GILMORE, et al v. PALESTINIAN INTERIM, et al
Filing
365
MEMORANDUM OPINION to the Order denying Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Production of PA GIS Documents and for Related Relief. Signed by Judge Gladys Kessler on 3/24/14. (CL, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
REUVEN GILMORE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 1-853 {GK)
v.
PALESTINIAN INTERIM SELFGOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs are family members and the estate of Eish Kodesh
Gilmore,
a
United
October
30,
2000,
bring
this
case
Self -Government
Organization
the
States
in
national
Jerusalem,
against
Authority
("PLO")
Israel
Defendants,
( "PA")
of
1991
in
a
shooting
("Plaintiffs") .
the
and
(collectively,
Anti-Terrorism Act
killed
the
Palestinian
Palestine
"Defendants")
("ATA"),
18
on
They
Interim
Liberation
pursuant
U.S.C.
to
2331,
et
§
seq., and related common law theories.
This
matter
is
before
the
Court
on
Plaintiffs'
Renewed
Motion for Production of PA GIS Documents and for Related Relief
[Dkt.
No.
352] .
[Dkt.
No.
356],
herein,
and
for
shall be denied.
Upon consideration of
and
Reply
the
reasons
[Dkt.
No.
stated
the
357],
below,
Motion,
the
Opposition
entire
record
Plaintiffs'
Motion
I .
BACKGROUND
Eish
2000,
a
Kodesh
Gilmore
was
shot
and
killed
at the beginning of the Second Intifada,
on
October
3 0,
while working as
security guard at the Jerusalem branch office of the Israeli
National
Insurance
Institute.
Plaintiffs
employee Muhanad Abu Halawa shot Gilmore,
agents of the PA and PLO,
and
Mahmoud
Damara,
in
planning
that
PA
and that three other
Mustafa Misalmani,
helped
allege
and
Bashar Al-Khatib,
carrying
out
the
attack. 1
Plaintiffs
filed
this
commenced on March 22,
22,
2010
[Dkt.
for
summary
No.
judgment,
Discovery
See Memorandum Order,
2010.
181].
2 001.
dated Mar.
case on April
On August
arguing
that
9,
18,
2012,
"[a] t
Defendants moved
the
close
of
fact
discovery - and after deposing Misalmani, Al-Khatib, and Damara,
among others take
to
a
jury
Plaintiffs still have no admissible evidence to
supporting
Halawa shot Gilmore."
285] .
Plaintiffs
Defendants'
1
Motion
did
for
their
Defs.'
not
Mot.
lynchpin
allegation
for Summ.
initially
Summary Judgment
file
but
J.
an
at 2
that
Abu
[Dkt.
No.
Opposition
instead moved
to
for
Due to the transliteration of these individuals' names from
English to Arabic, the names are also sometimes written as
Mustafa "Maslamani," Mahmoud "Damra" and "Muhannad Abu Halaweh."
Abu Halawa is also known by the name "Muhannad Sa' eed Munib
Deireia."
-2-
additional time to complete discovery pursuant to Fed.
R.
Civ.
[Dkt.
P. 56(d), which the Court granted on September 19, 2012.
No. 297].
Six months later,
resume
that
briefing
the
on
on March 19,
their Motion
additional
discovery
2013,
for
Defendants sought to
Summary Judgment,
Plaintiffs
noting
requested under Rule
56(d) had either been completed or was at a standstill [Dkt. No.
298] .
While
that
Motion
was
pending,
on
2013,
19,
April
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel Production of Late-Disclosed
Documents.
[Dkt. No. 303].
Plaintiffs sought files created by
the PA' s General Intelligence Service
("GIS")
pertaining to Abu
Halawa, Damara, and Misalmani, the existence of which Defendants
had recently disclosed to Plaintiffs,
and which Defendants were
withholding
"state-secrets"
on
the
basis
enforcement privileges.
been fully briefed,
files
to
the
permission,
of
the
and
law
After Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel had
the Court directed Defendants to submit the
Court
for
Defendants
in
also
camera
review.
submitted an
With
ex parte
the
Court' s
explanatory
Memorandum to aid the Court's review.
