Project Vote/Voting for America, Inc. v. Long et al

Filing 63

OPINION that the Plaintiff's Motion for SummaryJudgment is GRANTED insofar as the plaintiff's request fordeclaratory relief; the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment isDENIED, insofar as the plaintiff requests retrospective relief;a nd the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED,insofar as the plaintiff's request prospective injunctive relief. See Opinion for specific court findings. Signed by District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith and filed on 7/20/11. (jcow, )

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

FILED

COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

PROJECT VOTE/VOTING FOR AMERICA,

CLERK. U.S. D'3'rHICT COURT

INC.,

Plaintiff,

Civil No.

v.

ELISA LONG,

in her Official

as General

2:10cv75

Capacity

Registrar of Norfolk,

Virginia,

and

DONALD PALMER,
as

Secretary,

in his

Official Capacity

State Board of

Elections,

Defendants.

OPINION

On
For

February

America,

Declaratory

and

brought

and

2010,

Rodriguez

Elections

F.

Supp.

2d

Long

the

January

Complaint

for

against

the

("Complaint")

29,

this

court

to

2010,
the

712

Rule

of

Vote/Voting

(E.D.

answered

2 011,

Complaint

Federal

Secretary
28,

a

Vote/Voting

Nancy

Project

697,

filed

and

Dismiss

See

Project

("Long")

pursuant

and

became
on

to

(6).

752

Relief

October

Motion

plaintiff,

Vote"),

Long

On

Long,

("Palmer")

("Project

Elisa

defendants'

the

Injunctive

("Rodrigues").

12(b)(l)

2010,

Inc.

defendants,

Dismiss"),

16,

Va.

the

of

Complaint.

the

and,

Virginia

thus,

was

denied

the

("Motion

to

Civil

for

2010).

Rodrigues

Am.,

Procedure

Inc.

v.

On November

10,

Donald
State

Palmer

Board

substituted

of
for

Rodriguez

as

Federal

Rule

ECF

a

56.)

No.

for

of

10,

and

January

the

the

that

Judgment,

matter,

be

Elisa

or

filed

to

on

that

Long

25(d).

any

or

proposed

before

1

a

the

June

Motion

Long's

affidavit

registration
that

submitted

as

students.

"supplement

57) ,

well

but

they

genuine

issue

indication

Motion

for

how

defendants

for

bringing

University
voting

irrelevant

2
the
it

In

the

court
seeks.

11-15.

change

to

action

the

(PL's

is

is

the

id.

the
--

l.)

filed
2011,

Project

a

Long

of

voter
students
general

ballots

from

affidavit

that

of

Vote's

2008,

1,

ECF

there

they

can

at

an Affidavit

(Notice

to
No.

is

no

provide

any

to

resolving

the

only

surmise

relevant

plaintiff's
eligible

prevented

general

resolving

Long's

do

court

that

for

University

position

nor

unfounded

not

2008

or

that

motivation

Norfolk

State

discouraged

from

election.

This

point

is

instant dispute.

supplemental

should

The

convey

Motion

provisional

Court,"

their

the

November

of

fact,

and

rejection

submitted

affidavit

were

Virginia's
to

the

the

Judgment.

students

in

before

Long's

wished

this

to

Long
June

to

State

Motion

and

plaintiff

Reply

n.l,

On

On July 6,

the

counting

material

Summary

the

a

Norfolk

defendants

not

of

of

the

record

do

from

filed

2011.2

a

2011.

(See

the

1

to

conference

2011.

and

File

prior

as
The

the

to

16,

decree

defendants

addresses

applications

were

election,
such

Leave

filed

regarding

1,

Order

Palmer

status

consent

2010,x

for

a

July

supplemental memorandum on July 1,
filed

2011,

submissions

24,

plaintiff

1,

for

law pursuant

Mem.

replied on March

direction,

on

of

(See

the

March

convened

further

operation

2011,

On

court

Summary

Pursuant

31,

plaintiff

any

by

Procedure

Judgment.

2011,

directed

defendant

Civil

On

Summary

responded,

named

order

memorandum,

the

immediate

Supplemental

Mem.

the

plaintiff

disclosure
2,

ECF

No.

of

argues
all

58.);

that

records

see

infra

Supplemental

that

Memorandum,

motion.3

The

and on July

Motion

for

7,

2011,

Summary

the

court

Judgment

is

granted

ripe

for

review.
I.

