated
June 11,
2015,
Dkt.
No. 38
( Second
Manes
Deel . )
; Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of
the
Government 's
Motion
to Dismiss or
fo r
Summary
Judgment,
and in
Opposi t ion
to Pla in t i f f ' s Motion for
Summary Judgment,
dated Ju ly
31,
2015,
Dkt.
No.
42
( Gov't Reply Mem. ).
Except
where
spec i f i ca l l y
referenced, no fur the r
c i t a t i on
to
these
sources wil l be made.
- 2 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
3/35
e lec t ron ic
f i l e
s torage ,
and
emai l
accounts .
In February
2004, an FBI agent served Merr i l l with an NSL ( the 2004
NSL )
which
was accompanied
by an
at tachment (the
Attachment )
l i s t i n g the types of records
the FBI
sought
from
Calyx. Under the US
PATRIOT
Act,
Pub.
L. No. 107-56
505(a), 115 Sta t . 272,
365
(2001) ,
3
in
e f fec t
then (and now
under
the US FREEDOM Act of
2015, Pub.
L. No. 114-23, 129
Sta t .
268)
/
the
FBI
can
i s sue
NSLs,
a type of
adminis t ra t ive subpoena
reques t ing
subscr iber informat ion
and
t o l l
b i l l i ng records
informat ion,
or
e lec t ron ic
communication t ransac t iona l
records
from a
wire or
e lec t ron ic serv ice
provider . 18
u.s.c.
2709 (a)
.
In i t i a l l y , the 2004 NSL proh ib i ted Merri l l from d isc los ing :
(1) t ha t he was the rec ip ien t of an
NSL,
(2) the
iden t i ty
of the
t a rge t
of the underlying
invest iga t ion ,
and
(3)
the
contents
of both the 2004 NSL and
the
Attachment.
The
Court f i r s t examined the
2004
NSL
in
Doe
v.
Ashcroft , 334 F. Supp.
2d
471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
( Doe
I ) .
In
Doe
I ,
the Court found an e a r l i e r vers ion of 18 U.S.C.
Sect ion 2709 ( Sect ion
2709 ), which provides the s ta tu tory
3
The
r e levan t s ta tu to ry provis ions regarding
NSLs
were amended by The
US
Pa t r io t
Improvement and Reauthor iza t ion Act of 2005,
115,
116(a) , Pub.
L.
No. 109-177, 120 Sta t .
192,
211-14 (Mar. 9,
2006)
( the
Reauthor iza t ion Act ) , and
the
US P a t r i o t Act Addi t iona l Reauthor iz ing
Amendments Act
of 2006,
4(b) , Pub. L.
No.
109-178, 120 Sta t .
278,
280
(Mar. 9, 2006)
( Addi t ional Reauthor iza t ion Act ) .
- 3 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
4/35
author iza t ion
for
the
FBI
to
issue
NSLs to
be
unconst i tu t ional
on i t s face.
Further , the Court
found the
Sect ion 2709 nondisclosure requirement unconst i tu t ional
under the
Fi r s t
Amendment as
an
unjus t i f i ed pr ior re s t ra in t
and
content-based re s t r i c t ion
on
speech. The Government
appealed to the
United
Sta tes
Court
of Appeals for the
Second
Circui t ,
and while the appeal was pending, Congress
amended
Sect ion 2709 to include a requirement
that , to
prohib i t disc losure of an NSL the FBI must
ce r t i fy tha t
disc losure
may
resu l t in an enumerated harm i . e . , a
danger to the nat ional secur i ty of the United Sta tes ,
in terference
with
a
cr iminal , counter ter ror ism,
or
counter in te l l igence
inves t iga t ion,
inter ference
with
diplomatic re la t ions ,
or danger
to
the l i f e or phys ical
safe ty
of
any
person.
18
u.s.c.
2709(c)
(1).
Congress
also enacted a
sec t ion
providing for jud ic ia l
review
of
an
NS
request or
re la ted
non-disclosure requirement .
See 18
U.S.C.
3511
( Sect ion 3511 ) .
The
Second Circui t remanded
to
t h i s Court
for fur ther considerat ion in
l i gh t
of these
amendments. See Doe v.
Gonzales,
449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir.
2006).
On
remand, in
Doe
v. Gonzales, 500 F. Supp. 2d 379
(S.D.N.Y.
2007)
( Doe
I I ) , the Court
again found
Sect ions
4
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
5/35
2709 (c) and 3511 b) unconst i tu t ional
on
the i r face. The
Court ru led
tha t
the
nondisclosure
requirement
vio la ted
the
Firs t Amendment
because t was not narrowly t a i lo red in
scope o r
durat ion.
Further , the Court
found
the jud ic ia l
review
provis ion
vio la ted the
cons t i tu t iona l
pr inc ip le s of
checks
and balances,
as
well as separa t ion of powers.
The Government appealed Doe I I , and the Second Circui t
aff i rmed in par t and reversed in par t . See John Doe
v.
Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second
Circui t
inval ida ted two
primary
aspects
of
Sect ions 2709 and
3511:
1) tha t FBI ce r t i f i c a t ion of cer ta in r i sks i s
en t i t l ed
to
a conclusive
presumption
(absent
bad
fa i th by the courts;
and
2)
the fa i lu re to provide
for
Government- ini t ia ted
jud ic ia l review.
See id .
a t 884.
The
Circui t
Court
construed the
remaining
par t s
of Sect ions
2709
and
3511
to
provide
cer ta in procedural safeguards
(as discussed in f ra ,
and held
that ,
with
those
safeguards, those
s ta tu tory
sec t ions were
const i tut ional . See
id . a t 883-85.
The Second Circui t then remanded to
t h i s Court
to
determine whether, in the l igh t of the Circui t Court s
reading of the s ta tu te and the procedural guidance t
provided,
the non-disclosure
requirement was cons t i tu t iona l
as-appl ied
to
the
NS
i s sued to
Merr i l l . On remand,
in Doe
- 5 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
6/35
v. Holder, 665 F. Supp. 2d
426 (S.D.N.Y.
2009)
( Doe I I I ) ,
the Court found the Mukasey standard sa t i s f ied . The Court
held tha t
a
good
reason
exis ted to
bel ieve
tha t
disc losure may r e su l t in a
harm re la ted to an
authorized
ongoing inves t iga t ion to protec t
agains t
in te rna t iona l
t e rror i sm or
c landes t ine
in te l l igence ac t iv i t i e s ,
and tha t
the
l ink between
disc losure
and the
r i sk
of harm
[was]
subs tan t i a l . Id.
a t 432.
Following
Doe
I I I ,
Merri l l
moved
for pa r t i a l
recons idera t ion
of
Doe
I I I
as t appl ied
to
the Attachment.
See Doe v. Holder, 703 F. Supp. 2d
313 (S.D.N.Y.
2010)
( Doe
IV ).
The
Court
granted
the motion in
par t and denied
t in
part ,
order ing
cer ta in information
disc losed.