On June 6,
2013,
after reviewing the documents in camera,
the Court denied Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel.
-3-
See Memorandum
Order,
dated June
explained
that
Defendants
is
6,
2013
[Dkt.
"[n]owhere
there
in
any
relevant to Plaintiffs'
No.
the
25
admissible
case."
The
314] .
first
submitted
pages
evidence
Court
that
by
would
be ·
Elaborating on this
Id. at 2.
point, the Court noted that the documents largely post-dated the
National
Insurance
mentioned the
Further,
the
Institute
attack,
attack
did not
the
extent
constitute admissible
was
materials already in Plaintiffs' possession.
the
they
evidence.
Id.
compel
in
to
documents
Next,
information
and,
the Court explained that,
disclosure
prohibited
under
of
the
of
"in considering whether to
documents
where
laws
the
of
duplicative
such
foreign
disclosure"
is
government
in
possession of them, a court should be guided by the factors set
forth
in
Dis t .
Ct .
extent
Societe
I
to
Nationale
4 8 2 u. s .
which
52 2
Industrielle
( 19 8 7) .
Aerospatiale
Among these factors
compliance
with
the
v.
U.S.
is
"the
request
would
undermine important interests of the state where the information
is
located."
U.S.
at
Mem.
544 n.28).
Order at
2
The Court
(citing Societe Nationale,
482
found that Defendants had made
"numerous persuasive arguments for concluding that disclosure of
the requested files would 'undermine important interests' of the
-4-
PA.
II
For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel.
Id. at 3.
On June 20,
Plaintiffs moved to unseal the ex parte
2013,
explanatory memorandum Defendants submitted to aid the Court's
See Pls.' Mot. to Unseal
in camera review of the GIS documents.
and
for
Related
Relief
[Dkt.
No.
In
319-1].
that
Motion,
Plaintiffs characterized the Court's denial of their Motion to
Compel as being "primarily on the grounds that the GIS documents
are neither admissible nor relevant to plaintiffs' claims."
at 2.
Plaintiffs argued that "[t]he grounds for that Order took
plaintiffs
defendants'
by
surprise,
Opposition
and admissibility."
assessment
arguments
Process
of
thereto
Id.
relevant
Plaintiff
right
regarding
since
to
other
admissibility
was
Motion
of
and
they
respond
relevance,
than whatever
to
and
had
0
-5-
by
Based on this
an
"absolute
defendants'
any
other
specific
facts
Due
arguments
legal
the
finds too sensitive to be disclosed to the plaintiffs."
3
nor
relevance
influenced
ex parte memorandum.
that
see
plaintiffs'
briefed questions
argued
admissibility,
matter,
neither
Plaintiffs surmised that the Court's
and
in Defendants'
assumption,
factual
Id.
or
Court
Id. at
On November 27,
Plaintiffs'
2013,
the
Motion to Unseal.
consideration
of
documents fell
the
Court
issued an Order denying
The Court pointed out that its
relevancy
and
admissibility
of
the
GIS
squarely within the first factor of the Societe
Nationale comity analysis, which is "the importance to the .
litigation of the documents[.]"
Nov. 27 Am. Order at 2
(citing
Societe Nationale, 482 U.S. at 544).
The Court also explained that the basis for its assessment
of relevancy and admissibility was set forth in its Memorandum
Order denying the original Motion to Compel,
and that
"[t] here
was virtually no other information or argument in Defendants' ex
parte Memorandum referring to
Court described."
Thereafter,
[such issues]
other than what the
Id. at 3.
on
December
23,
2013,
Plaintiffs
filed
the
instant Renewed Motion for Production of PA GIS Documents and
Related Relief
("Renewed Motion)
2
[Dkt. No. 352] . 2
On January 6,
Plaintiffs made only the most perfunctory attempt to satisfy
the requirements of Local Rule 7(m) by emailing opposing counsel
on· a Sunday and, prior to receiving any response, filing this
Motion the following morning.
Such efforts clearly do not
satisfy Rule 7 (m) Is requirement that "counsel shall discuss the
anticipated motion with opposing counsel, either in person or by
telephone" and make a "good faith effort" to determine whether
there is any opposition to the relief sought.