Factual

The
court's

Background

relevant
October

factual

29,

history

2010,

is

Opinion,

Project Vote,

set

forth

and

need

F.

Supp.

full herein.

See

brief

review,

Project

civil

and

works,

not

be

in the

repeated

rights

and Advancement

organization

2d at

698-701.

in

sought to inspect and obtain copies of

voting

Vote

752

in detail

Project,

with

which

a

In

national

Project

Vote

the completed voter registration applications of any
individual who timely submitted an application at any
time from January 1,
2008,
through October 31,
2008,
who
was
not
registered
to
vote
in
time
for
the
November

4,

documents,

2008
such

general

as

election,

documents

and

identifying

also
the

other

reasons

the applications were rejected.

(Compl.
was

H 15

made

("NVRA")

(internal quotation marks

pursuant

to

the

Public Disclosure

National

Provision,

(hereinafter referred to as

the

3

court

Long

argues

that

the

omitted).)
Voter

42

This

Registration

U.S.C.

"deny

Act's

§ 1973gg-6(i)(1)

"Public Disclosure

should

request

Provision").4

Project

Vote's

request for immediate disclosure of the 2008 voter registration
applications,"
and instead "stay access to those applications
pending a final resolution of this matter."
(Long's Reply to
PL's

Supplemental Mem.

2,

This provision reads

ECF No.

62);

see

in pertinent part:
3

infra 11-15.

The

defendants

these

will

records

Records"),
their

not

(collectively

purportedly

disclosure,

Provision

permit

does

17),

require

Public
be

the

Complaint,

Disclosure

available

records

the

(id.

(quoting

of

42

that

the

it

is

of

the

Each

State

shall

make

available,
records

by

voters,

to

a

the

NVRA,

for

the

and
except

to

declination

the

to

U.S.C.

§

1973gg-6(i)(1)

because

public

a

at

the

are
or

the

accuracy
(Id.

H

29

to

Supremacy

least

inspection

that

the

of

the

plaintiff

years
and,

Clause

and

where

cost,

all

of

programs

and

of

ensuring

the

lists
such

to

the

2

reasonable

purpose

register

of

eligible

records

vote

(emphasis added).
4

they

programs

Therefore,

official

extent

NVRA's

Records

availability

identity of a voter registration agency
any particular voter is registered.
42

Requested

voters.'"

to

implementation
of

the

for

inspection and photocopying,

for

the

that

of

the

pursuant

at

for

currency

Disclosure

Additionally,

limits

for

maintain

conducted

forbids

available

ensuring

eligible

Constitution.

available

concerning

accuracy

statute

photocopying

activities

of

1973gg-6 (i) (1) ) .)

public

shall

the

inspection

of

the

States

that

purpose

to

superseded
United

§

alleges

implementation

lists

Virginia

Requested Records

for

the

official

U.S.C.

requires

the

for

"Requested

Public
made

copy

t 22.)

plaintiff

be

the

or

§ 24.2-444

the

they

public

conducted

currency

extent

to

"* concerning

activities
and

Provision

and

inspect

as

Code

that

the

to

to

Virginia

t

inspection and photocopying.
In

Vote

referred

because

(Compl.

not

Project

or

relate

to

through

the
which

asks

the

court

violation

of

Virginia

to:

the

Code

1)

declare

NVRA;

2)

declare

§ 24.2-444,

and

regulation stating the same;
from refusing

to permit

that

3)

access

the

defendants

that

any

the

other

NVRA

are

in

preempts

Virginia

law

or

" [p]ermanently enjoin Defendants
to any requesting party

for copy

and/or inspection of voter registration applications and related
records,

Project

as

sought by Project Vote

Vote

the

costs

authorized by 42 U.S.C.
In

the

Motion

that

it

is

entitled

the

court's

Provision

incurred
§

for

to

the

Records.

See

Summary

defendants

contend

Opinion

arguments.

of

Vote,

that

Both

construction of

with

two

October

they

other

the

to

the

F.

2010,

defendants

federal

argue

of

statutes

voter

encouragement

of

well
that

voting."

to
2d

to

purpose

as

as
the

Requested
712.

judgment

rejected

upon

several

court's

seek

is

to

new

previous

protect

all

in

in

"inconsistent

information

Mem.

