Plaintiffs-Appellants, Docket Nos (L), 445(Con) DECLARATION OF SARAH S. NORMAND. SARAH S. NORMAND, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1746, declares as

Similar documents
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY Telephone:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term Argued: October 25, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term Argued: May 15, 2018 Decided: July 5, Docket No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. DIVISION [Number]

Case 1:13-cv AT Document 18 Filed 03/03/14 Page 1 of 8 ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

APPEALS, LITIGATION and WORKING WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:15-cv PKC Document 20 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10. Plaintiffs, 15 Civ (PKC) DECLARATION OF PAUL P. COLBORN

No CONSOLIDATED WITH Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT H. RAY LAHR, Plaintiff-Appellee,

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DEFEENDANT-APPELLEE S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

Overview of FOIA Litigation. ASAP National Training Conference. ASAP National Training Conference. Presented by Brent Evitt

Case 1:10-cv RMU Document 25 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:15-cv ARR-RLM Document 1 Filed 12/11/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

15-XXXX =========================================================== UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. Docket No.

DIRECTIONS IN RELATION TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Case 1:10-cr RDB Document 113 Filed 05/10/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case3:08-cv JSW Document80 Filed05/12/09 Page1 of 8

Case 1:12-cv RJL Document 14 Filed 07/11/13 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

OFFICE OF THE CLERK B

UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT Washington, D.C. RULES OF PROCEDURE Effective November 1, 2010

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. Administrative Order Gen

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) (1) SUPPLEMENTAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER; AND (2) REQUEST FOR PREPARATION OF FINAL JUDGMENT

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal

Case: , 08/14/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 46-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case3:06-md VRW Document738-5 Filed07/07/10 Page1 of 8

FILED July 16, 2013 Carla Bender th

Case: , 04/24/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 23-1, Page 1 of 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA

Notes on how to read the chart:

Case M:06-cv VRW Document 424 Filed 02/04/2008 Page 1 of 5

Case 1:15-cv TSE Document Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON. Plaintiff, ORDER

Case: , 12/29/2014, ID: , DktEntry: 20-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 03/16/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE NOTICE

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 41 September Term, 2010 MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE MARYLAND STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 1:17-cv KPF Document 39 Filed 10/04/17 Page 1 of 19 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/13/ :15 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 38 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/13/2015. Exhibit 1.

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/05/18 Page 1 of 5 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Draft Rules on Privacy and Access to Court Records

H. R. ll. To amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly

RIGHTS & RESPONSIBILITIES:

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Case: , 10/18/2016, ID: , DktEntry: 57-1, Page 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case: , 03/23/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 38-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS DIVISION

RULES OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT GOVERNING COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDICIAL OFFICERS UNDER 28 U.S.C. 351 et. seq. Preface to the Rules

Case 1:12-cv JAL Document 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/19/2013 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

April 27, Dear Irvin Muchnick:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT APPELLEES RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS MOTION FOR INITIAL HEARING EN BANC

[NOT SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING TITLE 16. TAX APPEALS CHAPTER 4. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION PREAMBLE

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTE ON SENATE BILL NO. 206

Case: , 12/15/2015, ID: , DktEntry: 51-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendants. INTRODUCTION

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Anatomy of an Appeal By Michelle May O Neil

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES

Case 3:07-cv VRW Document 31-2 Filed 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION

Case: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883

Case 0:17-cv UU Document 110 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/17/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 46 Filed 11/21/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:16-cv JEB Document 1 Filed 01/01/16 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: , 07/03/2017, ID: , DktEntry: 12-1, Page 1 of 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Case 1:14-cv KMW Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/10/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 1:10-cv RMC Document 50 Filed 01/23/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ANNEX D. Classified Information Procedures Act: Statute, Procedures, and Comparison with M.R.E. 505

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION/PRIVACY ACT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL

Case 0:12-cv WJZ Document 97 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2017 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Appellate Case: Document: Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

No (and consolidated cases) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

WHEREAS, the Appellate Division seeks to adopt various procedures which are currently in use in the Third District Court of Appeal; and

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT WASHINGTON, D.C.

