No. 08-15693 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT _____________ BINYAM MOHAMED, ABOU ELKASSIM BRITEL, AHMED AGIZA, MOHAMED FARAG AHMAD BASHMILAH, BISHER AL-RAWI, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor-Appellee. _____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 5:07-CV-02798-JW The Honorable Judge James Ware _____________ Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellants _____________ STEVEN M. WATT ANN BRICK CLIVE STAFFORD- BEN WIZNER American Civil Liberties SMITH JAMEEL JAFFER Union Foundation ZACHARY STEVEN R. SHAPIRO Of Northern California KATZNELSON American Civil Liberties 39 Drumm Street Reprieve Union Foundation San Francisco, CA, 94111 PO Box 52742 125 Broad Street, Tel: 415.621.2493 London EC4P 4WS 18th Floor Fax: 415.255.1478 England New York, NY 10004 Tel. +44 (0)207 353 4640 Tel: 212.519.7870 Fax +44 (0)207 353 4641 Fax: 212.549.2629 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants (Additional Counsel after Signature Page) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................... i JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ............................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE...................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................. 2 A. The Plaintiffs ........................................................................... 2 B. Jeppesen’s Role in the Rendition Program............................ 22 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.................................................................... 24 STANDARD OF REVIEW.......................................................................... 28 ARGUMENT................................................................................................ 28 I. THE STATE SECRETS PRIVELEGE IS AN EVIDENTIARY PRIVILEGE, NOT AN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE ........................... 28 II. DISMISSAL OF A SUIT PURSUANT TO THE STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IN NARROW CIRCUMSTANCES NOT APPLICABLE HERE ............................ 33 A. Under this Court’s Jurisprudence, the “Very Subject Matter” of this Suit Is Not a State Secret............................................ 35 B. Dismissal of this Action Without Permitting Nonsensitive Discovery and Considering Nonpriveleged Evidence Was Unnecessary and Improper............................................. 51 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY NOT ADEQUTELY CONSIDERING ROBUST AND SECURE ALTERNATIVES TO DISMISSAL…………………………………………………….57 CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 60 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Air-Sea Forwarders, Inc. v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 434 (Fed. Cl. 1997).................... 60 Al-Haramain v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) ............................................... passim Att’y Gen. v. The Irish People, Inc., 684 F.2d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1982).......................... 34, 59 Bareford v. General Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1992)............................. 55 Capital Cities Media, Inc. v. Toole, 463 U.S. 1303 (1983) .............................................. 51 Clift v. United States, 597 F.2d 826 (2d Cir. 1987) .......................................................... 34 Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., 255 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).............. 34, 52 DTM Research, LLC v. AT&T Corp., 245 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2001)................................ 34 Ellsberg v. Mitchell, 709 F.2d 51(D.C. Cir. 1983) ......................................... 30, 34, 56, 58 El-Masri v. Tenet, 437 F. Supp. 2d 530 (E.D. Va. 2006) ................................................. 44 El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007).................................................. 13 Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int’l, Ltd, 776 F.2d 1236 (4th Cir. 1985) ............................. 34, 57 Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978) .................................................................. 34 Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ........................................................ 34, 35 Hepting v. AT & T Corp., 439 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ............................. passim In re Sealed Case, 494 F.3d 139 (D.C. Cir. 2007).......................................... 36, 38, 54, 55 In re under seal, 945 F.2d 1285 (4th Cir. 1991)......................................................... 34, 60 In re United States, 872 F.2d at 478 ..................................................................... 58, 59, 60 Jabara v. Webster, 691 F.2d 272 (6th Cir. 1982) ............................................................. 34 Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 239 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2001) ........................ 53 Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................ 38, 52, 54 i Linder v. Dep’t of Defense, 133 F.3d 17 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ............................................... 34 Loral Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 558 F.2d 1130 (2d Cir. 1977)....................... 59 Molerio v. FBI, 749 F.2d 815 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .......................................................... 34, 54 New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)............................................. 33 New York Times, Co. v. United States, available at 1971 WL 167581 at *18 ................. 33 Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 2007) ..... 29 Rahman v. Chertoff, No. 05-cv-03761, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2008) ...................... 49 Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976)................................................................................ 53 Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507 (1980).................................................................... 51 Tenenbaum v. Simonini, 372 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2004)..................................................... 55 Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005) ................................................................................. 32, 36 Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875) ............................................................... 32, 35 Under Seal, 945 F.2d 1285, 1287 (4th Cir. 1991) ............................................................ 34 United States v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 1998 WL 306755 (D.D.C. 1998) .................... 60 United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953)............................................................. 30, 31 United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953)............................................................. 30 Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1983)............................................................. 59 Zuckerbraun v. General Dynamics Corp., 935 F.2d 544 (2d Cir. 1991).......................... 55 Other Authorities Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Holds a Hearing on the Annual Threat Assessment: Hearing Before the S. Select Comm. on Intelligence, 110th Cong. 23 (2008) .................................................................................................. 25 ii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 (federal question), 1332 (diversity), and 1350 (Alien Tort Statute). On February 13, 2008, the district court entered an order dismissing the action. Plaintiffs timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE Did the district court err in dismissing this action on the basis of the evidentiary state secrets privilege, prior to discovery, without first allowing plaintiffs to prove their claims with nonprivileged evidence and without adequately considering alternatives to dismissal? STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 30, 2007, Binyam Mohamed, Abou Elkassim Britel, and Ahmed Agiza filed this action against Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. (“Jeppesen”), and on August 1, 2007, Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah and Bisher Al- Rawi joined as plaintiffs in an amended complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that, through its knowing participation in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program, Jeppesen was either directly or indirectly liable for the forced disappearance, torture, and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to which they were subjected. 1 Although not named as a defendant, the United States government successfully intervened in this matter and moved for dismissal pursuant to the evidentiary state secrets privilege. The district court held oral argument on the United States’ motion on February 5, 2008. In an order dated one week later, three pages of which addressed the issues in dispute, the court held that it “lack[ed] subject matter jurisdiction” over the case and dismissed the complaint as “non-justiciable.” This appeal followed. STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Plaintiffs Each of the five plaintiffs in this action was forcibly disappeared and transported to torture on flights organized by Jeppesen. The information collected below is hardly secret – rather, it is corroborated by sworn declarations, government documents, flight records, official reports, and other reliable evidence. Ahmed Agiza On December 18, 2001, Plaintiff Ahmed Agiza, a 45-year-old Egyptian father of five, was summarily expelled from Sweden, where he and his family had been seeking asylum. First Amended Compl. ¶¶ 126-33; ER 784-86. Swedish authorities seized Mr. Agiza,