The

court

underlying

(Palmer's

upon

Disclosure

the
at

asserts

based

summary

Provision

which

law

Public

Supp.

registration

Congressional

of

which the

as

award

action,

plaintiff

access

entitled

arguments,

29,

the

certain

are

this

the

matter

that

752

and 4)

(Id^ at 11.)

a

the Public Disclosure

confidentiality
contrary

as

holding

based upon their previous

its

pursuing

Judgment,

judgment

plaintiff

Project

in

1973gg-9(c).

previous

grants

in this matter";

and

three

Opp.

the

to

is

laws:

Mot.

for Summ.
Summ.

J.

J.

2,

11,

argues that

ECF No.

ECF No.
"the

of

those

phrase

52

Court

operative phrase

51;

[hereinafter

in

"reveals

that

(Id.

at

Congress

Opp."]).

record

as

nonmoving
material
a

judgment

a

whole

party,
fact

matter

Liberty

of

Lobby,

1985) .

that

FINDS,

the

October

Dismiss

v.

3),

did

29,

and

is

in

that

and

not

Fed.

U.S.

this

there

the

2010,

Provision

available

to

the

the

there

moving

477

analysis

intend

same

of

to

(Id.

Indus.,
all

the

one

resolved

addressed

requires

the

for

plaintiff

is

is

the

that

mandate

at 2.)

the

P.

favorable

genuine

763

to

in

F.2d

the

604,

court's

inspection

the

and

entitled

to

610

and

the
and

Opinion

Motion

NVRA's

Records

v.

Floor

dispute,

defendants'

whether

of

Anderson

Terry's

in

the

judgment

parties agree,
facts

the

issue
to

56 (a) ;

(1986);

Requested

not

viewing

entitled

Inc.,

material

denied

court,

no

248-50

no

which

public

is

Civ.

242,

a

most

party

R.

case,

are

when

light

the

specifically

if

the

Burlington

Disclosure

Accordingly,

appropriate

See

In

that

issue

that

Inc.,

(4th
court

and

law.

Inc.

Cir.

is

finds

and

Fashions,

of

Long also

Analysis

Summary

as

for

or to review the use

disclosure of voter registration applications."
II.

to Mot.

the plain meaning of

and activities, '

context,"

in Opp.

"Long's

failed to define

^programs

terms

see Long's Mem.

to

to

Public

be

made

photocopying.

judgment

as

a

matter

of

law,

favor

of

18

App'x

F.

curiam)

the

the

court

defendants.
95,

2001

is

[in

identical

Bridgeway Corp.
The

its

purportedly
its

its

(Long's

with

assessing

found

Disclosure

the

that

keeping

a

persons

are

Project

Vote,

wrong.

meaning

6.)

prior

is

qualified

F.

one

recent'
or

and

activity

conducted

and

2d

at

to

to

the

court

overall

is

by

ensure

that

see

within

id.

that

Long

mistaken.

the

account

and

statutory

meaning,

covered

vote

706;

court

^programs

ordinary

for

the

that

Long

to

raise

understands

errorless

2000))).

they

persuade

but

(quoting

adheres

so

phrase

ruling,

entitled

Supp.

and

the

issues

arguments

the

court

common

or

court

argues

in

sponte

on

(2d Cir.

previous

to

sua

based

the

(per

procedural

party'"

140

that

meaning
The

program

is

Long

of

of

in

Ratcher,

2001)

court's

moving

effort

v.

Cir.

"% [t]hreat

Records,

an

contextual

'most

752

in

statute's

Provision

the

judgment

Inc.

(4th

the

anticipate

court's

"a

n.8

201 F.3d 134,

was

Opp.

the

if

defendants'

arguments

and

*7

nonmovant]

by

enter

Enters.,

the

Requested

plain

disagrees

is

the

the

scheme."

court

the

ruling

activities,'

that

the

rightly

prior

"ignor[ed]

In

of

new

of

Citibank,

of

nondisclosure

at

raised

defendants

rejection

that

favor

v.

Amzura

diminished

those

to

Cf.

(noting

greatly

determination

necessarily

1023112,

WL

(unpublished)

prejudice

must

the

Public

the

state

of

which

the

state."