The
Court found tha t two categories of mater ia l contained in
the
Attachment
should
be
disc losed:
1)
mater ia l
within the
scope
of
what
the NS s ta tu te iden t i f ies as permissible for
the FBI to obta in through the use of NSLs, and 2) mater ia l
tha t the FBI
has
publ ic ly
acknowledged
t
has
previous ly
requested by
means
of NSLs. See id. a t 316. The Court was
not persuaded
tha t
disc losure of these two categories of
informat ion
would ra i se
a
substant ia l
r i sk
tha t any of the
s ta tu to r i ly enumerated harms
would
occur . Id . As
to the
r e s t
of the
Attachment,
the
Court
found tha t the
Government
- 6 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
7/35
had demonstrated a reasonable l ike l ihood tha t disc losure
of the Attachment in i t s
en t i r e ty
could
inform
current
t a rge t s of law
enforcement
inves t iga t ions
including
the
par t i cu la r t a rge t of the Government's ongoing
inquiry
in
th i s
ac t ion,
as wel l as, poten t i a l ly fu ture t a rge t s as to
cer ta in types of records and
o ther
mater ia l s the Government
seeks through nat ional secur i ty inves t iga t ions
employing
NSLs. Id . a t 317. In so f inding,
the
Court noted
tha t
otherwise innocuous b i t s and pieces of data , when pieced
together ,
could
inform
current
and
poten t i a l ly fu ture
t a rge t s of the inves t iga t ion as to the types of records and
other mater ia l s sought by the government.
After the Court
decided
Doe IV, Merri l l and the
Government reached an agreement under which Merri l l
could
iden t i fy
himself as
the
rec ip ien t
of the
NSL. Doe
v.
Ashcroft , No.
04-cv-2614
(S.D.N.Y.),
Dkt.
No. 204
( July
30, 2010 Stip. and
Order
of
Dismissal ) . )
And
in 2014,
the
par t i es
reached
an agreement tha t
Merri l l
could f ree ly
discuss
most
aspects
of the NSL, including the iden t i ty of
i t s
t a rge t but he
could
not
discuss
the
Attachment
ident i fying cer ta in types of records the FBI
sought,
except
for those por t ions
of the
Attachment iden t i f i ed for
d isc losure in Doe IV. Doe v. Ashcroft , No. 04-cv-2614
- 7 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
8/35
(S.D.N.Y.) , Dkt. No.
227
( Apri l 15, 2014 St i p .
and
Order
Mod.
J . ) . )
Shor t l y
t he r e a f t e r ,
on December 11,
2014, Merr i l l
f i l e d
the
Complaint
aga ins t
the Government. At t he
t ime
Merr i l l
f i l e d h is i n s t a n t
ac t ion ,
Sec t ion
3511(b) (3)
a l lowed
NSL
r e c i p i e n t s
to
cha l lenge
non-d i sc losu re
requirements
annua l ly .
18 U.S.C.
35l l (b)
(3)
( in e f f ec t
Mar.
9,
2006 - June 1, 20 15). As such, M e r r i l l' s Complaint
proceeds as a
separa t e
a c t i o n
from
Doe I
and
ts progeny.
At i s sue in
t h i s l i t i g a t i o n i s whether t he
Government
can
con t inue t o p r o h i b i t d i s c l o s u r e o f t he
redac ted
Attachment
under Sec t ions 2907
and
3511 (as amended
on June
2,
2 015) .
Merr i l l
a s s e r t s
t h ree
causes o f
ac t ion : 1)
t ha t
t he non-d i sc losu re o rde r
p r o h i b i t i n g
d i scuss ion
o f
the
Attachment
i s
a
permanent
o r
e f f e c t i ve l y
permanent ban
on
speech p r o h i b i t e d by the
F i r s t
Amendment;
(2) t h a t
the
nond isc losu re orde r i s no t j u s t i f i e d
under Sec t ion 3511
because
the Government
cannot e s t a b l i s h a good reason to
be l i eve t ha t d i sc losu re may r e s u l t in
an enumerated
harm
r e l a t e d to an au thor i zed i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o
p r o t e c t
aga ins t
i n t e r n a t i o n a l
t e r ro r i sm
o r
c l andes t i ne i n t e l l i gence
4
As
amended,
Sec t ion
3511
no longer requi res an NSL
r ec ip ien t
who
unsuccess fu l ly
chal lenged a nondisc losure
requirement
to wai t a
year or
more
before
again seeking
j ud i c i a l
r e l i e f . (See Gov' t Reply Mem 3.)
- 8 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
9/35
ac t i v i t i e s ;
and (3) tha t ,
under
Sect ions
2709 and 3511,
once an NSL rec ip ien t has been permi t ted to ident i fy
himself , to
ident i fy the t a rge t
of
the NSL
and to d isc lose
the outcome
of the NSL then
the FBI cannot cont inue
a
non
disc losure
order
as
regards
o ther
aspec ts of the NSL.
Merr i l l argues t ha t he seeks
d isc losure
in order to
con t r ibu te
to publ ic discuss ion
as
to the
types
of
e lec t ron ic
communications
t ransac t ion records
t ha t the
FBI has sought and cont inues to
seek
through NSLs.
For
the
reasons
discussed
below, the Court
f inds
t ha t
the Government
has
not s a t i s f i ed i t s burden of
demonstra t ing
a
good reason to expect t ha t d isc losure of
the NSL
Attachment
in i t s
en t i r e t y
wi l l
r i sk
an
enumerated
harm,
pursuant
to
Sect ions 2709 and
3511.
Therefore ,
Merr i l l ' s
motion
for
summary
judgment
i s
GRANTED and
the
Government 's
cross-mot ion
to
dismiss
the
complain t
or , in
the a l te rna t ive , for summary
judgment
i s DENIED
I I .
DISCUSSION
A
STANDARD OF
REVIEW
Merr i l l
has moved for summary judgment, pursuant
to
Rule
56, and the Government has
cross-moved to dismiss ,
pursuant
to Federa l
Rule
of Civ i l Procedure
12
(b) (6) ( Rule
12
(b) (6)
) ,
o r in
the a l t e rna t ive
for
summary judgment,
- 9 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
10/35
pursuan t to
Rule
56. In cons ider ing a motion to
dismiss ,
the Court may
r e l y on
the
f ac tua l
a l l e ga t i ons s e t
f o r t h
in
the
compla int
i t s e l f and not on a d d i t i o n a l m at te r s a s se r t e d
in a f f i dav i t s ,
exh ib i t s o r o the r papers submit ted
in
conjunc t ion
with
the
motion. See Fr ied l
v . City of
New
York,
210
F.3d
79, 83-84 (2d Cir . 2000) . Because bo th s ides
have submit ted
subs t an t ive
dec la ra t ions o r o the r mater i a l s
not included in
the
Complaint , t he Cour t cons iders
the
Government 's
motion
as one
fo r
summary judgment .
The
Court may grant summary judgment
on ly i
it f inds
t ha t
t he re
i s
no
genuine
d i spu te
as to
any mater i a l
f ac t
and the
movant
i s
e n t i t l e d
to judgment as a
mat t e r of law.
Fed.