Transcription:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT... x THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, CHARLIE SAVAGE, SCOTT SHANE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, Docket Nos. 13-422(L), 445(Con) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, Defendants-Appellees.... x follows: DECLARATION OF SARAH S. NORMAND SARAH S. NORMAND, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1746, declares as 1. I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the office of Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, attorney for defendants-appellees the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Central Intelligence Agency (collectively, the Agovernment@) in the above-named consolidated appeals. Together with attorneys with the Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, I have been assigned to defend this matter, and I am fully familiar with the facts pertaining to it. I submit this declaration in support of

the government s motion for leave to submit a petition for rehearing ex parte, for the Court s review in camera. 2. The Court issued its decision in this case on April 21, 2014. The Court issued a public version of its opinion on that date, which contains certain redactions made at the government s request to preserve the government s opportunities for possible further appellate review of the Court s decision. Slip op. at 2 n.1. The Court has indicated that if its decision is not altered in the course of any further appellate review, an unredacted version of the opinion will be filed publicly, accompanied by an attachment that consists of a Court-redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum at issue in these appeals. Id. On April 21, the Court also filed under seal its unredacted opinion, and the Court-redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum. 3. The government does not intend to seek further review of the Court s ruling that the OLC-DOD Memorandum may not be withheld in full under the Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ). The government does intend, however, to seek panel rehearing, and alternatively, rehearing en banc, with respect to certain parts of the Court s opinion and its proposed redactions. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35(c) and 40(a)(1), that petition is due on June 5, 2014. As discussed below, the government s rehearing petition will necessarily discuss classified and privileged material that cannot be disclosed publicly or to opposing

counsel. 4. The government intends to seek rehearing to protect certain information in the Court s opinion, the Court-redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum, and the OLC classified Vaughn index ordered disclosed by the Court. In the government s view, that information is properly classified, protected from disclosure by statute, and/or privileged, and therefore exempt under FOIA Exemptions 1, 3, and/or 5, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), (3), and/or (5), even if the OLC-DOD Memorandum cannot be withheld in its entirety under FOIA. Some of the information appears to have been ordered disclosed based on inadvertence or mistake, or is subject to distinct exemption claims or other legal protections that have never been judicially considered. 5. The government seeks leave to file its rehearing petition ex parte, for inspection in camera. In order to make its position clear for the Court, and to explain why particular information remains exempt under FOIA, the government necessarily must identify and discuss the specific classified and privileged information at issue. The government cannot address this classified and privileged information in a public filing without mooting its arguments. We therefore respectfully request leave to file the petition ex parte, for in camera review, to avoid rendering the government s claims moot. 6. The relief requested here is consistent with the Court s practice.

The Court previously has granted the government s requests to submit materials ex parte and in camera, where necessary to address specific classified or privileged material. By Order dated August 27, 2013, the Court granted the government s motion for leave to file classified inserts to its brief on appeal. By Order dated October 18, 2013, the Court granted the government s motion for leave to file ex parte and in camera a classified supplemental submission to address questions posed at the oral argument held on October 1, 2013. 7. If the Court grants this motion, the government will use the same procedure employed with respect to its earlier classified submissions. Specifically, the Government will lodge its petition for rehearing with the Department of Justice s Court Security Officer, on or before June 5, 2014, for transmission to the Court under appropriate security protocols. 8. In addition, the government intends to prepare and to provide for public filing a version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum that includes the redactions in the Court-redacted version of the OLC-DOD Memorandum and the additional redactions that will be at issue in the petition for rehearing.

9. Counsel for plaintiffs do not consent to the relief requested in this motion. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: New York, New York May 27, 2014 /s/ Sarah S. Normand SARAH S. NORMAND Assistant United States Attorney