L. R.
7 (m)
(emphasis added).
Nevertheless, because it is clear Defendants
would have opposed the Motion, and because Plaintiffs raise
-6-
2014,
Defendants
filed
their
Opposition
[Dkt.
No.
On
[Dkt . No. 3 57] . 3
January 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Reply.
II.
356]
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs
advance
four
arguments
in
support
of
their
Renewed Motion.
First, they claim that they are entitled to de novo review
of
the
Court's
admissibility
and
relevancy
determinations
because they were not afforded an opportunity to address these
issues in the original Motion to Compel.
Second, they argue, on
the merits, that the Court erred in concluding the GIS documents
are not
relevant or admissible.
Third,
they assert
that
the
Court clearly erred in extending comity considerations to the
Palestinian Authority.
Fourth,
they contend that
the Court's
weighing of the Societe Nationale factors merit reconsideration
in light of a subsequent development in a case currently pending
in the
Southern District of New York,
Sokolow v.
important arguments regarding due process,
address Plaintiffs' Motion on its merits.
3
the
Palestinian
Court
shall
In the meantime, o"n October 2, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their
Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. No.
336-1].
On October 25, 2013, Defendants filed their Reply to
Plaintiffs'
Opposition to
Defendants'
Motion
for
Summary
Judgment [Dkt. No. 341].
That Motion is now fully briefed and
pending before the Court.
-7-
Liberation Org.,
2013) .
No.
04 Civ.
397
(GBD)
(RLE)
(S.D.N.Y Nov.
4,
The Court addresses these arguments in turn.
A.
Standard of Review
1.
Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to De Novo Review
Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to de novo review
of the Court's conclusions regarding relevancy and admissibility
because they were not given an opportunity to brief these issues
Pls.' Mot. at 3 n.2.
in connection with their Motion to Compel.
This is inaccurate.
As
previously
denying Plaintiffs'
explained
in
the
Motion to Unseal,
Court's
Amended
Order
the Court considered the
relevancy and admissibility of the GIS documents solely in the
context
of
assessing
their
Societe Nationale framework.
that
the
Court
would
Motion to Compel.
brief,
to
the
case
under
the
Further, Plaintiffs were on notice
consider
these
issues
As discussed below,
which was not
filed a Reply,
importance
filed ex parte,
in
deciding
Defendants'
the
Opposition
and to which Plaintiffs
contested the relevancy and admissibility of the
GIS documents twice.
First,
in
discussing
the
qualified
law
enforcement
privilege, Defendants' Opposition brief observed that:
files
often
[I]nformation contained in
[GIS]
collected from sources outside the PA that are
-8-
is
of
varying degrees of reliability, and the information
may or may not be true and may or may not be based on
first-hand knowledge.
The raw intelligence
information in these files, of dubious reliability,
thus has little probative value to Plaintiffs' case.
On balance, these factors weigh in favor of nondisclosure
because
of
the
detrimental
effect
disclosure would have on GIS' work and the marginal
value of the GIS files to this case.
Defs.' Opp'n to Mot. to Compel at 8-9
(quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis added) .
Second,
in
discussing
the
Societe
Nationale
Defendants' Opposition brief again emphasized that,
be
evident
from
an
in
camera
review,
the
GIS
factors,
"[a] s would
files
are
[because]
marginal significance to the litigation
of
[w] i th
fact discovery closed, Plaintiffs still lack admissible evidence
as
to their theory
[that Abu Halawa
files do not change that equation."
Despite
the
fact
that
to
opportunity
them.
to
Because
address
the
The GIS
Id. at 9-10.
Defendants
arguments in their Opposition brief,
respond
shot Gilmore]
clearly presented these
Plaintiffs elected not to
Plaintiffs
have
relevancy,
already
had
admissibility,
one
and
importance of the documents, their attempt to now reargue these
points must be considered under the narrow standard of review
applicable to a motion for reconsideration.
-9-
2.
Standard Governing Motion for Reconsideration
"[W]here
decision,
litigants
they
should
reason permitted,
825
F.
marks
Supp.