(finding

that

"[t]he

process

person

is

to

which

eligible

ensure

the

(emphasis
context

"programs

lists.

and

See

position
squarely

is

the

at

assessed

its

is

the

the

plain

therefore,

lists

in

to

Long's

the
In

to

the

found that
of

defendants'
the

court

"programs

of

argument

and

maintenance

why

statute") .

current

court

a

designed

looking

the

meaning

[]

are

limited

(discussing

in

whether

very nature,

language,

not

708-09
out

determines

Furthermore,

statutory

activities"

and,

"by

Commonwealth's

not borne

activities,"

Commonwealth

added)).

of

id.

"is

the

to vote"

that

accurate"
specific

by

sum,

and

does

not

persuade

the court to abandon its prior ruling.5
Both

is

Palmer

inconsistent

and

Overseas

and

42

§§

5

Long

with

Voter

Uniformed
U.S.C.

and

Long

two

argue

other

Empowerment

Overseas

Citizens

1973ff-1973ff-7,

raises

two

other

she

argues

merely
that

Provision's

a

challenges

the

to

depart

language

limits

the

from

"shall

records

which

Voting

in

of

ruling

in

Act

to

the

{"UOCAVA"),
Vote

that

Act

to

the

they are
She

Public

of

first

Disclosure

disclosure

of

voter

already
rejected
this
at 706-08, and sees no

here.

the

amended

ruling.

the

support

ruling

Military

her Opposition

prior

The
court
F. Supp. 2d

its

the

Help Americans

court's

not

prior

--

but makes no pretense

include"

subject

Act,

Absentee
the

court's

statutes

{"MOVE")

review

does

registration
applications.
argument, Project Vote,
752
reason

federal

and

the

contextual

exceptions

the

arguments

Motion for Summary Judgment,
new;

that

Long

Public

disclosure

also

argues

Disclosure

to

only

therein.
The court rejected this argument too, id.
and sees no reason to depart from that ruling here.

those
at

that

Provision
708

listed
n.17,

2002

("HAVA"),

scattered

and

44

Pub.

L.

sections

of

the

of

No.

Titles

United

Circuit's

admonition

statutory

schemes

harmonize

the

behind
1390,

both

statutes,

Cir.

that

in

this

court

Provision

does

registration

not

The

interpretation
Disclosure

of

only

the

MOVE
to

added),

Likewise,

disclosure

security

the

Public

provisional

ballots.

interpreted

by

this

security

voter

absentee

of

See

court,

42

of

the

MOVE

§

these

and

Disclosure

the

proper

Provision.
does

protections,
ballot

§ 1973ff-l(f)(3).
does

which

and

this

1973ff-1(e)(6)

not
only

I5482(a){5).

Act,

voter

with

absentee

§

F.3d

other

applications

U.S.C.

protections,

66

completed

privacy

Id.

intent

defendants

Disclosure

ballots.

U.S.C.

The

Public

the Requested Records

privacy

Inc.,

involves

and

42

and

disagrees

registration

processes,"

and

and

Act's

two

NVRA with

only

Fourth

legislative

disclosure

dispute

the

42,

reconcile

omitted) .

court

41,

in

construe

Trucking,

the

39,

cite

to

the

(codified

35,

"must
is

that

The

NVRA's

"the

request

(emphasis

HAVA's

public

29,

completed voter registration

the

apply

application

permit

of

out

Bulldog

find

1666

They

duty

(citations

must

18,

court

to harmonize

instant

the

implicate

which

order

a

carry

re

1995)

Stat.

Code) .

applications.

position.

not

In

(4th

10,

[its]

and

schemes."

116

5,

when

together,

1395

statutes,

2,

States

that

claim

then

107-252,

HAVA

implicate
apply

The

"are

NVRA

to
as

capable

of

co-existence,"

Morton v.
The

Mancari,

ruling.

Records,

even

with

redacted,

will

chill

("SSN")

and frustrate

reasons

set

court

the

NVRA's
grants

reasons
Public
the

forth

the

forth

the

stated

in

Disclosure

with

the

court

in

plaintiff

applications

in

court's
752

not persuaded that

Accordingly,

previous

the

its
that

access

it

previous

42

October 29,

U.S.C.

the

its prior
in

full

2010,

and,

FINDS

§

that

the

1973gg-6(i) (1) ,

voter

redacted

For

2d at 709-712.

incorporates

completed

social

ruling,

should abandon
and

that

the NVRA.

Opinion and above,

SSNs

argument

voter registration

Supp.