R. Civ.
P. 56(a) . The ro le of a
cour t
in ru l ing on
such a
motion i s
not
to reso lve
d i spu ted i s sues
of
f a c t
bu t
to as ses s
whether
t he re a re
any
f ac tua l i s sues to
be
t r i ed , while reso lv ing ambigui t ies
and drawing reasonab le
in ferences
aga ins t
the moving
par ty . Knight
v. Uni ted
Sta tes Fi re
Ins .
Co., 804 F.2d
9,
11 (2d
Cir .
1986) The
moving
par ty bears the burden of proving t ha t
no
genuine
i s sue of mater i a l
f a c t
ex i s t s o r t ha t by reason of the
pauc i ty
of
evidence
pre sen ted
by
t he
non-movant, no
r a t i ona l f a c t f
i nder could f i nd in
favor
of
the non-moving
10
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
11/35
party .
See
Gallo
v. Prudent ia l
Resident ia l
Servs . , 22 F.3d
1219, 1223 (2d Cir .
1994).
B
NON DISCLOSURE
ORDERS UNDER
SECTIONS
2709
ND
3511
On June 2,
2015,
Congress
enacted
the
USA FREEDOM
Act,
which, among
other s ta tu tory
changes, rev ises
Sect ions
2709
and 3511. The Government has ind ica ted
i t s
bel i e f tha t
these
changes to
Sect ions 2709 and
3511 r a t i fy
and codify
the
Second
Circu i t ' s decis ion
in [Mukasey] (Gov' t Reply
Mem a t 2.)
The
Government
notes tha t
the House Committee
Report
exp l i c i t l y ind ica ted tha t the rev is ions
to
Sect ion
3511 correc t [
] the cons t i tu t iona l defec ts in
the
issuance
of NSL
nondisclosure
orders
found
[ in
Mukasey] and adopts
the concepts suggested by
tha t
cour t
for a
cons t i tu t iona l ly
sound
process .
(Gov't Reply Mem a t 2 n.2 (quoting H.
Rep.
No.
114-109,
a t
24
(2015))
.)
In Mukasey, because of disagreement on the
panel ,
the
Second Circui t l e f t open the question whether
NSL
non-
disc losure orders were subjec t to
s t r i c t sc ru t iny
or a
l ess-exact ing scru t iny .
5
See 549 F.3d a t 877-78. Under
e i ther
l evel
of scrut iny,
however,
the
Second
Circui t
5
The Second C i r c u i t d i d n o te t ha t ,
f o r
purposes o f t he s p e c i f i c
l i t i g a t i o n
b e fo re
it
in
Mukasey,
t he Government
conceded
t h a t
stri t
s c r u t i n y
i s t h e app l i cab le s t anda r d . 549 F.3d a t 878. Here, too , t h e
Government
has conceded
t h a t t h e
high ,
indeed s t r i c t ,
s c r u t i n y
ap p l i ed
by [Mukasey]
c o n t r o l s
t h i s case . (Gov' t Mem. a t 11 . )
- 11 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
12/35
iden t i f i ed
two
l imita t ions
required
by the Fi r s t Amendment:
1) the Government must i n i t i a t e jud ic ia l review of non-
disclosure requirements i f
an
individual
subjec t
to the
non-disclosure
requirement
so
requests ,
and
2)
tha t
jud ic ia l review must be meaningful. See id. a t 878-83. As
to th i s second
l imita t ion,
the Second Circui t indica ted
tha t , to sa t i s fy F i r s t Amendment procedural requirements,
1) the
Government
has the burden
to
2) show tha t a good
reason ex is t s
to
expect tha t 3) disclosure of receipt of
an
NSL wil l
r i sk
an
enumerated
harm.
6
Id.
a t
881.
Firs t , by
placing
the burden on
the
government to show
a good reason, a d i s t r i c t
cour t
does not have to f ind a
negat ive, i . e . , tha t no
good reason
ex is t s to bel ieve tha t
disc losure may r i sk one of the enumerated
harms.
Id.
a t
876. Second,
as
to
the
good
reason
requirement:
[ ]
reason wil l
not
qual i fy as 'good' i f
it surmounts
only a s tandard of fr ivolousness. We unders tand the
s ta tu to ry
requirement
of a f inding tha t an enumerated
harm 'may r esu l t ' to mean
more
than a conceivable
6
When
Mukasey
was
decided , Sec t ion
3511 prov ided
t h a t a c our t cou ld
modify o r s e t a s ide a
nond i sc losu re
requ i rement i it found
no
reason
to be l i e ve
t h a t d isc losu re
may endanger the
na t iona l s e c u r i t y o f
the
United S t a t e s ,
i n t e r f e r e
wi t h a
c r imina l ,
c oun te r t e r ro r i sm, o r
coun te r in te l l igence inves t iga t ion ,
i n t e r f e r e wi th d ip loma t i c
r e l a t i o n s ,
o r
endanger
the
l i f e
o r
phys i c a l
s a f e t y
o f
any
pe r son .
18
U.S.
C.
35l l (b)
(2) - (3)
( in
e f f e c t
Mar. 9, 2006 June 1,
2015)
(emphasis
added)
.
At
t h a t
t ime,
under Sec t ion
3511,
a c our t was a l s o t o
t r e a t
an
o f f i c i a l
c e r t i f i c a t i o n
o f t h a t danger as
conc lus ive
absen t a f ind ing
o f
bad
f a i t h . This
ve rs ion
of
the s t a t u t e
remained in e f f e c t - - except
in the Second
C i r c u i t
as modif ied by Mukasey - - u n t i l June 2,
2015,
when the USA FREEDOM Act took e f f e c t .
-
12
-
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
13/35
poss ib i l i ty . The upholding of nondisclosure does
not
requi re the
certa inty ,
or even
the
imminence of, an
enumerated harm,
but some reasonable
l ike l ihood must
be
shown. The Government acknowledges
tha t while
the
reason
to
bel ieve s tandard in subsection
35ll(b)
unquest ionably
contemplates
a
deferen t i a l
s tandard of
review, in no way does t
foreclose
a
cour t from
evaluat ing
the reasonableness of the FBI's
judgments.
Id.
a t
875.
The Second
Circui t
then addressed whether courts could
be
required
to apply a conclusive
presumption
(absent bad
fa i th) to
the FBI cer t i f ica t ion :
While the court
wil l
normally
def e r to
the
Government's
considered
assessment of why disc losure
in a par t icu la r case may
r e su l t
in an
enumerated
harm
re la ted to such
grave matters
as in te rna t iona l
t e rror i sm
or
clandest ine in te l l igence
ac t iv i t i e s ,
t
cannot, consis ten t
with
s t r i c t
scrut iny
s tandards ,
uphold
a nondisclosure requirement
on
a conclusory
assurance tha t
such a l ike l ihood exis t s .
Id.
a t
881. Instead, the Government must a t l eas t indica te
the nature of the
apprehended
harm
and
provide
a
cour t with
some
basis to assure i t s e l f
tha t
the l ink between
disc losure
and
the r i sk
of
harm i s
subs tan t i a l .
Id. a t 881
(emphasis added) .