2d
have
neither
to battle
58,
omitted) .
once
60
for
nor
it again."
(D.D.C.
Although
for
required,
be
battled
a
2011)
court
the
court's
without
Negley v.
good
F.B.I.,
(citation and quotation
has
the
discretion
reconsider an interlocutory order "as justice requires"
at
to
"any
time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims
and all the parties'
54 (b) ,
the Supreme
rights and liabilities[,]" Fed. R.
Court has
cautioned that
a
court
Civ.
P.
should be
"loathe to do so in the absence of extraordinary circumstances
such
as
where
the
initial
would work a manifest
Operating
Corp.,
decision was
injustice."
u.s.
486
clearly
erroneous
Christianson v.
800,
817
(1988)
Colt
and
Indus.
(citation
and
quotation marks omitted).
"In
particular,
a
court
should
grant
a
motion
for
reconsideration of an interlocutory order only when the movant
demonstrates
(1)
an
discovery
new
evidence
of
intervening
not
change
previously
clear error of law in the first
order."
Detainee
2d
Litig.,
706
F.
Supp.
-10-
120,
in
the
lawi
available i
(2)
or
the
(3)
a
In re Guantanamo Bay
122-23
(D.D.C.
2010)
(citation
and
quotation
reconsideration
is
not
theories upon which a
vehicle
for
an
has
A
to
or
arguments
S.E.C. v. Bilzerian,
for
motion
reargue
already ruled,"
theories
been advanced earlier."
B.
omitted) .
"opportunity
court
presenting
14 (D.D.C. 2010)
marks
facts
nor
that
is
and
it
could
"a
have
729 F. Supp. 2d 9,
(citations omitted).
The Motion Is Timely
Defendants
first
contend
that
Reconsideration is untimely.
Defs.'
true
than
Plaintiffs
waited
more
Motion
Plaintiffs'
While it is
Opp'n at 5-6.
six
months
for
after
the
Court
ruled on their Motion to Compel to file the instant Motion, _they
filed their Motion to Unseal on June 20,
after the Court's ruling.
that
they sought
order to
aid
Unseal at 3
respectfully,
Compel
are
to unseal
them
in
In that Motion,
Defendants'
filing
this
2013,
Plaintiffs explained
ex parte memorandum in
Motion.
See
Pls. '
Mot.
to
("Plaintiffs bring this motion because they believe,
that
the Court's rulings denying their Motion to
erroneous,
and
they
intend
reconsideration and reversal of those rulings.")
1] .
only two weeks
to
move
[Dkt.
No.
for
319-
Plaintiffs filed this Motion less than one month after the
Court resolved the Motion to Unseal.
is timely.
-11-
Consequently,
the Motion
c.
There Is No Basis to Reconsider the Court's Assessment
of the Importance of the GIS Documents
Plaintiffs
relevant"; 4
or
as
a
(2)
(3)
they
not
that
the
GIS
documents:
(1)
are
"highly
are admissible under various hearsay exceptions
sanction
documents;
are
argue
for
late
Defendants'
disclosure
of
the
are likely to lead to admissible evidence even if
themselves
considered by their expert
admissible;
and
( 4)
are
properly
Pls.'
regardless of admissibility.
Mot. at 3-10.
Each
and
every
one
of
these
arguments
could
have
been
advanced in Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to their
Motion to Compel.
Plaintiffs do not offer any justification for
failing to do so,
nor do they point to any development
in the
record warranting a reconsideration of these issues. 5
4
Plaintiffs contend the documents are relevant to: (1) whether
Abu Halawa was Gilmore's shooter; (2) whether he was "known to
be involved in numerous terrorist activities against Israeli
targets during the same period"; (3) whether the shooting was
within the scope of Abu Halawa' s employment with the PA and
whether the PA knew that Abu Halawa was involved in terrorist
activities;
and
(4)
the
PA's
"policies
of
inciting
and
encouraging terrorism" during the relevant time period.
Pls.'
Mot. at 4-6.
5
Plaintiffs argue that their expert, Alon Eviatar, a former
intelligence officer with the Israel Defense Forces, is entitled
to consider the GIS documents in forming his opinions about the
case.
