Skip to content

Case Detail

[Subscribe to updates]
Case TitleAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Department of Justice
DistrictNorthern District of California
CitySan Francisco
Case Number3:2013cv03127
Date Filed2013-07-08
Date Closed2015-07-13
JudgeMagistrate Judge Maria-Elena James
PlaintiffAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
DefendantDepartment of Justice
Documents
Docket
Complaint
Complaint attachment 1
Opinion/Order [38]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California was ruled that EOUSA and the Criminal Division of the Justice Department properly withheld the bulk of several memos providing guidance on how government attorneys should approach the issue of court authorization to use location tracking technology in light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling in United States v. Jones under Exemption 5 (privileges). The memos were part of a response to a multi-part request from the ACLU of Northern California. The ACLU argued the memos constituted the working law of the agency on the subject of court authorization of the use of location tracking technology and were not protected by Exemption 5. But Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James disagreed, noting that the memos instead "involve legal issues that will ultimately be decided by the Court, not the DOJ. . .DOJ's interpretation of recent case law affects only the strategies government lawyers will use to obtain permission from the court to use location tracking techniques by law enforcement officers in criminal prosecutions." She added that "they are not directives, not interpretations of any of the DOJ's regulations, and not part of a body of law promulgated by the DOJ. Rather, they present arguments and litigating positions that federal prosecutors may pursue on a case-by-case basis." James found that portions of the Criminal Division's USABook, a legal resource book and reference guide for federal prosecutors, did not qualify as work product. She noted that 'the general description of the materials as guidance, coupled with the templates for use in obtaining location tracking information or devices, strongly suggest that these documents function like an agency manual, providing instructions to prosecutors on how to obtain location tracking information." James rejected the government's argument that information about a more precise use of publicly known investigative techniques could be protected under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). She indicated that "to the extent that potential law violators can evade detection by the government's location tracking technologies, that risk already exists." Rejecting the government's claims, she observed that "the declarations here set forth only conclusory statements that the public is not aware of the specifics of how or when the techniques are used, but do not state that the techniques are not generally known to the public."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Unknown to public, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Predecisional, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Deliberative process privilege - Deliberative
Opinion/Order [43]
Opinion/Order [49]
Opinion/Order [52]
Opinion/Order [53]
FOIA Project Annotation: A federal magistrate judge in California has ruled that templates used by DOJ attorneys to request cell site simulator warrants as part of investigations are protected by Exemption 5 (attorney work product privilege), but that the agency has not shown that other related records that do not qualify for the privilege are protected under Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques). The ACLU of Northern California requested the information and after EOUSA and the Criminal Division denied many of the records as attorney work product, the ACLU filed suit. The ACLU argued that in a previous decision pertaining to similar records, Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James had found that the attorney work product privilege did not apply to many of the records. The government had appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, but both the ACLU and DOJ agreed to let James decide the current case even though the Ninth Circuit had not yet ruled on the earlier case. After reviewing the records in camera, James largely agreed with DOJ that the templates were protected as attorney work product. The ACLU argued that the agency was required to show that the templates were created for specific litigation. But James rejected that claim, noting that "the actual purpose of the documents is to obtain the sought-after information, but the ultimate goal of that information is to use it towards the prosecution of alleged criminals. In that prosecution, a criminal defendant may challenge the Government's evidence through a motion to suppress, which in turn may implicate a number of the same factual and legal issues addressed in these withheld documents. In this sense, the court cannot divorce the non-litigation purpose�"i.e., simply procuring court authorization to obtain the suspected evidence�"from the litigation purpose�"i.e., forming the support for the criminal case and developing arguments to protect against attempts to prevent the acquitted evidence's use." She observed that "the litigation purpose and concerns in the later adversarial setting permeate the document's non-litigation purpose." James rejected DOJ's claims that records that did not qualify as attorney work product were nonetheless protected under Exemption 7(E). Noting that the Ninth Circuit required disclosure of techniques that were publicly known, James pointed out that "even reviewing these documents in camera, the Court cannot say that they reveal more than what is generally available to the public or that they risk circumvention of the law such that the application of Exemption 7(E) is required." The agency had withheld a search warrant that had been sealed in another case. James observed that the existence of a sealing order did not serve to withhold a record unless the order's purpose was to prohibit any disclosure. Finding that the sealing order did not provide a basis for withholding the record, she indicated that "the Government's assertion that the court intended the documents to remain sealed is inconsistent with the Order that for intents and purposes allows the Government to decide when to unseal those documents."