Final ly ,
as
to the th i rd requirement, the Second
Circui t s ta ted tha t the s ta tu to r i ly
enumerated harms
are
necessar i ly
keyed to the same s tandard tha t
governs
information
sought by an NSL
i . e .
re levant to an
authorized inves t iga t ion to protec t agains t in te rna t iona l
-
13
-
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
14/35
t e r ror i sm or clandest ine
in te l l igence
ac t iv i t i e s . Id. a t
875.
The sec t ions of the
US
FREEDOM Act amending Sect ions
2709
and
3511 incorporate port ions
of
Mukasey's
holding and
reasoning.
As in e a r l i e r
vers ions
of the s ta tu te , under
Sect ion 2709, the
government
may requi re non-disclosure for
four
s ta tu to r i ly enumerated
reasons, with ce r t i f i c a t ion
from an FBI of f ic ia l : i f disc losure could impl ica te 1 a
danger
to
the nat ional secur i ty
of
the United
Sta tes ; 2)
in te r ference with
a
cr iminal , counter ter ror ism, or
counter in te l l igence inves t iga t ion;
3
in te r ference
with
diplomatic re la t ions ;
o r
4) danger to the
l i f e
or
phys ical
safe ty of any
person.
18 U.S.C. 2709(c) 1) (B).
However,
Sect ion
2709
now a lso provides
tha t
an NSL
or a
nondisclosure
requirement
accompanying
an
NSL
i s
subject to
jud ic ia l
review
under Sect ion 3511, and tha t an
NSL must
include
notice of the ava i l ab i l i t y
of
jud ic ia l review.
18
u.s.c.
2709(d).
Most
re levant to the issue
a t
hand, the
US FREEDOM
Act made
s ign i f i can t
changes to Section 3511, the
s ta tu tory
provis ion
governing jud ic ia l review of NSLs. The curren t
vers ion
of Sect ion
3511
includes a
rec iprocal
notice
procedure (see Mukasey, 549 F.3d a t 879) providing
for
- 14 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
15/35
government- in i t ia ted review
of a
non-disc losure requirement
a f t e r not ice by the r ec ip ien t of
in ten t
to
chal lenge
the
non-disc losure
requirement.
18
U.S.C.
3511(b) 1) (A). And
no longer does Sect ion 3511
s t a t e
t ha t cour t s a re to give a
conclusive presumption, absent
bad f a i th , to the o f f i c i a l s
ce r t i f i c a t i on .
Now,
under
Sect ion 3511:
Standard A
d i s t r i c t
cour t
of the United Sta tes
sha l l i ssue a
nondisclosure order
i f the cour t
determines
t ha t there i s reason to bel ieve tha t
disc losure of
the
informat ion subjec t
to the
nondisclosure requirement during the appl icable t ime
per iod may
resu l t in
-
A) a
danger to
the
nat iona l secur i ty of
the
United
States ;
B) i n t e r fe rence
with a
cr iminal , counter te r ror ism,
or counter inte l l igence
inves t igat ion;
C)
i n t e r fe rence
with
diplomat ic
r e l a t ions ;
or
D) danger to
the
l i f e o r physica l safe ty of any
person.
18 u.s.c.
35ll(b)
3)
The Court agrees wi th the Government tha t ,
a t
leas t as
concerns
the re levant s ta tu to ry
provis ions
for the
case
a t
hand,
the
amended
Sect ions
2709 and 3511 codify
the
Mukasey
standard for j ud ic i a l review
of a non-disc losure
requirement
i . e . , tha t the Government
has
the
burden
to
show
tha t
a
good
reason
ex is t s
to
expect
tha t
disc losure
of
r ece ip t of an
NS
wil l r i sk an enumerated harm.
7
Therefore,
7
The Government argues t h a t [u] l t i m a t e l y , t he que s t i on under [ the
amended Sect ion] 2709
(c) and
[Mukasey] i s
whethe r the government
has
-
15
-
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
16/35
the
Court
wil l now
tu rn
to the appl ica t ion of the
Mukasey
standard,
as re f l ec ted
in Sect ions 2709 and
3511, to
the
port ions of the
Attachment
tha t
Merri l l
i s current ly
prohib i ted from discuss ing publ ic ly .
B PPLIC TION
TO THE
TT CHMENT
The Court now turns to
whether
the Government has
sa t i s f i ed
i t s
burden
of showing a
good reason exi s t s to
bel ieve
tha t disc losure of the
Attachment
could
resu l t
in a
s ta tu to r i ly
enumerated
harm re la ted to
an authorized
ongoing inves t iga t ion to protec t agains t in te rna t iona l
t e r ror i sm or
clandest ine in te l l igence ac t iv i t i e s .
The
Government
argues tha t
disc losure of
the
Attachment
would
reveal
law enforcement techniques tha t the
FBI has not acknowledged in
the
context of NSLs would
indica te
the
types
of information the FBI
deems
important
for inves t iga t ive purposes, and could lead to
poten t i a l
t a rge t s
of
inves t iga t ions
changing the i r
behavior
to evade
law enforcement detec t ion . (See Gov' t
Mem
a t
6.)
The Court
agrees tha t such
reasons
could,
in some
circumstances,
cons t i tu te good reasons for d isc losure . As the Second
Circui t s ta ted
in Mukasey, i t i s
obvious and
unarguable
met
ts
burden
o f showing a
'good
r easo n ' t o
ex p ec t t h a t
d i s c l o s u r e
w i l l r i s k
an
enumera ted
harm,
and ' some
b a s i s '
t o
conc lude t h a t
t h e
di sc losur e i s
l i n k ed
to
t h e r i sk .
(Gov' t Reply Mem. a t 8 . )
- 16 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
17/35
that
no
governmental i n t e r e s t
i s
more compelling
than
the
secur i ty of
the
nat ion. 549
F.3d
a t 878 (quoting Haig
v.
Agee,
453
U.S. 380, 307 (1981)) . Similarly , the Second
Circui t has ind ica ted tha t the government has
a compelling
i n t e r e s t
in
combatt ing
crime,
corrupt ion ,
and
racketeering. Sani ta t ion Recycling Indus. ,
Inc.
v.
City
of ew York,
107
F.3d
985,
998 (2d Cir. 1997). Such
in te res t s para l le l some
of
the Section 2709 enumerated
harms - -
i . e . ,
whether disc losure could impl ica te a danger
to the
nat ional secur i ty
of
the
United
Sta tes or
in te r ference
with a criminal ,
counter ter ror ism, o r
counter in te l l igence
inves t iga t ion.
However,
as
the Mukasey
Court
held,
cour ts
cannot, consis tent with
the Fi r s t
Amendment, simply accept the
Government's
asser t ions that
disc losure
would
impl ica te
and
crea te
a
r i sk
to
these
in te res t s . The Government must st ll
provide
a
cour t
with
some basis
to
assure i t s e l f
tha t the l ink
between
disc losure and
r i sk
of
harm
i s subs tan t i a l . See
Mukasey,
549 F.3d
a t
881 (emphasis added).
Here, the Government
has
not
demonstrated a good
reason to expect
tha t
publ ic disc losure
of
the
par t s of
the
Attachment tha t
remain
conf ident ia l would
r i sk
one of these
enumerated
harms; nor
has the Government
provided the
Court
-
17
-
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
18/35
with
some
basis to
assure
i t s e l f
tha t the l ink between
disc losure
and r i sk
of
harm i s
subs tan t ia l .