Pls. Mot. at 8-9.
Given that Plaintiffs have had since
-12-
Plaintiffs
also
misconstrue
Court's determination.
documents
the
reasoning
underlying
the
The Court has never suggested the ·GIS
lack any relevance whatsoever,
or would not,
absent
the special considerations present here,
be discoverable under
the
To
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure.
the
contrary,
the
Court acknowledged in its June 6 Memorandum Order that the files
include
information
about
the
National
Insurance
Institute
attack.
The Court concluded,· however, that the documents had no
great significance because they are both hearsay and duplicative
of
materials
reasons,
the
already
in
documents
establishing the
factual
Plaintiffs'
would
possession.
not
centerpiece
assist
of
their
For
these
Plaintiffs
case,
which
in
is
their contention that Abu Halawa killed Gilmore within the scope
of his employment for the PA.
Plaintiffs have not shown any
basis for the Court to reconsider this assessment.
September 19, 2012, at the latest, to obtain the opinion of an
expert, there does not appear to be any reason Plaintiffs could
not have made this argument in their Motion to Compel.
Further,
Eviatar' s
Declaration states
that,
even without
the
GIS
documents, he has formed the "conclusion with a high degree of
certainty," that Abu Halawa, a "known terrorist," murdered
Gilmore.
Declaration of Alon Eviatar ~ 9 [Dkt. No. 352 -2] .
Consequently, even if the Court were to consider Eviatar's
Declaration, it does not establish that the GIS documents are of
any outstanding importance to Plaintiffs' case.
-13-
D.
The Court Did Not "Clearly Err" by Considering the
Palestinian Authority's Interests as a Foreign
Government
Next,
Plaintiffs argue that the Court clearly erred in
concluding that comity considerations apply to the Palestinian
Authority
because
"the
principle
of
comity
only
foreign states and the PA is not a foreign state."
at
10.
Plaintiffs quote
a
sentence
applies
to
Pls.' Mem.
from Societe Nationale
in
which the Supreme Court observed that "[w]e have long recognized
the demand of comity in suits involving foreign states,
either
as parties or as sovereigns with a coordinate interest in the
litigation."
U.S.
522
Societe
at 546.
Nationale
Industrielle
Aeropastiale,
482
Plaintiffs highlight the Supreme Court's use
of the word "state" to argue that the Palestinian Authority is
not entitled to comity considerations because the United States
does not recognize it as a "state."
The
quoted portion from Societe Nationale
importance
of
protecting
burdensome discovery.
of the word "state"
define
precisely
protection.
litigants
from
the
unduly
The Court made it very clear that its use
in the quoted sentence did not delimit or
which
To the
foreign
emphasizes
foreign
contrary,
litigants
qualify
in the very next
Supreme Court stated:
-14-
for
sentence,
such
the
American
courts
should
therefore
take
care
to
demonstrate due respect
for any special problem
confronted by the foreign litigant on account of its
nationality or the location of its operations, and for
any sovereign interest· expressed by a foreign state.
We do not articulate specific rules to guide this
delicate task of adjudication.
Id.
no
(emphases added).
support
consider
for
the
Consequently,
Plaintiffs'
Palestinian
Societe Nationale provides
contention
Authority's
that
it
special
was
error
interests
as
to
a
foreign government.
Plaintiffs
also
cite
two
district
court
cases
for
the
proposition that the principle of deference to foreign law does
not apply to local, rather than national,
at 10-11
Area,
laws.
See Pl s. ' Mot.
(citing Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Nat.
Capital
Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co. of Canada, 94 Civ. 741 JHG PJA,
1994 WL 661523 (D.D.C. Nov. 22, 1994) and Lyons v. Bell Asbestos
Mines,
are
Ltd.,
119 F.R.D.
inapposite
because
384,
389
(D.S.C.
the
Palestinian
1988)).
Authority
These cases
is
not
"local". government of the type at issue in the cited cases. 6
6
a
In
In Young Women's Christian Association, a Magistrate Judge in
this Court issued a Report & Recommendation concluding that the
blocking statutes of Quebec and Ontario were "not entitled to
any deferential consideration under the comity principles of
international law, " because, inter alia, they were "local laws
and not national laws."