Opinion of

to

voters'

F.

adopts

Provision,

effective."

voters'

the overall purpose of

See Project Vote,

is

as

(1974).6

their

the reasoning set
for

551

each

revisit

court disagrees.
The

535,

"regard[s]

also

security numbers

same

court

Requested

the

applications

the

417 U.S.

defendants

disclosing

the

and

for

registration

inspection

and

photocopying.

6

Moreover,

the

NVRA's

the

voter

the court already found that the plain meaning of

Public

Disclosure

registration

Provision

requires

applications,

and

disclosure

thus

"the

of

court's

inquiry is complete and it will enforce the statute as written."
Project Vote,
752 F. Supp.
2d at 705
(citing Stephens ex rel.
R.E.

re
the

v.

JKJ

Astrue,

565

Chevrolet,

language

consistent,

is

F.3d

Inc. ,

plain

there

is

131,

26

and

no

137,

F.3d
the

need

quotation marks and citations

140

481,

(4th

483

statutory

to

10

scheme

inquire

omitted)).

Cir.

(4th

2009));

Cir.
is

see

In

1994)

("If

coherent

and

further."

(internal

III.

Relief

The
access

NVRA's
to

Public

completed

voters'

SSNs

Furthermore,

regulation

Disclosure
voter

redacted

to

the

registration
for

extent

forecloses

is

preempted

Maryland
the

v.

court

by

disclosure

to

with

photocopying.
is

U.S.

access

the

Accordingly,

and

U.S.

are

the

insofar

rule,

VI,

(1981).
of

voter

redacted

the

the

or

registration

art.

violation

plaintiff's

as

law,

voter

Const,

completed

SSNs

with

the court FINDS that

746-47
in

plaintiff

photocopying.

Virginia

completed

725,

to

voters'

GRANTED,

of

See

defendants

grant

applications

Judgment

the

451

any

the

applications

SSNs redacted,

NVRA.

Louisiana,

FINDS

refusing

the

grants

inspection

that

applications with the voters'
it

Provision

for

cl.

2;

Therefore,
the

NVRA

by

registration
inspection

Motion

plaintiff's

for

and

Summary

request

for

declaratory relief.

The

court

now

injunctive relief.
plaintiff

must

irreparable
monetary

(3)

that,

demonstrate:

(2)

are

that

the

considering

public

(1)

plaintiff's

the

interest

a

that

remedies

inadequate

plaintiff and defendant,
that

the

request

In order to obtain a permanent

injury;

damages,

addresses

to

balance

remedy
would

injunction,

"a

suffered

an

at

law,

such

as

for

that

injury;

has

available

compensate

of

hardships

in equity

not

11

is

be

for

between

is warranted,

disserved

by

a

and

the
(4)

permanent

injunction."

391

eBay,

(2006) .

with

it

injunctive

access

the

democracy,

to

the

ubiquity

there

is

like

statutory

a

the

redacted,

to

and

may

inspect

the

in

court

injunction

is

95,

"unavailable

111

absent

a

finds.

that members of

be

wrongfully

photocopy

...

voter

See City of

(remarking

showing

denied

completed

(1983)

U.S.

so

threat"

L.A.

461

Provision

representative

SSNs redacted.

Lyons,

of

that

Charlotte-Mecklenburg

Cir.

2001)

court

("Before

must

find

a

omitted)).

is

Similarly,

damages

right

E.

to

Tenn.

2004)
may

are

be

court

(w[W]hen

a

fashioned

grants

there

to

completed

Natural

Gas

Co.

give

a

no

voter

of

right
to

12

305,

for

issue

denial

361

F.3d

exists,
that

an

right

that

(4th
the

of

a

monetary

statutory

823

the

See

(4th

equitable
if

Belk

injury prong

applications.

808,

or

violations."

irreparable

genuine

347

injunction,

future

registration

Sage,

effect

F.3d

permanent

the

compensate

v.

269

danger

is

substantive
to

Educ,

Accordingly,

insufficient

access

of

necessity-a

(citations
met.

Bd.

an

any real

immediate threat that the plaintiff will be wronged again");
v.

is

our

again

and

38 8,

applications

registration records with the voters'
v.

U.S.

the plaintiff

registration

voting

plaintiff,

that

547

Public Disclosure

voter

of

L. L. C.,

contest

"real and immediate

the

right

if

completed

SSNs

public,

the

MercExchange,

relief,

voters'

Considering

the

v.