Issues: Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege compiled in anticipation of litigation
Opinion/Order [56]
FOIA Project Annotation: Resolving the remaining issues in a case brought by the ACLU of Northern California against the Justice Department for records concerning the use of mobile tracking technology known as a cell site simulator, a federal magistrate judge in California has ruled that an email from a DOJ attorney to another DOJ attorney concerning the use of agency equipment to obtain location information for a particular wireless device is not protected by Exemption 5 (privileges). Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James first found the email did not qualify as attorney work product. She noted that "while it does very briefly describe what type of legal process might be necessary to use the technology at issue, the description does not rise to the level of revealing any mental impressions, conclusions, or theories related to a litigation purpose. As such, the Court cannot find that a litigation purpose permeates these documents." James rejected the agency's assertion of attorney-client privilege as well. She pointed out that "it is not clear how this document qualifies as legal advice. The email appears to merely contain two excerpts from other documents, without any indication about why the author of the email compiled the excerpts together and for what purpose. Neither the Court's in camera review nor the Government's supporting declarations demonstrate that this email was communicated between lawyer and client or that it contains legal advice." James had previously found that Exemption 5 applied to templates used in asking for search warrants. After reconsidering parts of that ruling, she found that forms used to identify an unknown phone number before a search warrant was requested were too far removed from the attorney work product to be considered subject to the privilege.
Issues: Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney work-product privilege compiled in anticipation of litigation, Exemption 5 - Privileges - Attorney-client privilege
Opinion/Order [71]
User-contributed Documents
 
Docket Events (Hide)
Date FiledDoc #Docket Text

2013-07-081COMPLAINT against Department of Justice ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 34611087679.). Filed byAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-082Certificate of Interested Entities by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-083ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/2/2013. Case Management Conference set for 10/9/2013 01:30 PM. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order)(vlk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
2013-07-234CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiff shall file a consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge within 14 days of this notice. (This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice.) (ig, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/23/2013) (Entered: 07/23/2013)
2013-07-255ORDER RELATING CASE.. Signed by Maria-Elena James on 7/25/2013. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
2013-07-256ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James for all further proceedings. Judge Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu no longer assigned to the case.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James on 7/25/13. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2013) (Entered: 07/25/2013)
2013-07-297CLERKS NOTICE OF REASSIGNED CASE. Case Management Statement due by 10/3/2013. Case Management Conference set for 10/10/2013 10:00 AM. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2013) (Entered: 07/29/2013)
2013-08-018NOTICE of Appearance by Lynn Yuhee Lee (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 8/1/2013) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
2013-08-019ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting (36) Stipulation to Continue Motion Hearing in case 3:12-cv-04008-MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
2013-08-01Set/Reset Hearing re (37 in 3:12-cv-04008-MEJ, 9 in 3:13-cv-03127-MEJ) Order on Stipulation Motion Hearing set for 9/5/2013 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2013) (Entered: 08/01/2013)
2013-08-0510STIPULATION re Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint filed by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 8/5/2013) (Entered: 08/05/2013)
2013-08-2311ANSWER to Complaint byDepartment of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 8/23/2013) (Entered: 08/23/2013)
2013-09-1112STIPULATION re Processing of Plaintiff's FOIA Request filed by Department of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 9/11/2013) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
2013-09-1813AMENDED DOCUMENT by Department of Justice. Amendment to 12 Stipulation Appendix A . (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-1814AMENDED DOCUMENT by Department of Justice. Amendment to 13 Amended Document Stipulation - Appendix A . (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 9/18/2013) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
2013-09-1915ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 9/19/2013) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
2013-09-1916NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 9/19/2013) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
2013-09-1917ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 9/19/2013) (Entered: 09/19/2013)
2013-09-2318***PLEASE DISREGARD. INCORRECT DOCUMENT ATTACHED. SEE DOCKET ENTRY 19 FOR CORRECTION.*** ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM Pacific time. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2013) Modified on 9/23/2013 (af, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/23/2013 (af, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/23/2013)
