Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Filing 149

MEMORANDUM in Support Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [REDACTED] filed byGregory Hicks, Erik Knutzen, Tash Hepting, Carolyn Jewel. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Document Part 2# 2 Supplement Document Part 3# 3 Supplement Document Part 4)(Tien, Tze) (Filed on 5/25/2006)

Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

Doc. 149

1 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) 2 [e-mail] LEE TIEN (148216) 3 [e-mail] KURT OPSAHL (191303) 4 [e-mail] KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) 5 [e-mail] CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) 6 [e-mail] JAMES S. TYRE (083117) 7 [e-mail] 454 Shotwell Street 8 San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: [phone] (fax) 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] 12

TRABER & VOORHEES BERT VOORHEES (137623) [e-mail] THERESA M. TRABER (116305) [e-mail] 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: [phone] (fax)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 ) 15 TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, CAROLYN JEWEL and ERIK KNUTZEN, on ) 16 Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly ) ) Situated, ) 17 ) Plaintiffs, ) 18 ) vs. ) 19 ) AT&T CORP., et al. ) 20 ) Defendants. ) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [REDACTED] No. C-06-00672-VRW CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 I. 4 II. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 III. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. 3. c. B. C. D. E.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................. 3 A. The Government's Statements About the Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Program .......................................................................................... 3 AT&T's Collaboration with the Government Program......................................... 5 AT&T's Creation of a Secure Room to Facilitate the Government Program's Internet Surveillance........................................................................... 6 The Significance of the Surveillance Configuration ............................................. 8 The Surveillance Configuration Violates the Rights of Plaintiff Jewel ............... 10

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 10 A. B. Plaintiffs Meet the Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction ........................... 10 Plaintiffs Raise Serious Questions and Have a Reasonable Likelihood of Success on the Merits ........................................................................................ 11 1. 2. The Legal Framework: Wiretapping Under the Fourth Amendment and Under Statute .............................................................. 12 Defendants' Ongoing Surveillance for the Government Violates Title III .................................................................................................. 15 a. b. Defendants Are Intercepting and Using Plaintiffs' Communications in Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 ........... 15 Defendants Are Also Disclosing, Using and Divulging Plaintiffs' Communications in Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 .............................................................................. 18 Neither Title III nor FISA Authorizes Defendants' Conduct ....... 19

Defendants' Warrantless Surveillance Violates the Fourth Amendment .......................................................................... 22 a. b. By Assisting the Program, Defendants Are Acting as Agents of the Government...................................................... 22 Plaintiffs Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Their Internet Communications .................................................. 23 Plaintiffs Are Harmed by Defendants' Participation in the Program ..................................................................................... 25

PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW

-i-

1 2 3 4 e. 5 6 7 8 9 b. 10 11 12 13 IV. 14 V. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - ii D. 2. Irreparable Harm Is Presumed Because AT&T Is Violating Title III....................................................................................... 30 C. The Program's Sweeping Dragnet Surveillance Cannot Be Reconciled with the Fourth Amendment..................................... 27 d. Page The Fourth Amendment Prohibits Dragnet, Suspicionless Searches of the Type Present Here.............................................. 26

The Balance of Hardships Tilts Sharply in Favor of Plaintiffs............................ 29 1. The Plaintiffs Face Irreparable Harm ..................................................... 29 a. Plaintiffs Face Irreparable Harm to Their Constitutional Rights......................................................................................... 29

AT&T Faces No Harm from a Preliminary Injunction............................ 31

A Preliminary Injunction Serves the Public's Interest ........................................ 31

AMOUNT OF BOND................................................................................................... 32 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 33

1 2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page

3 Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)...................................................................................................... 26 4 Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co., 5 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................. 3 6 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)........................................................................................................ 25 7 Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 8 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................... 31 9 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)...................................................................................................... 12 10 Benda v. Grand Lodge of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 11 584 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 937 (1979).................................................................................. 28 12 Berger v. New York, 13 388 U.S. 41 (1967).................................................................................................. passim 14 Bubis v. United States, 384 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1967) ......................................................................................... 13 15 Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 16 934 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... 29 17 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)...................................................................................................... 26 18 Campiti v. Walonis, 19 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................... 17 20 Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................... 29 21 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 22 403 U.S. 443 (1971)...................................................................................................... 22 23 Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................... 29 24 Ex parte Jackson, 25 96 U.S. 727 (1878)........................................................................................................ 24 26 Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 3 27 Gelbard v. United States, 28 408 U.S. 41 (1972)........................................................................................................ 30 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - iii -