The
Government's
j u s t i f i ca t ions
might
cons t i tu te good reasons
i f the informat ion contained in the Attachment t ha t i s
st ll
redacted
were
not ,
a t l eas t
in
substance even i f
not
in the precise form,
a l ready
disc losed by
government
div is ions and agencies , and
thus
known
to
the
publ ic .
Here,
publ ic ly avai lab le
government documents provide
subs tan t ia l ly s imi la r informat ion
as
tha t
se t
fo r th
in
the
Attachment.
For
tha t reason,
the Court
i s
not persuaded
tha t t matters
tha t
these
other
documents
were not
disc losed
by
the
FBI i t s e l f ra the r than
by
other government
agencies , and tha t they would hold
s ign i f i can t
weight for a
potent ia l t a rge t of a nat ional secur i ty
inves t iga t ion
in
ascer ta in ing
whether
the
FBI
would
ga ther
such
informat ion
through
an NSL. The
documents
re fer red
to
were prepared and
publ ished by
various
government div is ions discuss ing the
FBI' s au thor i ty to i s sue NSLs,
the types
of mater ia l s
the
FBI seeks, and how to
draf t NS
reques ts .
Indeed, one of
these
documents i s a pub l i c ly av a i l ab le
Department
of
Jus t ice
Off
i ce of Legal
Education
manual
t ha t
provides a sample at tachment tha t encapsulates much of the
redacted- information
in the Attachment here in dispute .
The
18
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
19/35
sample attachment included there in would authorize the FBI
to request from a hypothet ical NSL rec ip ien t :
A) The
following
customer or subscr iber account
information
for
each account
reg is te red to
o r
associa ted with [email protected] for the time
per iod [date range] :
1.
subscriber
names, user names, screen names, or o ther
i den t i t i e s ;
2. mail ing
addresses,
addresses,
information;
res ident i a l addresses,
addresses, and
other
business
contact
3. loca l and long distance
telephone
connection
records,
or
records of
sess ion
times
and
durat ions ;
4. length
of serv ice including s t a r t date) and
types
of
service ut i l i zed ;
5.
telephone or ins t rument number or o the r subscr iber
number or
iden t i ty
including any temporar i ly
assigned
network address; and
6.
means
and source of
including
any
cred i t
and
b i l l ing
records .
payment for such service
card or bank account
number)
B)
All records and other information re la t ing to the
account s)
and
t ime per iod
in Part A, including:
1.
records
of user ac t iv i ty for any connections made
to
or from the account, including the
date,
time,
length, and
method
of
connect ions,
data
t r ans fe r
volume,
user name,
and
source and
des t ina t ion
Interne t Protocol
address es) ;
2.
telephone
records, including
ca l l e r
iden t i f ica t ion
records, ce l lu l a r
s i t e
and
sec tor information, GPS
data,
and
ce l lu l a r
network ident i fying information
3. non-content
information
associa ted
with
the contents
of any communication
or
f i l e
s tored
by
o r
for the
19
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
20/35
account(s)
such
as the source and des t ina t ion email
addresses and IP addresses.
4. Correspondence
and notes of records re la ted to the
account(s) .
(Manes Deel.
Ex. L a t 222-23.)
The
information
t h i s
sample attachment
revea ls i s
subs tan t i a l ly s imilar ,
in some ins tances
iden t i ca l ,
to
the
materia l
tha t
the FBI argues should
not be
disc losed
in the
Attachment.
The
Government contends tha t i f the
par t s
of
the Attachment tha t remain sec re t
are disclosed,
potent ia l
t a rge t s
could
change
the i r behavior to
evade
law
enforcement. But
those
t a rge t s
can a l ready
l earn , based on
publ ic ly avai lab le informat ion,
tha t the
FBI
could
obta in
such
information
through NSLs.
The
sample
attachment
indica tes tha t the
FBI can
seek
account
information
re la t ing
to
records
of user
ac t iv i ty
for
any
connect ions
including the
method
of connections,
data
t r ans fe r volume,
user name, and source
and
des t ina t ion In te rne t Protocol
address
(es)
. This i s
subs tan t i a l ly
s imi la r
to
some
of the
redacted categories of the
Attachment a t i ssue
i . e .
DSL account information,
and
Interne t Protocol (IP)
address
assigned
to the account .
Nor would
t
be
a leap
for someone
to
determine
tha t
other redacted categories in
the
Attachment i . e . , websi te
information
reg is te red to
- 20 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
21/35
the
account
and
Uniform
resource
loca tor URL) address
assigned to the
account
-- might
f a l l
in to the categories
iden t i f i ed
in
the
sample at tachment . Likewise,
the
sample
at tachment requests
the length of
serv ice
( including s t a r t
date)
[ re la t ing to an
account]
, which i s subs tan t i a l ly
s imi la r ly to the current ly-redacted category of the [d]a te
the account
opened
or
closed.
Merri l l a l so
points
to
a 2002 l e t t e r from
the
Deputy
Attorney General to Senator Pat r ick Leahy
(the
Leahy
Let ter ) , which
was l a t e r
repr inted as an appendix to a
2003
Senate Report . In tha t l e t t e r , the Deputy Attorney
General s ta tes :
NSLs can be served on In te rne t
Service
Providers to
obta in
information
such
as
subscr iber
name, screen
name or o ther on- l ine names,
records ident i fying
addresses
of e lec t ronic
mail sent
to and
from
the
account ,
records
re la t ing
to
merchandise
orders / shipping informat ion,
and
so
on but not
including message content and/or
subjec t
f i e lds .
(See
Manes Deel. Ex. J ) . Though t h i s
communication
i s now
publ ic
information published
in a Senate Report ,
see
S.
Rep. No.
108-40, 89-90 (2003), the Government nonetheless
seeks
to
prevent
Merri l l
from
disc los ing
tha t
the
Attachment sought
Records
r e l a t i ng
to
merchandise
orders / shipping informat ion for the l a s t 180
days
as well
as Order
forms.
Since
th i s
information
has already been
- 21 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
22/35
subs tan t i a l ly
disc losed in correspondence
by the Jus t i ce
Department to
Congress, as
ind ica ted by the Leahy Let ter ,
the Court i s
not
persuaded
tha t
there i s a subs tan t ia l r i sk
that
disc losure of subs tan t i a l ly the same information in
the
Attachment
would
lead
future
t a rge t s of inves t iga t ions
to
change
the i r behavior to
evade
law
enforcement
to
any
mater ia l ly
grea te r
extent
tha t
they
would
from
the
informat ion they have already
avai lable
in a publ ic ly-
avai lab le Senate Report.
8
Simila r ly ,
the Government
claims
there i s
a good
reason to prevent disc losure
of
the phrase and
re la ted
subscr iber
information in the category
Subscr iber
name
and re la ted
subscr iber
information.
However,
it i s
genera l ly known
tha t the
FBI
can
col lec t subscr iber
information
through
NSLs;
indeed,
subscr iber
information
i s expressly
iden t i f i ed in Section 2709(a)
in grant ing
the
s ta tu tory author i ty
for
the issuance of NSLs.
