Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 548

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS (DKT. NO. 515) (REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION) re 515 Discovery Letter BriefREDACTED filed by Rahinah Ibrahim. Signed by Judge Alsup on September 26, 2013.. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 06-00545 WHA
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF
UNCLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS
(DKT. NO. 515)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

On August 2 plaintiff filed a motion to compel production of documents withheld by the

18

government on various privilege grounds (Dkt. No. 515). Subsequent orders and productions by

19

the government narrowed the dispute to two classified documents withheld under the state

20

secrets privilege and eight documents withheld under the law enforcement and sensitive security

21

information privileges. These documents were submitted by the government for in camera

22

review. A prior order denied plaintiff’s motion to compel the two classified documents (Dkt.

23

No. 539). This order addresses the non-classified documents. Specifically, plaintiff’s motion to

24

compel production of TSC UNCLASS PRIV ID 069 is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request to compel

25

production of the remaining documents is DENIED.

26

Because a meaningful discussion of the compelled document requires disclosure of

27

certain sensitive information, the complete version of this order shall be filed under seal. A

28

redacted version shall be filed on the public docket.

1

1.

POST-2009 LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

2

All of the documents in question (except for TSC UNCLASS PRIV ID 069) raise the

3

same issue: whether the government should be compelled to disclose documents regarding post-

4

2009 watchlist procedures that do not pertain expressly to plaintiff. An April 19 order upheld

5

the government’s privilege assertion on this topic. Subsequent orders on plaintiff’s recent

6

discovery motions have held that plaintiff has not provided a basis for reconsideration of the

7

April 19 ruling. This remains true today. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to compel such

8

information will again be DENIED.

9

The connection between the withheld post-2009 documents and the events that led
plaintiff to file suit in 2006 is attenuated. Nevertheless, this order is sympathetic to plaintiff’s

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

contention that the withheld documents are relevant to her claims. It bears repeating that the

12

government will not be permitted to rely on these withheld documents in any way to defend this

13

action. The government, for its part, has confirmed that it agrees with this principle (Dkt. No.

14

541 at 1).

15

The withheld document FBI UNCLASS 2009 4 — titled, “An Updated Strategy for

16

Comprehensive Terrorist-Related Screening Procedures” — merits additional comment. The

17

face of the document is undated. The government, however, has submitted a sworn declaration

18

from the Director for Information Screening Policy in the Department of Homeland Security

19

Screening Coordination Office in support of its privilege assertion. The declarant avers that the

20

document was created in 2008 and that “the material within the report remains largely accurate

21

and relevant today. Accordingly, the threats associated with releasing this information are not

22

diminished by the difference in time.” The threats associated with disclosure include

23

“identifying and circumventing screening processes” and identifying “specific screening

24

vulnerabilities,” among others (Dkt. No. 537-2 ¶¶ 7–9). This order finds that the April 19 ruling

25

on post-2009 information applies with equal force to this document and that the government’s

26

interest in withholding the document outweighs plaintiff’s interest in disclosure. The motion to

27

compel production of this document is accordingly DENIED.

28
2

1

2.

2

Because the withheld document TSC UNCLASS PRIV ID 069 cannot be discussed

3

TSC UNCLASS PRIV ID 069.

meaningfully without disclosing its content, the remainder of this order shall be filed under seal.

4
5

*

8

*

*

*

*

[REDACTED]

6
7

*

Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of TSC UNCLASS PRIV ID 069 is accordingly
GRANTED. For the other documents addressed in this order, the motion is DENIED.

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: September 26, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3