1 2 Page

3 George v. Carusone, 849 F. Supp. 159 (D. Conn. 1994)............................................................................16, 17 4 Gomez v. Vernon, 5 255 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 29 6 Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 16 7 Hodge v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 8 555 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................................... 13 9 Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................... 10 10 Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 11 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002) ......................................................................................... 10 12 Int'l Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1986) ......................................................................................... 29 13 Jacobsen v. Rose, 14 592 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1978) ....................................................................................17, 21 15 Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003) ......................................................................................... 32 16 Katz v. United States, 17 389 U.S. 347 (1967)................................................................................................ passim 18 Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002), 19 cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1193 (2003)..................................................................... 15, 16, 18 20 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 30 21 Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 22 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 3 23 Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property, 367 U.S. 717 (1961)............................................................................................. 2, 25, 26 24 Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants Rights v. INS, 25 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................... 10 26 Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Coston, 773 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................... 11 27 New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 28 356 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ........................................................................... 3 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - iv -

1 2 Page

3 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)...................................................................................................... 25 4 Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 5 204 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2000) ......................................................................................... 10 6 Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1988) .............................................................................. 3, 10, 11 7 Rosen Entm't Sys. LP v. Eiger Vision, 8 343 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................. 3 9 Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................... 10 10 Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 11 251 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................... 29 12 Smallwood v. Nat'l Can Co., 583 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1978) ......................................................................................... 29 13 Stanford v. Texas, 14 379 U.S. 476 (1965).................................................................................................24, 26 15 Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)...................................................................................................... 25 16 Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 17 188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................... 10 18 Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., 19 Farey-Jones v. Theofel, 543 U.S. 813 (2004) ................................................................ 16 20 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)........................................................................................................ 25 21 United States v. Belfield, 22 692 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982)....................................................................................... 14 23 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)...................................................................................................... 28 24 United States v. Councilman, 25 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................16, 17 26 United States v. Goldstein, 532 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................ 13, 22, 23 27 United States v. Herring, 28 993 F.2d 784 (11th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................... 15 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW -v-

1 2 Page

3 United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 1996)......................................................................................... 24 4 United States v. Miller, 5 688 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1982) ......................................................................................... 22 6 United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d. Cir. 1992), 7 cert. denied, 506 U.S. 847 (1992).................................................................................. 16 8 United States v. Turner, 528 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom., 9 Lewis v. United States, 423 U.S. 996 (1975).................................................................. 12 10 United States v. United States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)................................................................................................ passim 11 United States. v. Walther, 12 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981) ......................................................................................... 22 13 Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)........................................................................................................ 2 14 White v. Weiss, 15 535 F.2d 1067, 1071 (8th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................. 17 16 Williams v. Poulos, 801 F. Supp. 867 (D. Me. 1992) ...............................................................................29, 30 17 18 CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS 19 U.S. Const. amend. IV............................................................................................................passim 20 50 U.S.C. §1801.............................................................................................................................. 4 §1802............................................................................................................................ 20 22 §1805(f) ........................................................................................................................ 20 §§1809-10..................................................................................................................... 14 23 §1811............................................................................................................................ 21 21 24 18 U.S.C. §605.............................................................................................................................. 13 25 §2510(4) ............................................................................................................ 15, 16, 18 §2510(5) ....................................................................................................................... 17 26 §2510(8) ....................................................................................................................... 15 §2510(12) ............................................................................................................... passim 27 §2510(15) ..................................................................................................................... 18 §2511...................................................................................................................... passim 28 §2511(1) ................................................................................................................. passim PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - vi -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES 8 9 H.R. Conf. Rep. 95-1720, as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4048 ....................................................................... 21 Page §2511(2) ....................................................................................................................... 13 §2511(3) ....................................................................................................................... 18 §2511(18) ..................................................................................................................... 16 §2511(f) ........................................................................................................................ 19 §2518............................................................................................................................ 12 §2518(7) ....................................................................................................................... 20 §2520................................................................................................................. 15, 21, 29 §2701-12 ...................................................................................................................... 19

10 S. Rep. 99-541, as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555 ....................................................................... 19 11 S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976) ........................................................................................................ 13 12 S. Rep. No. 604(I), 13 as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3904, 3951, 3963 ...............................................14, 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - vii -

1 TO: 2

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 6 of the above-

3 captioned Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., 17th Floor, San Francisco, California, plaintiffs 4 will, and hereby do, move the Court for an order granting preliminary injunctive relief against 5 AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc. ("defendants"). 6 Plaintiffs seek to preliminarily enjoin defendants from illegally intercepting, disclosing and

7 otherwise using plaintiffs' communications in violation of the Constitution and federal wiretap laws 8 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65. This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, 9 memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice, the declaration of 10 Cindy Cohn, the declaration of Mark Klein, the declaration of plaintiffs' expert J. Scott Marcus, 11 plaintiffs' motion to extend page limits, plaintiffs' motion to lodge documents under seal (and all 12 associated exhibits and attachments filed herewith), the pleadings and papers on file in this action, 13 discovery to be scheduled and oral arguments of counsel. 14 15 I. 16 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, request that this Court

17 immediately enter a preliminary injunction enjoining AT&T,1 the world's largest 18 telecommunications company, from violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and Title 19 III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 ("Title III") by providing the 20 government with direct access to the domestic and international Internet communications of millions 21 of its customers. A preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the statutory 22 and constitutional privacy rights of plaintiffs and their fellow AT&T customers until a trial on the 23 merits, where plaintiffs are likely to prove AT&T's continued collaboration with the National 24 Security Agency's illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance program. 25 26 27 28 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW -11

Plaintiffs refer to defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corp. collectively as "AT&T" herein.