See
18 U.S.C.
2709 (a)
( A wire
or
e lec t ronic communication serv ice
8
The Court notes tha t
the Leahy
Let te r does
not reveal the 180 day
t ime per iod in which
the FBI
sought order
and shipping informat ion
from
Merr i l l . The Perdue Declarat ion argues t h a t
i
t h i s 180-day per iod
i s
revea led , then
po ten t i a l
t e r ro r i s t s
could manipulate
order s to
avoid
having
those orders f a l l within the 180
day
per iod. (Perdue
Deel.
,
64.) The Court i s not persuaded. A
po ten t i a l t e r ro r i s t
does not
know
when,
i f
ever, the
FBI wil l
i s sue
a re la ted NSL.
The
180-day
per iod
c lea r ly r e la tes to the date Merr i l l
rece ived
the NSL, and it i s hard to
imagine any
person ou ts ide of
the FBI having the
knowledge
about when
an NS
might
be
i ssued,
and changing t he i r behavior as a r e s u l t .
- 22 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
23/35
provider
sha l l
comply with
a
reques t
for
subscr iber
informat ion.
. ) ; see also
Manes Deel. Ex.
I
a t
3-5
Memorandum Opinion
for
the FBI' s
General
Counsel Office
tha t
discusses ,
a t
length, the
term
subscr iber
information ) .
9
Therefore, the
Government has not
provided a
good
reason
to
ju s t i fy
non-disc losure
of
the
word
subscr iber and s imilar i t e ra t i ons of tha t word; Sect ion
2709 and publ ic government documents make
c lear
tha t NSLs
seek
subscr iber
information.
Perhaps
rea l iz ing the
tenuous
connect ion of the
disc losure of such informat ion
in the ins tan t
Attachment to
enumerated harms,
the
Government, during the
course of
br ie f ing
i t s motions,
conceded
tha t non-disc losure
was
no
longer
needed
for c e r t a in
categories
of
records the
FBI
seeks
in
par t i cu la r ,
the
reques t for
In te rne t
serv ice
provider
(ISP), [ a ] l l
e-mai l addresses
associa ted
with
[the] account , and [s] creen names or o ther on- l ine names
assoc ia ted
with the account .
(See
Gov't Mem Attach.) That
the
Government conceded
to
d isc losure of these ca tegor ies
only when, during
the
course of
l i t i ga t ion ,
t was
9
A pub l i c ly -ava i l ab le
March
2007 Report from the Department of
Jus t ice
Off ice of the
Inspector General a l so
ind ica ted
t h a t
the FBI
can
ob ta in
through NSLs [ s ]ubsc r ibe r informat ion
as soc ia ted
with par t i cu l a r
t e lephone numbers o r e-mai l addresses , such as
the
name, address ,
length of se rv ice ,
and
method of
payment. (Manes
Deel.
Ex. K a t 10.)
3
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
24/35
s ta tu to r i ly required
to
provide the FBI ce r t i f i c a t ion
jus t i fy ing non-disclosure,
lends credence
to
M err i l l s
argument
that ,
for years,
the
non-disclosure requirement
enforced agains t
him
was overly
broad
and
could
not be
supported by a good reason.
111
0 (Compare Merr i l l Deel.
Ex.
C
with
Gov't
Mem
Attach.)
Indeed,
many of the remaining
redact ions
in the
Attachment are even harder
to
ju s t i fy
than the
categories
discussed thus
far .
For example, the Government seeks to
prevent
Merri l l from
disc los ing
tha t
the
Attachment
requested
Subscriber day/evening telephone numbers even
though
the
Government
now
concedes
tha t
the
phrase
telephone number can be
disc losed.
The
Court i s not
persuaded
tha t
there i s
a good reason to
bel ieve
tha t
disc losure
of
the
fac t
that
the
Government
can use
NSLs
to
seek both
day
and
evening
telephone
numbers could resu l t
in
an enumerated
harm, especia l ly i f t
i s already publ ic ly
known tha t the Government
can
use NSLs to
obta in
a
telephone number,
more genera l ly .
10
Also in te res t ing ly ,
the
Perdue
Dec la r a t ion
argues t h a t the ca tegory
of [a]
ny o ther
informat ion
which
[ the
r ec ip ien t ]
cons ider
[s]
to be an
e lec t ron ic communication t r ansac t iona l record should not be disclosed.
(See Perdue
Deel.
70.) However, t h i s ca tegory
was
not redac ted
by
the
Government
in i t s
submissions
o r
even in
the Perdue Declara t ion.
- 24 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
25/35
s another example of the extreme
and
overly broad
charac ter of these
redact ions,
the
Government
apparently
bel ieves
tha t while the publ ic
can
know tha t t seeks
records of an address
and
a telephone number,
there
i s
a
good reason
to
prevent
disc losure
of
the fac t tha t the
Government can seek addresses and telephone numbers.
(See Gov't
Mem
Attach.)
In any event ,
based on the
Government's redact ions alone, a poten t i a l t a rge t
of
an
inves t iga t ion,
even a
dim-wit ted
one,
would
almost
cer ta in ly be
able to determine, simply by running through
the alphabet , tha t telephone numberll
could
only be
telephone numbers. Redactions tha t defy common sense
such as conceal ing
a
s ingle l e t t e r a t
the end of a word
diminish the force of the Government's claim to
good
reason
to
keep
informat ion
under
sea l ,
and undermine
i t s
argument
tha t disc losure
of the current ly-redacted
informat ion in the Attachment
can
be l inked to a
subs tan t ia l r i sk
of
an enumerated harm.
s a
th i rd example,
the Government seeks to prevent
disc losure
of the
phrases re la ted
to
account
and
associated
with the
account for
cer ta in
categories
of
records
sought ,
even
though
the
Government has acknowledged
tha t
there i s no need for non-disclosure
of
the main
5
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
26/35
informat ion the NS
sought
to
col l ec t
- - i . e . , informat ion
re la ted to an
address
and bi l l ing . The Court i s not
persuaded
tha t
there
i s a good reason
for
non-disc losure of
the fac t
t ha t these reques ts
were keyed
to a
par t i cu l a r
account; obviously, the Government uses NSLs to
obta in
informat ion
re la ted to
a
par t i cu l a r
subscr iber or account .
(See,
~ Manes
Deel.
Ex.
I
a t
5 Memorandum Opinion for
the FBI 's
General
Counsel Office
discuss ing loca l
and
long
dis tance
t o l l
b i l l i ng
records t ha t
could be
a t t r i bu t ed to
a
par t i cu l a r account . )
11
Addi t iona l ly ,
the
Government seeks to
keep
some
informat ion redacted
despi te
publ ic ly
conceding
t ha t those
types
of records
( i . e . , radius
log informat ion, which
i s
cel l - tower
based phone t racking
information)
are
no
longer
sought
through
NSLs.
Yet
the
Government
st ll
argues
tha t
t h i s informat ion
should
remain redacted
because
t
would
reveal techniques tha t
might be
used
a t
some undetermined
time
under
a hypothet ica l pol icy promulgated by a fu ture
adminis t ra t ion . (See
Perdue
Deel.
