Judge Reconsiders Ruling for Twitter in Transparency Suit After Government Hands Over Classified Evidence
After receiving an in camera filing from the government, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers indicated she thinks information that Twitter is seeking to publish about government requests "would pose grave or imminent harm to national security" if made public.
June 21, 2019 at 12:58 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge in Oakland has indicated that she's likely to side with the federal government in its long-running dispute with Twitter Inc. over how much the company can disclose about national security-related requests from the government.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California wrote in an order issued Friday morning that the government presented her with new evidence in March arguing there was a reasonable expectation that information Twitter is seeking to publish “would pose grave or imminent harm to national security” if made public.
The new evidence, a declaration filed only to the judge in March by Michael C. McGarrity, acting executive assistant director of the National Security Branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has not been seen by Twitter's lawyers at Mayer Brown. Rogers wrote Monday that she was inclined to conclude that it “cannot be disclosed to counsel for Twitter based upon the national security concerns it raises.”
In an emailed statement, a spokesperson for Twitter said that the company is committed to transparency with its users about how it interacts with governments, including the United States.
“We believe it is vital that the public see the demands we receive, and how we work to strike a balance between respecting local law, supporting people's ability to Tweet and protecting people from harm,” the Twitter spokesperson said. “While Twitter is disappointed by the Court's latest order, we will continue to fight for meaningful transparency. We encourage all users and the public to review our biannual Transparency Report to learn more about our efforts,” the spokesperson said.
Twitter filed suit in October 2014 after federal officials refused to allow the company to publish a draft of its transparency report detailing the number and types of requests the company had received for user information. In particular, the government claimed that the number of national security letters and court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 issued to Twitter was classified.
Rogers initially dismissed the suit in late 2015, finding that it was moot after the passage of the USA Freedom Act loosened the government restrictions on publishing some aggregated data. Rogers, however, allowed the company to amend its claims.
In July 2017, Rogers denied the government's request for summary judgment in the suit finding that the government's prohibition on publishing Twitter's transparency report amounted to a prior restraint of the company's free speech rights. In Friday's order to show cause, Rogers indicated that she was reconsidering the summary judgment ruling in light of the declaration the FBI's McGarrity filed in camera in March.
“Drafted to support the Government's assertion of the state secrets privilege, the declaration provides an explanation of the Government's basis for restricting the information that can be published in the Draft Transparency Report, and the grave and imminent harm that could reasonably be expected to arise from its disclosure, in far greater detail than the Government provided previously,” the judge wrote.
Rogers found that the declaration met the government's burden to justify classification and restrict disclosure and “that no more narrow tailoring of the restrictions can be made.”
DOJ representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAn ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
The New Federal Sentencing Factor in Downstate New York? Prison Conditions
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250