1 warrantless surveillance more than thirty times and intends to continue doing so indefinitely. RJN at 2 ¶ 3. 3 The government has candidly admitted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978

4 ("FISA"), 50 U.S.C. §§1801 et. seq., the statute regulating electronic surveillance for foreign 5 intelligence purposes, "requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance . . . unless 6 otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress." RJN at ¶4. The NSA surveillance program 7 ("Program") admittedly operates "in lieu of" court orders or other judicial authorization, RJN at ¶¶68 7, and neither the President nor Attorney General authorizes the specific interceptions. RJN at ¶9. 9 As General Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence, put it, the Program "is a 10 more . . . `aggressive' program than would be traditionally available under FISA," in part because 11 "[t]he trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISA warrant." RJN at ¶10. The only review 12 process is authorization by an NSA "shift supervisor" for interception of particular individuals' 13 communication. RJN at ¶9. 14 Administration officials have said that the NSA intercepts communications when the agency

15 has, in its own judgment, a "reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a 16 member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al 17 Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda," as well as the communications of individuals it deems 18 suspicious on the basis of its belief that they have some unspecified "link" to al Qaeda or a related 19 terrorist organization or simply "want to kill Americans." RJN at ¶11. 20 While admitting that warrantless surveillance is occurring and will continue, RJN at ¶3, the

21 President and other officials have carefully limited their discussions to "the Program as described by 22 the President,"3 and have consistently refused to confirm that the "Program as described by the 23 24 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1986) ("The dispositive question is not their classification as hearsay but he her w al t en t o , nc ge for ex ti t t 25 was tapp, opeighingvel theeacthardanerfactd rsbjiectliudisnofthhenieed nctive pediceon,inhi.s )ype of evidence w r riate gi n th act an o ve t nju pro ed g " . 26 3 This limitation is used to create a logical tautology. For example, in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' February 28, 2006 letter to Senator Arlen Specter, RJN, Attachment 8, he 27 describes the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as "activities [that] involve the interception by the 28 NSA of the contents of communications in which one party is outside the United States where there PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW -4-

1 President" constitutes the entirety of the warrantless surveillance that they have been conducting and 2 will continue to conduct. RJN at ¶13. The government is unable to state that the Program includes 3 only limited interceptions of al Qaeda-related international communications as described by the 4 President, because the Program also includes the warrantless interception of the communications of 5 millions of ordinary Americans, made possible through the illegal and unconstitutional cooperation 6 and collaboration of AT&T. 7 8 B. AT&T's Collaboration with the Government Program

Numerous major newspapers and other reputable accounts have shown that major U.S.

9 telecommunications companies, including AT&T, are assisting the NSA with the Program. See 10 Cohn Decl., Exs. A and B (Leslie Cauley and John Diamond, Telecoms Let NSA Spy on Calls, USA 11 Today (Feb. 6, 2006) and Dionne Searcey, Shawn Young and Amol Sharma, Wiretapping Flap Puts 12 Phone Firms Under Fire, Wall St. J., Feb. 7, 2006, at B3). Government officials have confirmed 13 that "the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain 14 backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications." Cohn Decl., Ex. C 15 (James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report, N.Y. Times 16 (Dec. 24, 2005)). As early as 2001, "the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their 17 cooperation in a `data-mining' operation, which might eventually cull `millions' of individual calls 18 and e-mails." Cohn Decl., Ex. D (Shane Harris and Tim Naftali, Tinker, Tailor, Miner, Spy: Why 19 the NSA's Snooping Is Unprecedented In Scale and Scope, Slate (Jan. 3, 2006)). 20 21 22 Following President Bush's order, U.S. intelligence officials secretly arranged with top officials of major telecommunications companies to gain access to large telecommunications switches carrying the bulk of America's phone calls. The NSA also gained access to the vast majority of American e-mail traffic that flows through the U.S. telecommunications system.

23 Cohn Decl., Ex. E at 48 (James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush 24 Administration (Simon & Schuster 2006)). The new presidential order has given the NSA direct 25 are reasonable grounds to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent 26 of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization," and then limits his previous testimony to this aspect of the Program. This renders his discussions asserting a limited program meaningless, since 27 the scope of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program" is also limited by the same restrictions. 28 PLTFS' AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS' MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW -5-