59.) This reason i s not
a
good
reason; ne i the r i s the l ink between
disc losure
and
11
Similar ly , the pub l i c ly -ava i l ab le March
2007 Report
from the
Department of Jus t ice Off ice o f the Inspector General indicated tha t
e lec t ron ic communication t ransact ional
records inc lude e-mail
addresses associa ted with the
account ; screen names;
and b i l l i ng
records and method of payment.
11
(Manes Deel. Ex. K a t
10.)
- 26 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
27/35
the r i sk of harm subs tan t ia l . Furthermore, as Merri l l
argues, t i s
no secret
tha t the
FBI can access radius
log informat ion, and the other
information
iden t i f i ed in
the
Attachment through means other NSLs. (See Pl.
Mem
a t
19; Pl. Reply Mem
a t
11, 21-22.)
Therefore, the
Court
f inds tha t the
Government has
not
demonstrated a
good
reason to
bel ieve
that potent ia l
t a rge t s of
nat ional secur i ty
inves t iga t ions wil l
change
the i r behavior to
evade
detec t ion , or tha t disc losure
of
the Attachment in i t s ent i re ty
would
crea te a subs tan t ia l
r i sk of one
of
the s ta tu to r i ly enumerated harms.
The
Court ' s
rul ing here
i s
cons i s ten t with the
Court ' s
pr i o r decisions re la t ing to the NSL i ssued to Merr i l l .
Firs t , the present
challenge
can be
factual ly
dis t inguished
from
Doe
I I I and
Doe
IV.
In Doe
I I I ,
t h i s
Court found
tha t
the
Government
had
ca r r ied i t s burden
of
showing a good
reason
to keep the
ent i re
NSL
l e t t e r
and
Attachment,
including
the
iden t i ty of
the
rec ip ien t and t a rge t ,
conf ident ia l . In
Doe
IV,
while
the inves t iga t ion
remained
ongoing,
the
Court
found tha t
spec i f ic
information
in
the
Attachment
could
be disclosed: both mater ia l within
the
scope of
information that the
NSL s ta tu te iden t i f ies as
permissible
for the
FBI to obta in through
the use of
NSLs
- 27 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
28/35
and mater ia l t ha t the FBI has publ ic ly acknowledged t
has
previously requested
by
means
of NSLs. See 703 F.
Supp.
2d
a t
316.
Since
then,
the Government's inves t iga t ion has been
closed, and the par t i e s
have reached agreement
t ha t
Merri l l
can
ident i fy
himself as
the
2004 NSL rec ip ien t
and
disc lose
the
i den t i ty
of the t a rge t .
Now unl ike ea r l i e r i t e ra t ions
of th i s l i t iga t ion ,
the
asser ted Government in te re s t in
keeping the
Attachment
conf ident ia l
i s based so le ly on
protec t ing
law
enforcement
sensi t ive information t ha t
i s
relevant to
fu ture
o r poten t i a l
nat ional secur i ty
inves t iga t ions . The Government argues that , in Doe IV, the
Court found
such
a ju s t i f i c a t ion to
cons t i tu te
a good
reason.
(Gov' t
Reply
Mem.
a t
8
n.
6.) However, the Court
did
not
make
such
a
broad
statement
there .
In
Doe
IV,
the
Court found t ha t the Government has
demonstrated
a
reasonable l ike l ihood
t ha t
disc losure of
the
Attachment in
i t s ent i re ty could
inform
current
t a rge t s of law
enforcement
inves t iga t ions , including the par t icu la r t a rge t
of the Government's ongoing
inquiry
in
t h i s
act ion,
as
well
as, potent ia l ly ,
fu ture
t a rge t s . 703
F. Supp.
2d
a t
317.
The Government claims
that
the
term
fu ture ta rge ts were
obviously, not the subjec ts
of
an
'ongoing' underlying
28
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
29/35
inves t iga t ion .
(Gov' t Reply Mem a t 8 n. 6.) On
tha t
point ,
the
Government
assumes
too much.
The
fu ture
t a rge ts re fe r red
to
in
Doe IV
were,
more accurate ly ,
l imi ted to
fu ture
t a rge t s of
tha t
same i nves t iga t ion , which
was
not ye t
c losed
or publ ic ly
known.
12
In any event , as discussed supra, circumstances have
changed
s ince
Merr i l l ' s
rece ip t of the
NSL
the
i nves t iga t ion
has
closed, the
Government
no
longer
prohib i t s
disc losure of
M err i l l' s i den t i t y or the
i nve s t i ga t ion ' s
ta rge t ,
and many, i f not a l l ,
of
the
redacted inves t iga t ive techniques
a t
i ssue here have been
disc losed by
other
government
agencies. Therefore, t
s t r a i ns c redul i ty
tha t
fu ture
t a rge t s
of
other
invest iga t ions would change t he i r behavior
in l i gh t
of
the
current ly-redacted
informat ion,
when
those
t a rge t s
(which,
according to the
Government,
include
sophis t ica ted fore ign
adversar ies , see Perdue Deel. 56)
have access
to much of
12
The Court
i s not
holding
tha t there are no
ci rcumstances
in which the
Government might be able to provide a good reason for non-disclosure ,
even when tha t reason
i s keyed
to author ized i nves t iga t ions
to p ro tec t
against
in te rna t iona l
te r ror ism
o r
clandest ine
in te l l igence
ac t iv i t i e s ,
general ly ,
ra the r than
to
a
par t i cu l a r
ongoing invest iga t ion .
Ins tead,
based on the
fac ts
and submissions before i t , the
Government
has not
sa t i s f i ed i t s burden tha t there i s a good
reason to expect tha t
disc losure here with
these
par t i cu l a r f ac tua l
circumstances
ra i ses
a subs tan t ia l
r i s k tha t any of the s t a tu to r i l y enumerated
harms
would
occur.
29
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
30/35
th i s same
information
from other
government
div is ions
and
agencies.
Relatedly, the case a t
hand
can
be
dis t inguished from
case law c i t ed by the
Government
(see Gov t Reply
Mem
a t
11-12) for the proposi t ion tha t information
need
only be
disclosed
i f the
spec i f ic
agency
had made an
o f f i c i a l
disc losure of the protec ted information. See, ~ Wilson
v.
CIA,
586 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2009). Those
cases
e i the r
involve Freedom of Informat ion
Act ( FOIA )
reques ts of
c la s s i f i ed
government information,
or i ssues
re la ted to
disc losure of c la s s i f i ed information
by
current or former
government
of f ic ia l s
who
were under
a
cont rac tua l
obl iga t ion
to
keep c la s s i f i ed information conf ident ia l . At
issue here, however,
i s
law enforcement sens i t ive mater ia l
not
c la s s i f i ed
information.
The
Government s
j u s t i f i ca t ions
for keeping
the Attachment
conf ident ia l
impl ica te c la s s i f i ed
information contained in the
ex
par te
in camera Perdue
Declarat ion. However,
Merri l l i s not
seeking disc losure of the mater ia l contained there in.
He
seeks
disc losure only of the Attachment,
which
i s
not
c lass i f ied .
