Ibrahim v. Department of Homeland et al

Filing 674

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ORDER RE ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS re 669 Response ( Non Motion ) filed by Rahinah Ibrahim, 665 Notice (Other) filed by Rahinah Ibrahim. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 30, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
RAHINAH IBRAHIM,

10

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

12
13

No. C 06-00545 WHA

v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ORDER RE
ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED
DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

14

/

15
16
17
18

In this no-fly list challenge, plaintiff seeks an order granting access to classified
documents. For the reasons stated below, the request is DENIED.
The procedural history of this action has been summarized in prior orders and will not be

19

repeated again (Dkt. Nos. 399, 461, 532, 592). In brief, a December 2009 order stated that if

20

plaintiff attended and was present at trial, she would be entitled to hear the evidence presented,

21

whether or not it was SSI. However, short of attendance at trial, plaintiff could not view SSI

22

without being vetted by the background process (Dkt. No. 306). Plaintiff never sought or

23

obtained clearance to view SSI or classified documents. Plaintiff was not present for trial.

24

Several orders, including an April 19 order, recognized the government’s assertion of the

25

state secrets privilege for certain documents (Dkt. Nos. 462, 539, 613). Plaintiff’s counsel

26

obtained clearance to view SSI, but never sought or obtained clearance to view classified

27

documents.

28

On December 13, after the close of evidence, plaintiff’s counsel requested an order
granting access to classified documents (Dkt. No. 665). In light of plaintiff’s request, an

1

opportunity was provided to brief whether and how one or more of plaintiff’s counsel could

2

obtain clearance to review the classified submissions. Plaintiff’s counsel responded with a long

3

list of conditions, if one or more of plaintiff’s counsel were to undergo the classified clearance

4

process (Dkt. No. 669).

5

Plaintiff’s conditions are unreasonable. For example, plaintiff’s counsel wants to be able

6

to “discuss the [classified] information with their client so that she and they may rebut any

7

allegations contained in the secret information.” Plaintiff, herself, has never sought or obtained

8

access to classified information. Plaintiff’s counsel also wants to have “full access to the

9

information at any time, without restrictions on their use of the information for the case.” This
condition is unduly broad. Plaintiff’s counsel also seeks to reopen discovery after trial has

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

concluded in this action. Plaintiff’s counsel could have sought clearance to view classified

12

information well in advance of trial. Plaintiff’s counsel did not. Instead, plaintiff’s counsel

13

waited until after trial to request an order for access to classified information. This order will not

14

permit plaintiff’s counsel to circumvent the usual classified clearance process at this late date

15

when such unreasonable conditions are requested.

16
17

Accordingly, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. The action will proceed without the benefit
of classified information provided to plaintiff’s counsel.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: December 30, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2