Young Women's Christian Ass' n of Nat.
Capital Area, 1994 WL 661523, at *2. Lyons does not involve, as
this case does, a consideration of permissive deference, but
rather considered whether a district court was required to abide
-15-
addition,
these cases merely concluded that foreign local laws
were not entitled to deference;
they did not hold that a court
is not permitted to consider such laws in resolving a discovery
dispute.
case
is
Cf.
Fed.
binding
on
R.
Civ.
this
P.
26(b)(2)(C).
Court,
and
Further,
neither
neither
demonstrates
an
intervening change in the law.
In
sum,
Plaintiffs
have
not
established any grounds
for
reconsidering the Court's assessment that the PA's interests as
a foreign government warrant deference.
E.
Developments in the Sokolow Case Do Not Warrant
Reconsideration
Finally,
Plaintiffs argue that even if the Court properly
applied the Societe Nationale factors to the PA,
those factors
should be reconsidered in light of the fact that Defendants were
recently
ordered
Plaintiffs
"reasonably
argue
produce
to
that,
claim
as
a
that
GIS
documents
result,
Defendants
their
proprietary
in
Sokolow.
can no
longer
investigative
techniques will be revealed by production of GIS documents
this case."
in
Pls.' Mot. at 12.
by a foreign law restricting discovery.
Lyons, 119 F. R. D. at
389.
A determination that a district court is not required to
defer to a foreign law is a far cry from holding that it may not
consider such law in exercising its broad powers to supervise
discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and (c).
-16-
As Defendants point out,
although Magistrate Judge Ellis'
Order in Sokolow post-dates this Court's June 6 Memorandum Order
denying Plaintiffs'
Motion to Compel,
have
documents
produced
development.
GIS
De f s . '
Compel ·in this case,
the U.S.
in
Opp' n at
the fact
other
that Defendants
cases
is
not
a
new
In their original Motion to
6.
Plaintiffs argued that "in other cases in
and in Israel,
the Defendants have provided GIS files
notwithstanding any claim of state secrets or other privileges."
Pls.' Mot to Compel at 13; see also Reply in Support of Mot. to
Compel ·at 10
would
not
compulsion,
at
a
("If GIS documents were really secret,
have
hundreds
in prior cases.") .
hearing
counsel
produced
on
Plaintiffs'
explained
that
to
Plaintiffs
production
now
any
and
defense
whether
decision
Compel,
to
produce
intelligence files are made by the PA on a
based on their content.
without
The Court addressed this topic
Motion
the
them,
of
defendants
case-by-case basis
Tr. 5/20/13 at 17:21-18:17.
argue
that
(approximately 330
the
pages)
scope
renders
of
it
the
Sokolow
"an extremely
new development" because defendants only made "small productions
of
GIS
documents
in other
cases."
Pls.'
Reply at
7.
This
assertion is directly contradicted by Plaintiffs' Reply brief in
support of
their Motion to Compel,
-17-
in which they argued that
Defendants had already "produced hundreds of
prior cases.
[GIS documents]" in
Reply in Support of Mot. to Compel at 10 (emphasis
added).
The GIS documents disclosed in the Sokolow case relate to
different
individuals
documents
at
basis
conclude
to
issue
and
in
different
this
that
case.
their
subject
matter
Consequently,
disclosure
moots
than
there
the
the
is
no
Court's
concerns regarding exposing specific individuals to threats and
increasing
the
risk
of
foreign governments.
No.
350] .
disrupting
See Nov.
Therefore,
the
27,
diplomatic
2013 Mem.
Sokolow
decision
relations
with
Order at 2
[Dkt.
does
not
justify
reconsideration of the Court's determination that disclosure of
the GIS documents will undermine important interests of the PA.
III. CONCLUSION
For
the
foregoing
reasons,
Plaintiffs'
Renewed
Motion
for
Production of PA GIS Documents will be denied.
Glgy~r~
March 24, 2014
United States District Judge
Copies to: attorneys on record via ECF
-18-
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?