KLAYMAN v. OBAMA et al

Filing 24

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages In The Combined Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Injunction Motions by KEITH B. ALEXANDER, ERIC H. HOLDER, JR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Patton, Rodney)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
)
1:13-cv-00851-RJL
)
v.
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
)
)
LARRY KLAYMAN, et al.,
)
)
Civil Action No.
Plaintiffs,
)
1:13-cv-00881-RJL
)
v.
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, President of the
)
United States, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN ENLARGEMENT
OF THE PAGE LIMITATION TO OPPOSE IN ONE FILING PLAINTIFFS’ TWO
MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS
Defendants Barack Obama, President of the United States, Eric Holder, Attorney General
of the United States, and General Keith B. Alexander, Director of the National Security Agency
(NSA), insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, together with defendants NSA and the
United States Department of Justice (collectively, the “Government Defendants”), hereby move
to enlarge the page limitation for their combined opposition to Plaintiffs’ two preliminary
injunction motions from 45 to 65 pages. In support of this motion, which Plaintiffs do not
oppose, the Government Defendants submit the following:

1. On June 6 and June 12, 2013, Plaintiffs filed Complaints against the Government
Defendants. See Klayman v. Obama (Civ. Action No. 13-851) (Klayman I), Dkt. No.
1; Klayman v. Obama (Civ. Action No. 13-881) (Klayman II), Dkt. No. 1.
2. Almost five months later, on October 29, 2013, Plaintiffs filed separate motions
seeking the issuance of preliminary injunctions in each of the above-captioned cases.
See Klayman I, Dkt. No. 13; Klayman II, Dkt. No. 10.
3. This Court held a status conference on October 31, 2013, during which it set
November 11, 2013 as the date for the Government Defendants to oppose both of
Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions; in accordance with the Court’s remarks at
the conference, the Government Defendants will file one combined opposition to
those motions.
4. Local Rule 7(e) provides that a “memorandum of points and authorities in support of or
in opposition to a motion shall not exceed 45 pages.”

5. The Government Defendants seek an enlargement of this page limit to 65 pages to
account for the fact that they are opposing two motions (totaling 64 pages) in one filing
and that these motions raise complex issues involving national security, statutory
authority, and constitutional law, and are issues of significant public interest, as the Court
noted at the status conference.

6. In their opposition to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motions, the Government
Defendants will explain the statutory background for the three provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) at issue here, as Plaintiffs did not do so, and explain
how the challenged Government intelligence-gathering activities function under these
statutory provisions. The Government Defendants’ opposition will also address why
Plaintiffs do not have standing to seek injunctive relief, why they cannot show irreparable

2

harm, and why judicial review of Plaintiffs’ claims have been impliedly precluded by
Congress. The opposition will also explain why the challenged programs do not exceed
the Government’s statutory authority and do not violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth
Amendments.

7. By way of comparison, the Government Defendants note that in the Southern District of
New York, in ACLU v. Clapper, civ no. 13-cv-03994-WHP, they filed a 40-page
opposition to one preliminary injunction motion (Dkt. No. 61) that challenged only one
FISA-authorized surveillance program, and the court there already had the benefit of a
motion to dismiss outlining the relevant statutory background for the challenged program.

8. Although the Government Defendants have made every effort to address all of the issues
raised by Plaintiffs’ two motions within the page limitation of a single opposition, they
have not been able to do so.

9. Consequently, the Government Defendants respectively request that the Court enlarge
the page limit from 45 to 65 pages to allow them to fully apprise the Court of the
issues and to adequately address all of the legal arguments involved in these two
cases.
10. Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), the Government Defendants conferred with counsel for
Plaintiffs regarding the relief they seek in this motion. Plaintiffs advised that they do not
oppose the page enlargement on the condition that the Government Defendants would not
oppose a similar request by Plaintiffs to seek an enlargement of the page limit for their
Reply from 25 to 50 pages. The Government Defendants do not oppose such an
enlargement.

3

Dated: November 8, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
STUART F. DELERY
Assistant Attorney General
JOSEPH H. HUNT
Director, Federal Programs Branch
ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO
Deputy Branch Director

/s/ Rodney Patton
JAMES J. GILLIGAN
Special Litigation Counsel
[e-mail]
MARCIA BERMAN
Senior Trial Counsel
BRYAN DEARINGER
RODNEY PATTON
Trial Attorneys
U.S Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6102
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
Counsel for the Government Defendants

4