2013-09-2319ADR Clerks Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on Thursday, October 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM Pacific time. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/23/2013) (Entered: 09/23/2013)
2013-10-0120MOTION to Stay Case filed by Department of Justice. Responses due by 10/15/2013. Replies due by 10/22/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 10/1/2013) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
2013-10-0221ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James in case 3:12-cv-04008-MEJ; granting (20) Motion to Stay in case 3:13-cv-03127-MEJ (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2013) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
2013-10-07ADR Remark: The ADR Phone Conference previously scheduled on October 3, 2013 did not take place due to government shutdown. It will be rescheduled after shutdown is over. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/7/2013) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
2013-10-0922ORDER VACATING CMC. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/9/2013. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
2013-10-09Set/Reset Hearing: Vacating October 10, 2013 CMC (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2013) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
2013-10-1723NOTICE by Department of Justice re Restoration of Appropriations (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 10/17/2013) (Entered: 10/17/2013)
2014-01-2324JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 1/23/2014) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
2014-01-2425CLERKS NOTICE DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE CONSENT OR DECLINATION BY JANUARY 31, 2014. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
2014-01-2426CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Department of Justice.. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 1/24/2014) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
2014-01-2827CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.. (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 1/28/2014) (Entered: 01/28/2014)
2014-02-2128STATUS REPORT and Supplementary Joint Case Management Statement by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 2/21/2014) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2014-03-2429STATUS REPORT and Supplement to Joint Case Management Statement by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 3/24/2014) (Entered: 03/24/2014)
2014-04-2330STATUS REPORT by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 4/23/2014) (Entered: 04/23/2014)
2014-04-24CLERKS NOTICE RE: CHAMBERS COPIES This is a text-only entry. There is no document associated with this notice The parties are hereby advised that they do not need to submit chambers copies, with the exception of documents that (1) are related to a pending motion and/or discovery dispute and (2) exceed 10 pages when combined. (For example, if there is a 20-page stipulation and proposed order, no chambers copy is required.) For these documents only, the submitting party shall comply with Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7). All chambers copies should be double-sided (when possible) and include (1) the ECF running header at the top of each page, and (2) exhibits, if any, that are clearly delineated with tabbed dividers. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/24/2014) (Entered: 04/24/2014)
2014-05-2331JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 5/23/2014) (Entered: 05/23/2014)
2014-08-1932CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Motion Hearing set for 1/15/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Motions due by 11/3/2014. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 8/19/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014) (Entered: 08/19/2014)
2014-10-2933STIPULATION to Amend Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule filed by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-2934STIPULATION AND ORDER re 33 Stipulation filed by Department of Justice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on 10/29/2014. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-10-29Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 11/26/2014. Responses due by 12/18/2014. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2014) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
2014-11-2635MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Justice. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Responses due by 12/18/2014. Replies due by 1/8/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of John Kornmeier with Vaughn index, # 2 Declaration of Peter Sprung, # 3 Exhibit A to Sprung Decl., # 4 Exhibit A-1 to Sprung Decl., # 5 Exhibit B to Sprung Decl., # 6 Exhibit C to Sprung Decl., # 7 Exhibit D to Sprung Decl. - Vaughn index, # 8 Exhibit E to Sprung Decl., # 9 Exhibit F to Sprung Decl., # 10 Exhibit G to Sprung Decl., # 11 Proposed Order)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 11/26/2014) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
2014-12-1836Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment OPPOSITION AND NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Motion Hearing set for 2/5/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. Responses due by 1/2/2015. Replies due by 1/9/2015. (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 12/18/2014) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
2014-12-1837Declaration of Linda Lye in Support of 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Cross Motion) filed byAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4, # 2 Exhibit 5, part 1 of 6, # 3 Exhibit 5, part 2 of 6, # 4 Exhibit 5, part 3 of 6, # 5 Exhibit 5, part 4 of 6, # 6 Exhibit 5, part 5 of 6, # 7 Exhibit 5, part 6 of 6, # 8 Exhibit 6, part 1 of 3, # 9 Exhibit 6, part 2 of 3, # 10 Exhibit 6, part 3 of 3, # 11 Exhibit 7-8, # 12 Exhibit 9, # 13 Exhibit 10-11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13-18, # 16 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) 35 ) (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 12/18/2014) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
