Docket Nos. 06-17132, 06-17137 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, ERIK KNUTZEN and CAROLYN JEWEL, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AT&T CORP., Defendant-Appellant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Appellant. _______________________________________ Appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco), No. 06-CV-00672 · Honorable Vaughn R. Walker CORRECTED ANSWERING BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES SEALED ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION HELLER EHRMAN LLP CINDY COHN,ESQ. ROBERT D. FRAM,ESQ. LEE TIEN,ESQ. E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ,ESQ. KURT OPSAHL,ESQ. MICHAEL M. MARKMAN,ESQ. KEVIN S. BANKSTON,ESQ. ETHAN C. GLASS,ESQ. JAMES S. TYRE,ESQ. SAMUEL F. ERNST,ESQ. 454 Shotwell Street NATHAN E. SHAFROTH,ESQ. San Francisco, California 94110 ELENA M. DIMUZIO,ESQ. (415) 436-9333 Telephone 333 Bush Street (415) 436-9993 Facsimile San Francisco, California 94104 (415) 772-6000 Telephone (415) 772-6268 Facsimile Attorneys for Appellees Tash Hepting, et al. Additional Counsel Listed Inside Cover COUNSEL PRESS · (800) 3-APPEAL PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA RICHARD R. WIEBE,ESQ. GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP 425 California Street, Suite 2025 ERIC A. ISAACSON,ESQ. San Francisco, California 94104 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 (415) 433-3200 Telephone San Diego, California 92101-3301 (415) 433-6382 Facsimile (619) 231-1058 Telephone (619) 231-7423 Facsimile HAGENS BERMAN SOBEL SHAPIRO LLP REED R. KATHREIN,ESQ. LAW OFFICE OF ARAM ANTARAMIAN JEFFREY FRIEDMAN,ESQ. ARAM ANTARAMIAN,ESQ. SHANA E. SCARLETT,ESQ. 1714 Blake Street 425 Second Street, Suite 500 Berkeley, California 94703 San Francisco, California 94107 (510) 841-2369 Telephone (415) 896-6300 Telephone (415) 896-6301 Facsimile Attorneys for Appellees Tash Hepting, et al. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................iv INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 QUESTIONS PRESENTED ...................................................................................4 STATEMENT OF FACTS .....................................................................................5 An AT&T Employee Details AT&T’s Collaboration in Dragnet Surveillance ........................................................................................5 AT&T Intercepts Communications in Other Cities .......................................9 The Government Publicly Confirms that it Conducted Warrantless Surveillance Without Complying With FISA and Members of Congress and Telecommunications Carriers Confirm Dragnet Surveillance.........................................................................10 Plaintiffs File this Suit ................................................................................14 The Government Intervenes to Seek Dismissal, But Concedes that Plaintiffs’ Evidence Is Not Privileged ...............................................15 The Government Submits the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” for FISA Review ....................................................................................16 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................17 ARGUMENT........................................................................................................19 I. THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IS A NARROW, EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE AND IS NOT AN IMMUNITY FROM SUIT...............................................................................................19 II. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE VERY SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS SUIT IS NOT A STATE SECRET. .......................................................................................24 A. Congress Has Determined that the Very Subject Matter of this Case Is Not a State Secret that Warrants Dismissal. ...................25 1. Congress has directed the procedure for assessing claims of national security in electronic surveillance cases, and does not allow dismissal on the pleadings. .............26 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2. Congress struck that balance because it did not want the Executive to shield illegal surveillance with sweeping assertions of national security..................................31 3. FISA’s procedure for handling state secrets applies to this case. .................................................................................33 B. The Very Subject Matter of this Suit Is Not a Secret.........................36 1. The evidence already submitted establishes that AT&T collaborated with the NSA in electronic surveillance, and the Government has conceded that the evidence is not a state secret..............................................37 2. The Government’s concession was correct. ............................39 3. Public statements by Government officials and others confirm that disclosure of communications records to the Government is not a secret. ...............................................43 C. This Case Is Distinguishable from Decisions in which the Entire Subject Matter of the Action Was a State Secret and Where the Case Was Dismissed After Discovery..............................45 1. This case is not subject to the Totten bar. ................................46 2. The handful of other opinions dismissing cases at the inception are also distinguishable............................................49 3. Cases applying the state secrets privilege to specific discovery issues do not support dismissal on the pleadings.................................................................................52 D. No Common Law Doctrine Could Override The Court’s Responsibility to Consider a Case of Massive Dragnet Surveillance. .....................................................................................55 III. LOOKING BEYOND THIS APPEAL, LITIGATING THIS CASE AS CONGRESS INTENDED WILL NOT REQUIRE DISCOVERY OF STATE SECRETS, GIVEN THE LIMITED NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE NECESSARY TO PROVE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS AND THE LIMITED NATURE OF AT&T’S POSSIBLE DEFENSES. .............................................................58 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Plaintiffs Will Be Able To Prove Their Claims .................................60 B. AT&T Will Have a Fair Opportunity to Defend Itself.......................64 IV. THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY DENIED THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ON STANDING GROUNDS.................................................................................................68 A. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Defeat a Motion to Dismiss at the Pleading Stage. .................................................................................69 B. Plaintiffs Are Not Required to Prove Standing at this Early Stage.................................................................................................72 C. The Evidence Plaintiffs Have Already Adduced Is Sufficient to Satisfy Standing............................................................................75 1. The evidence already adduced establishes that AT&T diverts all, or substantially all, of the peered internet traffic in the area.....................................................................75 2. The evidence establishes standing both to sue over past interceptions and to enjoin future ones.............................76 D. Any Further Evidence Plaintiffs Might Need to Establish Standing Can Be Gathered Without Divulging State Secrets.............80 E. The Decisions AT&T Invokes Do Not Justify Dismissal of a Dragnet Case Involving Dragnet Surveillance on the Pleadings. .........................................................................................82 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................86 Appendix: Plaintiffs Can Support Each Element Of Their Statutory Claims With Non-Privileged Evidence .................................................................88 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.....................................................................91 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES.................................................................92 ADDENDUM DECLARATION OF SERVICE iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases ACLU Foundation of Southern Cal. v. Barr, 952 F.2d 457 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ..............................................................33, 34 ACLU v. NSA, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Mich. 2006) ......................................................63 American Library Ass’n v. FCC, 401 F.3d 489 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................78 Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)....................................................................................63 Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1992)...............................................................40, 41 Baur v. Veneman, 352 F.3d 625 (2d Cir. 2003)..................................................................78, 79 Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)................................................................................55, 56 Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (1987)....................................................................................44 Bowles v. United States, 950 F.2d 154 (4th Cir. 1991).......................................................................21 Camara v. Municipal Ct., 387