Twitter, Inc. v. Holder et al

Filing 69

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE: EFFECT OF RECENT LEGISLATION. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 6/11/15. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

TWITTER, INC.,

Case No. 14-cv-04480-YGR

Plaintiff,
ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER BRIEFING RE:
EFFECT OF RECENT LEGISLATION

7
v.
8
9

ERIC H. HOLDER, ET AL.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

On June 3, 2015, Defendants Loretta Lynch, et al., filed a Notice Regarding Enactment of

12

USA Freedom Act of 2015. (Dkt. No. 67.) Defendants describe the new legislation as

13

“permit[ing] disclosure of aggregate data in bands similar to those described by the Deputy

14

Attorney General in the January 27, 2014 letter” and changing the standards for judicial review of

15

National Security Letters (“NSLs”). In that Notice, Defendants represented that they would meet

16

and confer with counsel for Plaintiff concerning any additional briefing.

17

On June 9, 2015, Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. filed its own Notice Regarding Enactment of USA

18

Freedom Act. (Dkt. No. 68.) Twitter takes the position that the legislation has no impact on the

19

issues before the Court in Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss “pertaining to the

20

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., transfer of FISA-related claims to the

21

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and deferring consideration of certain issues pertaining to

22

national security letters.” (Id.)

23

Contrary to Twitter’s position, it does appear to the Court that the USA Freedom Act has

24

provisions pertinent to those at issue in the motion to dismiss and at the heart of Twitter’s

25

Complaint, including permissible disclosure of aggregate data regarding legal process obtained

26

under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and the constitutionality of the statutory

27

standards of review applicable to NSLs. Indeed, the Court is concerned that the new legislation

28

moots the claims for relief in Twitter’s Complaint. Further, it is not clear that the parties have met

1

and conferred yet.

2

The Court now ORDERS that the parties meet and confer forthwith, and file supplemental

3

briefing on the effect of this legislation, both as to the pending partial motion to dismiss and as to

4

the ultimate claims for relief in Plaintiff’s Complaint, as follows:

5
6
7
8
9

(1) the parties each shall file opening supplemental briefs of no more than fifteen (15) pages by
June 26, 2015.
(2) the parties each shall file responsive supplemental briefs of no more than ten (10) pages by
July 10, 2015.
Should the parties seek any modification of this briefing schedule, they are directed to
meet and confer and submit a joint stipulation with a proposed schedule. Hearing, if any, on the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

issues covered in the supplemental briefing will be set by further notice from the Court after all

12

briefs are on file.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: _________________
June 11, 2015

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2