DreamHost Lawyer Balks at DOJ Modifications to Search Warrant
A hearing on the issue is set for Thursday morning before D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin.
August 23, 2017 at 05:24 PM
4 minute read
Website-hosting company DreamHost accused the government of broadening its search warrant for information from the company Wednesday, despite investigators claiming to narrow the scope.
The government wants information about a website used to organize protests during President Donald Trump's inauguration in Washington, D.C. DreamHost refused to comply, and the government proposed narrowing the categories of information it would seek on Tuesday, ahead of a hearing on the matter scheduled for Thursday in D.C. Superior Court before Chief Judge Robert Morin.
In his reply Wednesday, DreamHost lawyer Raymond Aghaian said the proposal actually broadens the warrant. He wrote the modifications, articulated in an attachment to the warrant, add new crimes the government will search for evidence of. The original warrant sought evidence only for violations of the district's anti-rioting statute.
“In doing so, the government has significantly altered the nature of the warrant it applied for, and therefore the information on which Senior Judge [Ronald] Wertheim based his probable cause determination,” Aghaian wrote in the brief. “The government has provided no authority for the proposition that it can seek to broaden a search warrant without a new probable cause determination and under a new sworn affidavit.”
The new crimes listed in the warrant include conspiracy to commit crime and malicious burning, destruction or injury of another's property. The government has indicted more than 200 people for violations of the anti-rioting statute, and claims the website, disruptj20.org, was used to organize the riots.
DreamHost also took issue with the government's request for all records relating to the site, including visitor logs, which would provide the IP addresses of more than a million visitors. In Tuesday's filing, lawyers for the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. sought to exclude the IP addresses as well as limit the warrant to the website's records prior to Jan. 20. The brief also noted that unpublished drafts and “work products” should not be disclosed.
Aghaian wrote that despite this effort, the government's modifications would still require DreamHost to hand over emails associated with the website, including emails sent by third parties to addresses like “[email protected].”
“Allowing the government to identify the emails and communications with the third parties, that appear to fall outside the government's 'focus[] group,' endangers the First Amendment rights of anyone falling outside this 'focus[] group,' the brief said.
Aghaian pointed to a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit last week, in which the court vacated a conviction because investigators used an overbroad warrant that allowed them to search a house and seize “all cell phones and electronic devices without regard to ownership” without probable cause. In DreamHost's case, Aghaian wrote, the government is attempting to seize “all contents of email accounts that are within the @disruptj20.org domain” without probable cause.
The advocacy group Public Citizen has also asked to intervene in the case on behalf of individuals who visited the website. In a blog post Wednesday, Public Citizen lawyer Paul Levy wrote a “serious First Amendment issue” still remains with the warrant.
“Seizure of those emails would invade the right of the senders of those emails to speak anonymously, which is far better established in the law as a barrier to discovery than the right to read anonymously,” Levy wrote.
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 AllWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
8th Circuit Appeal Could Weaken Key Defense in Disability Bias Cases, Employment Lawyers Say
Michael Cohen Loses Bid for Supreme Court Review of Civil Rights Lawsuit
ACLU's Strangio Will Become First Openly Trans Attorney to Argue at Supreme Court
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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