Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 255

ORDER RE NON-PARTIES' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA AND CHANGING DEADLINES [re 250 MOTION to Seal and for in camera review filed by Transportation Security Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation]. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/17/2009. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RAHINAH IBRAHIM, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Defendants. / ORDER RE NON-PARTIES' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND IN CAMERA AND CHANGING DEADLINES No. C 06-00545 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This action challenges the placement of plaintiff's name on the "no-fly list." An order dated July 27, 2009, dismissed all federal government defendants, including the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and Transportation Security Administration ("former federal defendants" or "non-parties") from this action (Dkt. No. 197). The parties and former federal defendants have filed a series of motions and oppositions seeking to compel, disclose, or suppress certain disclosures, thereby creating a somewhat confusing mess of discovery disputes (see Dkt. Nos. 231, 24547). Specifically, the San Francisco defendants have filed a motion for order authorizing disclosures of information that the former federal defendants seek to keep confidential (Dkt. No. 238). On November 16, 2009, the former federal defendants filed an opposition to the motion for order authorizing disclosures (Dkt. No. 251). In addition to this motion, the non-parties filed an administrative motion to file under seal and in camera attachment A to non-parties' opposition to San Francisco defendants' 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 motion to authorize disclosures (Dkt. No. 250). The administrative motion to file under seal and in camera does not reveal the contents of attachment A, but states only that "[a]ttachment A is a declaration asserting the law enforcement privilege over portions of the `teletype' San Francisco defendants seek authorization to disclose. The declaration contains detailed descriptions of the document, which cannot be disclosed pursuant to the law enforcement privilege" (id. at 12). As a result, the Court has no clue what is in attachment A and, therefore, can only rule that it will be willing to review the document in camera and under seal, as requested by the former federal defendants. But if the Court deems the materials should not remain under seal, the Court will then release the document pursuant to a protective order. If the former federal defendants agree to submit the document under these terms, then they may submit it to the Court by no later than WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009, AT NOON. Also, an order dated November 13, 2009, combined all motions regarding this discovery dispute to be heard in a single hearing on November 23, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. and issued deadlines for the filing of a motion to quash (Dkt. No. 248). The deadlines issued in that order regarding the filing of the motion to quash and the opposition to that motion remain unchanged. But the hearing currently scheduled for November 23, 2009, will be continued until THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 30, 2009. Likewise, the deadline for the San Francisco defendants' reply to the former federal defendants' opposition to the motion for order authorizing disclosures will be postponed until THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 23, 2009. The specific dates of these revised deadlines will be specified in an order that will issue by no later than FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2009. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2009. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?