The defendants do not

entitled to

grants

Inc.

Cir.

remedy

prescribed

legal

remedies

balance
as

a

of

are

inadequate."

hardships

permanent

does

not

injunction

(citations

weigh

will

in

simply

omitted)).

favor

of

compel

the

the

The

defendants,

defendants

comply with their responsibilities under the NVRA and,

thus,

to

will

prevent them from denying the public of a statutory right.
In this case,
permanent
Long

injunction,

argues

voter

that

dispute,

with

the

Mem.

1,

that

applicants'

past

at

the

injunction

that

a

of

will

discloses

Ex.

D

to

Mem.

[hereinafter
"this

it.

"Va.

in

Voter

registration

See

supra

Supp.

note

card

final

The

privacy.

not

issue

a

to

agrees,

PL's

but

does

case

752

from

of

protect

appears

F.

retrospective

information

2008

to

this

see Project Vote,

the

applications

enough

As

scope.

resolution

Reply

court
far

of

those

{Long's

goes

personal

(See Va.

a

submitted

plausibly believed such information was
they provided

injunction's

disclosure

pending

stay

impression,

court

"stay

62. )7

expectations

first

the

privacy."

ECF No.
such

to be one of
n.10,

should

applicants
of

interest weighs in favor of a

limits

applications

because

believe

also

court

expectation

Supplemental

705

it

the

registration

this

not

while the public

Supp.

permanent

citizens

confidential at

2d

the

who

time

Voter Registration Application Form,
of

Mot.

to

Dismiss,

Registration Application"]
will

not

3.
13

be

open

to

ECF

No.

9-4

(stating

that

inspection

by

the

public").)8

The

disserved,

if

refusing

court

the

to

in

this

547

at

391.

U.S.

Judgment

is

the

are

inspection

applications

judgment

that

defendants

permit

registration

FINDS

case,

that

even

Accordingly,

DENIED,

and

the

interest

permanently

were

if

public

SSNs

are

as

the

from

of

prior

voter

to

Motion

final

See

redacted.

the plaintiff's

insofar

enjoined

photocopying
completed

would be

eBay,

for Summary

plaintiff

requests

retrospective relief.9
The

public

permanently

enjoined

photocopying
the

interest

of

voters'

from

SSNs

defendants

will

8

with

The

as

Virginia

this

2008)

Mem.

2

expectation

of

the

of

and

such

in

have

this
and

is

such

previously

completed
to
v.

Long,

court
Court

is

The

procedures
changes,

told by

not

(PL's

070274

(Va.

convinced

opinion

engendered

of
the

registration

public."
No.

to
the

expectation

been

voter

the

are

case.10

other

no

with

applications

Among

reasonably

face

inspection

Feb.

that

eviscerates
by

an

an
an

explicit

the voter registration application.

Voter Registration Application.

In

refusing

other
to

enjoined
subsequent

10

privacy
on

The

Supreme

are

applications

policies

there

Rivera

(unpublished)).)

privacy notice

judgment
their

defendants

permit

extent

disclosed

(citing

the

registration

that

be

Virginia

9

that

if

to

ruling.

Court

unpublished

See Va.

update

in Virginia

might

served

the

final

claims

Supreme

Supplemental

8,

to

to

court's

"voters

applications

to

need

plaintiff

privacy,

voter

redacted

subsequent

be

refusing

completed

completed

comply

will

words,

permit

as
to

to
final

the

defendants

access

to

voter

are

registration

judgment

the

Requested

in this

See supra note 9.
14

case.

not

enjoined

Records,

applications

but

from

are

so

completed

defendants

will

registration

subject

to

of

GRANTED,

that

language

claims

the

See

Va.

on

Virginia's

application

Voter

voter

is

not

Registration

The parties do not contest that there is no genuine
fact

relief,

Accordingly,

remove

disclosure.

material

injunctive

to

application

public

Application.
issue

need

the

insofar

regarding

and

indeed,

plaintiff's
as

the

the

propriety
the

Motion

for

plaintiff's

of

court

prospective

finds

Summary

none.

Judgment

request

is

prospective

injunctive relief.

The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Opinion
to counsel for the parties and to enter judgment thereon.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___

fl

Rebecca Beach Smitn

United States District Judge

REBECCA BEACH

SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norfolk,

July

Virginia

£p '

2011

15