2014-12-1838ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT CHAMBERS COPY re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Justice. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 12/17/2014. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2014) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
2015-01-0639STIPULATION to Extend Time for Defendant's Reply filed by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 1/6/2015) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
2015-01-1340REPLY (re 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment ) and Opposition to Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed byDepartment of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Supplemental) of Peter Sprung)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 1/13/2015) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
2015-01-2241REPLY (re 36 Cross MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment OPPOSITION AND NOTICE OF CROSS-MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT ) filed byAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
2015-01-2242Declaration of Linda Lye in Support of 41 Reply to Opposition/Response, filed byAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Related document(s) 41 ) (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 1/22/2015) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
2015-02-0343ORDER rescheduling hearing re: cross-motions for summary judgment 35 & 36 for 3/5/2015 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James; Joint Statement and related documents due by 2/17/2015. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/3/2015. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2015) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
2015-02-1244STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to (1) Extend time to file joint statement and additional declarations, and (2) Continue hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Risher, Michael) (Filed on 2/12/2015) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
2015-02-1345ORDER by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 44 Stipulation continue hearings to April 2, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., on cross-motions for summary judgment and file joint statement and additional declarations, (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2015) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
2015-02-13Set/Reset Hearing re 45 Order on Stipulation, Motion Hearing set for 4/2/2015 10:00 AM in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James. (rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2015) (Entered: 02/13/2015)
2015-03-0346Statement (Joint) re Documents in Dispute by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 3/3/2015) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
2015-03-0347Declaration in Support of 35 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Third Supplemental Declaration of Peter Sprung) filed byDepartment of Justice. (Related document(s) 35 ) (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 3/3/2015) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
2015-04-0248Declaration of Linda Lye in Support of 37 Declaration in Support,, Plaintiffs' Reply [Errata] filed byAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Related document(s) 37 ) (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 4/2/2015) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-0249ORDER re: In Camera Review of Documents. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/2/2015. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2015) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
2015-04-0350Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James: Motion Hearing held on 3/2/2015. FTR Time FTR: 10:06-10:25. Plaintiff Attorney: Linda Lye. Defendant Attorney: Lynn Y. Lee. Interpreter: None Needed. Attachment: Minutes of Motion Hearing - Cross Motions for Summary Judgment.(rmm2S, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/3/2015) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
2015-04-1751Statement re Documents Proposed for in Camera Review by Department of Justice. (Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 4/17/2015) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
2015-04-3052ORDER re: In Camera Review Document Sampling 51 . Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 4/30/15. (mejlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/30/2015) (Entered: 04/30/2015)
2015-06-1753ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/17/2015) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
2015-06-2454Declaration of Peter Sprung (Fourth) filed byDepartment of Justice. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Lynn) (Filed on 6/24/2015) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
2015-07-0855Statement re 53 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Joint) Seeking Clarification by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Lye, Linda) (Filed on 7/8/2015) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
2015-07-1356ORDER re: Motions for Summary Judgment 35 , 36 and CRM-Lye-17543-17544; ORDER re: Request for Clarification. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/13/15. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2015) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
2015-07-1357JUDGMENT ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 7/13/15. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/13/2015) (Entered: 07/13/2015)
Hide Docket Events
by FOIA Project Staff
Skip to toolbar