Case Detail
Case Title | NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2017cv00087 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2017-01-13 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-10-20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Christopher R. Cooper | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | CHARLIE SAVAGE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | New York Times reporter Charlie Savage submitted two FOIA requests to the National Security Division of the Department of Justice for copies of the 1984 Olson Memo, which Savage characterized as the legal basis for supporting the legality of NSA surveillance not covered by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. His second FOIA request asked for the cover letter sent with the Olson memo. The agency acknowledged receipt of the requests, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the New York Times filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Opinion/Order [20] FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Christopher Cooper has ruled that a 1984 memo written by Ted Olson when he worked at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel concerning the constitutionality of electronic surveillance is covered by Exemption 5 (attorney-client privilege). The Olson memo, which was prepared for the National Security Agency and had been referenced in congressional testimony in the past, was requested by New York Times reporter Charlie Savage. Although the memo was classified, the agency relied on Exemption 5 as the basis for withholding it. Savage argued that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because of the public references and DOJ's failure to ensure its confidentiality, and, alternatively, because it constituted the agency's working law. Savage emphasized that Olson's memo was technically written for the Attorney General, not the NSA, but Cooper found that argument too much. He noted instead that "the agency is the client who sought and ultimately received OLC's legal advice regarding its proposed activities. And that protection for the agency's confidential communications to its attorney is not lost simply because one attorney (the Attorney General) consults with another (the Assistant Attorney General for OLC)." Cooper pointed out that Savage's argument would undermine the value of the privilege. "Without a guarantee of confidentiality, executive branch agencies, like all legal clients, would hesitate to share private details about planned agency actions with the Attorney General when seeking legal advice." To support his argument that the agency had failed to maintain the memo's confidentiality, Savage pointed to two instances in which OLC attorneys referred to the memo, one in a 2007 memo from OLC to the National Security Division, and the other in the context of supporting the agency's privilege claim in this litigation. Cooper indicated that "neither of these documents evince the sort of sharing of confidential information with unaffiliated third parties that destroys the attorney-client privilege." Savage also noted that the Olson memo came up during the Senate confirmation hearings for former Attorney General Loretta Lynch when Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Lynch to provide a copy. Cooper explained that "the fact that members of the relevant Senate Committee did not have copies of the memo in 2015 cuts against the conclusion that the Olson Memo has been disseminated to third parties." Cooper found Savage's working law argument had been severely curtailed by the D.C. Circuit's ruling in EFF v. Dept of Justice, 739 F. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014), in which the D.C. Circuit rejected EFF's claim that a memo prepared by OLC for the FBI constituted the FBI's working law because the agency was not required to adopt OLC's advice. Cooper observed that "as with the FBI, OLC 'is not authorized to make decisions about' the NSA's activities or the Attorney General's approval thereof. And like the FBI, the Attorney General and NSA were 'free to decline to adopt' the reasoning or conclusions of the OLC opinion. Therefore, absent additional evidence that the Attorney General or NSA has affirmatively adopted the Olson Memo as their own policy and reasoning, the Olson memo does not constitute working law."
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|