Furthermore, the pla in t i f f
here
i s a pr iva te c i t i zen
not
a government o f f i c i a l who had a cont rac tua l obl iga t ion
- 30 -
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
31/35
to
keep information conf ident ia l . As such,
there are
s ign i f i can t
reasons for t rea t ing the mater ia l
a t
hand
di f fe ren t ly
from c la s s i f i ed
information tha t i s
normally
access ib le only
to
individuals
with secur i ty
clearance .
A
pr iva te
c i t i zen
should be
able
to disc lose information tha t
has already been publ ic ly disc losed
by any government
agency
a t l eas t
once the under lying inves t iga t ion
has
concluded and there i s
no
reason
for the
i den t i t i e s
of the
rec ip ien t and
t a rge t
to remain
secret .
Otherwise, it would
lead
to
the
resu l t tha t c i t i zens who have not received such
an
NS
request can speak about
information tha t
i s
publ ic ly
known
(and
acknowledged
by o ther agencies) ,
but
the
very
individuals who have
received such
NS
reques ts
and are
thus
bes t sui ted to inform
publ ic
discussion on the topic
could
not.
Such
a
resu l t
would
lead
to
unending
secrecy of
act ions taken by
government
off ic ia l s i f pr iva te
c i t i zens
ac tua l ly
affec ted by
publ ic ly
known law enforcement
techniques could not
discuss
them. See Doe
v. Gonzales, 449
F.3d
415, 422 (2d
Cir. 2006)
(Cardamone, J. concurring)
I f the Court were
to
f ind ins tead
tha t
the Government
has met
i t s burden of
showing
a good reason
for non-
disc losure
here ,
could Merri l l ever
overcome
such
a
showing? Under the
Government's
reasoning,
the Court
sees
31
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
32/35
only
two such
hypothet ical circumstances in
which
Merri l l
could prevai l : a
world
in which
no
th rea t of t e rror i sm
exi s t s , or a
world
in which the FBI, act ing on i t s own
accord
and i t s own
time,
decides to disc lose
the contents
of the Attachment. Such a
r e su l t impl ica tes
ser ious i ssues ,
both with
respect
to
the Fi r s t
Amendment and accountabi l i ty
of the
government
to the people.
13
As
Judge Cardamone warned
in
his concurrence
in Doe v. Gonzales, a ban
on
speech and
a shroud of secrecy in pe rpe tu i ty are an t i the t i ca l to
democratic concepts and do not
f i t
comfortably
with
the
fundamental
r igh t s
guaranteed
American
c i t izens , and such
unending secrecy could
serve as
a cover for poss ib le
of f ic ia l
misconduct
and/or incompetence.
449
F.3d
a t
422.
Because the
Court
f inds tha t
the Government
has not
shown
a
good
reason
for
continued non-disclosure of the
Attachment,
pursuant to Section 3511, the
Court
need
not
(and should
not)
consider
Merr i l l ' s other arguments
tha t
continued non-disclosure here
cons t i tu tes a vio la t ion
of
his
Fi r s t
Amendment r igh t s and tha t the
Government
has
exceeded i t s
s ta tu tory author i ty
for non-disclosure in the
13
Such
unending
secrecy i s a l so a t odds with
Pres ident
Obama' s
2014
remarks,
in
which he d i r ec ted the Attorney
General
to l im i t
the
dura t ion of NSL gag orders . (See
Manes Deel. Ex.
S.)
32
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
33/35
i n s t a n t case .
4
See Kreisberg v . Heal thBridge
Mgmt.
LLC
732
F.3d
131, 138
(2d Cir . 2013)
( When,
as
here ,
a
case
may be reso lved
on
othe r
grounds ,
cour t s
may
dec l ine
to
reach a
cons t i tu t iona l
ques t ion
to
' avo id
decid ing
co n s t i t u t i o n a l
i s sues
n e e d l e s s l y . ' ) .
I I I . ST Y OF JUDGMENT
As
the
Court d i d in Doe I and Doe
I I ,
in l i g h t o f
the
impl ica t ions o f
i t s
r u l i n g and
the importance of
the
i s sues
involved , the Cour t
w i l l
s tay enforcement o f
ts judgment
pending appeal ,
o r
fo r
the
Government to otherwise pursue
any a l t e rn a t e course of ac t ion , fo r 90 days. The s tay
i s
in tended to give
the
Government
the
oppor tun i ty to move
t h i s
Court ,
o r
the Court
of Appeals
fo r
whatever
appropr ia te r e l i e f
t may
seek to main ta in
the
c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y
of
any
in fo rmat ion
impl ica ted
by
the
Cour t ' s
ru l ing .
For those
same
reasons ,
por t ions
o f
the Cour t ' s
opin ion
those
sec t ions revea l ing the con ten t s
o f
the
Attachment
a re redac ted
in
the
p u b l i c
f i l i n g
o f
t h i s
Decis ion
and
Order , in
order
to
preserve the Government 's
oppor tun i t i e s fo r f u r th e r appe l l a t e review o f t h i s Decis ion
14
As a
r esu l t ,
the Court
need
not reach whether s t r i c t scrut iny appl ies
to
M err i l l ' s claims.
The
Second
Circui t
found
the procedural
safeguards
appl ied
here
are required under
e i t he r
s t r i c t
sc ru t iny
o r
a
l e s s
exact ing scrut iny . See Mukasey, 549 F.3d a t 879,
882.
-
33
-
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
34/35
and Order
requ i r ing d i sc losure
of the Attachment . In
the
event t h a t t h i s r u l i n g requ i r ing d i sc losure o f the
Attachment i s not a l t e r e d in
the course
o f any f u r th e r
appe l l a t e review,
an
unredac ted
ve rs ion
of t h i s opin ion
w i l l be
f i l e d .
See New York Times Co. v . U.S.
Dep t
o f
J u s t i c e , 752
F.3d
123, 123
n.1
2d
Cir .
2014) .
IV.
ORDER
For
the reasons discussed
above,
it
i s
hereby
ORDERED
t h a t the motion fo r
summary
judgment
Dkt.
No.
16) o f P l a i n t i f f Nicholas Merr i l l i s GRANTED and it
i s
fu r the r
ORDERED t h a t the
motion
to dismiss
the
Complaint o r
fo r
summary judgment Dkt. No. 24) of
the Government
i s
DENIED and it i s
f u r th e r
ORDERED
t h a t
the
Clerk
of
Cour t
sh a l l
f i l e
the
redac ted vers ion of t h i s Decis ion and Order
on
the pub l ic
docket ;
and it i s
f u r th e r
ORDERED t h a t the Clerk of Cour t sh a l l en t e r judgment
accord ing ly bu t s tay enforcement of the judgment pending
any appeal , or , i no appeal i s f i l e d ,
fo r 90
days
from the
da te o f t h i s
Decis ion
and
Order .
34
7/23/2019 Merrill v. Lynch - Order to Vacate Gag Order
35/35
The
Clerk of Court i s dire ted to terminate the motion
for
summary
judgment Dkt.
No.
16) and the motion to
dismiss o r
for summary
judgment
Dkt. No.
24),
and
to lose
t h i s case.
SO ORDERED
Dated:
ew York,
ew
York
28
August 2015
35
~
.S .D.J .