Filing 51

MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaints in Light of Memorandum Opinion Issued Today 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)(Berman, Marcia)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED COMPLAINTS IN LIGHT OF MEMORANDUM OPINION ISSUED TODAY 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, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), to extend the time to respond to Plaintiffs’ amended complaints in the above-captioned cases. 1. Today is the due date for Government Defendants’ response to the amended complaints in both Klayman v. Obama (Civ. Action No. 13-851) (“Klayman I”) and Klayman v. Obama (Civ. Action No. 13-881) (“Klayman II”). Government Defendants had prepared a motion to dismiss for filing today, largely incorporating the merits arguments made in Government Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (ECF No. 25 in Klayman I and ECF No. 21 in Klayman II). At 1:07 p.m. this afternoon, however, the Court issued a 68-page Memorandum Opinion granting in part Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction. The opinion concludes that, with respect to Klayman I, Plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Government’s telephony metadata program, that Plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, and that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm. Thus, the Court granted in part the motion in Klayman I, with respect to plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange and as against Government Defendants, but stayed the order pending appeal. 2. Government Defendants respectfully request an extension until January 10, 2014, of the deadline for responding to the amended complaints in these cases, to allow them sufficient time to determine the impact of today’s Memorandum Opinion on the motion to dismiss that Government Defendants were prepared to file today, and more generally how the Government will seek to proceed in light of today’s ruling. For example, Government Defendants intended to move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but the Court ruled that that claim has a likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore the Government will need to assess the Court’s ruling to determine how to proceed in light of that ruling. 3. Government Defendants seek until January 10 because of approaching deadlines in another pair of cases in the Northern District of California challenging the NSA’s intelligencegathering activities, which cases are handled by the same litigation team responsible for defending Government Defendants in the instant cases. On December 20, 2013, the Government 2 must report to the Court in Jewel v. National Security Agency (08-cv-4373-JSW) (N.D. Cal.) and Shubert v. Obama (07-cv-0693-JSW) (N.D. Cal.) on the impact of recent disclosures concerning the NSA’s intelligence-gathering activities on the Government’s 2012 state secrets privilege assertion in those cases. The Government is also required to submit by December 20 redacted, declassified versions of the multiple prior state secrets privilege declarations filed in those cases. These are extraordinarily sensitive, complex filings requiring a great deal of effort and coordination by different government agencies. The litigation team handling those cases and the instant cases must devote its full attention to the Jewel and Shubert matters in order to meet the court-imposed deadlines in those cases. In addition, December 25, 2013, and January 1, 2014, are federal holidays. 4. Counsel for Plaintiffs in Klayman I and II has advised counsel for Government Defendants that Plaintiffs object to this motion. Counsel for defendant Verizon Communications and Lowell McAdams have advised that they consent to this motion. Dated: December 16, 2013 Respectfully submitted, STUART F. DELERY Assistant Attorney General JOSEPH H. HUNT Director, Federal Programs Branch ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Deputy Branch Director /s/ Marcia Berman JAMES J. GILLIGAN Special Litigation Counsel MARCIA BERMAN Senior Trial Counsel BRYAN DEARINGER RODNEY PATTON Trial Attorneys 3 U.S Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Room 6102 Washington, D.C. 20001 Phone: (202) 514-3358 Fax: (202) 616-8470 Attorneys for Government Defendants 4

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?