Cabral, et al v. US Dept of Justice

Filing 920091112

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'To be barred is to have one\'s security clearance revoked. \
Cabral was contractually empowered to decide whether to bar a\
contract worker from the HOC. Such barring would prevent the\
person from entering the HOC but would not terminate the person\'s\
employment.\
'

var WPFootnote3 = 'Sullivan\'s letter states that the date of the incident at the\
HOC about which he authorized the disclosure of the memorandum was\
"May 19, 2005." It is clear from the letter, however, that\
Sullivan meant to write "May 19, 2003."\
'

var WPFootnote4 = 'Porter had also filed an APA action seeking documents the FBI\
and the USAO had not provided during discovery. The result of that\
APA action is not on appeal here.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = 'The district court, however, offered a caveat:\
\
              I continue to have considerable concern that in this and\
other cases the Department of Justice has arrogated to\
itself under so-called Touhy protocols, see generally, 28\
C.F.R. § 16.21, et seq., far too expansive a view of its\
power to restrict discovery from the Department. \
Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the interactive\
mechanism adapted to resolve disputes in this case struck\
a fair balance.\
\
Porter, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12306, at *16 n.3.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = 'The Suffolk defendants did not request other information about\
which they were aware, particularly an ex parte submission that\
contained the Giedt Affidavit, until after the jury trial and\
district court rulings. While the Suffolk defendants assert that\
they were not aware of the contents of the Giedt Affidavit until\
after trial, during oral argument counsel acknowledged that it was\
the notation of an ex parte submission on the district court\'s\
docket (available before trial) that led her to request the\
affidavit after the trial was concluded. The Suffolk defendants\
thus waived any claim to this submission. See Campos-Orrego v.\
Rivera, 175 F.3d 89, 95 (1st Cir. 1999) ("We have reiterated, with\
a regularity bordering on the echolalic, that a party\'s failure to\
advance an issue in the nisi prius court ordinarily bars\
consideration of that issue on appellate review.").\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "