Case4:09-cv-00037-CW Document286 Filed09/09/11 Page1 of 20 IAN GERSHENGORN 1 Deputy Assistant Attorney General MELINDA L. HAAG 2 United States Attorney VINCENT M. GARVEY 3 Deputy Branch Director JOSHUA E. GARDNER 4 District of Columbia Bar No. 478049 KIMBERLY L. HERB 5 Illinois Bar No. 6296725 LILY SARA FAREL 6 North Carolina Bar No. 35273 BRIGHAM JOHN BOWEN 7 District of Columbia Bar No. 981555 JUDSON O. LITTLETON 8 Texas Bar No. 24065635 Trial Attorneys 9 Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch U.S. Department of Justice 10 P.O. Box 883 Washington, D.C. 20044 11 Telephone: (202) 305-7583 Facsimile: (202) 616-8202 12 E-mail: [email protected] 13 Attorneys for DEFENDANTS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 OAKLAND DIVISION 17 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. CV 09-0037-CW 18 Plaintiffs, Noticed Motion Date and Time: 19 September 29, 2011 v. 2:00 p.m. 20 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, et al., DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN 21 SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR Defendants. PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING 22 DISCOVERY 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 09-37 CW DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY Case4:09-cv-00037-CW Document286 Filed09/09/11 Page2 of 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PAGE 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... ii 3 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1 4 I. THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT THE CIA'S MOTION TO PRECLUDE DISCOVERY DIRECTED TO IT ........................................................................... 1 5 A. Plaintiffs Fail To Establish How Third-Party Discovery Against the 6 CIA Is Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Claims Against DoD .................................... 2 7 1. Because Plaintiffs’ Claims Against DoD Implicate a Discrete Legal Question, Information Possessed by the CIA Would Be 8 Irrelevant .............................................................................................. 3 9 2. Plaintiffs’ Requests Are Irrelevant in a Rule 23(b)(2) Class Action ................................................................................................... 7 10 3. AR 70-25 Cannot Be a Basis for Seeking Discovery from the 11 CIA ....................................................................................................... 8 12 4. Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to RFA Responses from the CIA .............. 9 13 B. The Court Should Limit Discovery Directed to the CIA for Plaintiffs’ Facial Bias Claims Against VA ................................................................. 10 14 II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT DOD’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE 15 DISCOVERY CONCERNING PRE-1953 TESTING .......................................... 11 16 A. Plaintiffs Do Not Have Constitutional Claims For Notice And Health Care Against DoD ...................................................................................... 11 17 B. Plaintiffs Fail to Identify a Jurisdictional Basis For Claims 18 Concerning Pre-1953 Testing .................................................................... 13 19 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 15 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 09-37 CW i DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY Case4:09-cv-00037-CW Document286 Filed09/09/11 Page3 of 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 CASES PAGE(S) 2 Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coal. v. Norton, 3 No. CV-01-S-0194, 2002 WL 227032 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 29, 2002) ............................................ 5 4 Animal Defense Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432 (9th Cir. 1988) ................................................................................................... 7 5 Calvert v. Reinisch, 6 218 F.R.D. 497 (W.D. Tex. 2003) ............................................................................................ 2 7 Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 6 8 Clouser v. Espy, 9 42 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 9 10 Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950) ................................................................................................................ 14 11 Geiger v. Pfizer, Inc., 12 271 F.R.D. 577 (S.D. Ohio 2010) ........................................................................................... 11 13 Harvard Pilgrim Health Care v. Thompson, 318 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.R.I. 2004) ................................................................................................ 5 14 Hein v. Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians, 15 201 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 14 16 High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Industries, Inc., 161 F.R.D. 86 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ................................................................................................ 1 17 In re Leonetti, 18 28 B.R. 1003 (E.D. Pa. 1983) ................................................................................................. 10 19 Kaiser v. Ortiz, No. 09-0757, 2010 WL 3419432 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 27, 2010) .................................................. 4 20 Lands Council v. Powell, 21 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 6 22 Lemon v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO, 216 F.3d 577 (7th Cir. 2000) ..................................................................................................... 8 23 Little Earth of United Tribes, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 675 F. Supp. 497 (D. Minn. 1987) ......................................................................................... 4-5 25 Mount St. Helens Mining & Recovery Ltd. Partnership v. United States, 384 F.3d 721 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 3 26 Norton v. South Utah Wilderness Alliance, 27 542 U.S. 55 (2004) .............................................................................................................. 3, 14 28 NO. C 09-37 CW ii DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY Case4:09-cv-00037-CW Document286 Filed09/09/11 Page4 of 20 Porter v. Califano, 1 592 F.2d 770 (5th Cir. 1979) ..................................................................................................... 4 2 Public Power Council v. Johnson, 674 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1982) ..................................................................................................... 6 3 Reed v. Reno, 4 146 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 9 5 Schipper v. BSNF Railway Co., No. 2:07-cv-02249, 2008 WL 2358748 (D. Kan. June 6, 2008) .............................................. 2 6 United States v. Gomez-Rodriguez, 7 77 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 14 8 Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake, 563 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .................................................................................... 4 9 Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 10 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 4 11 Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, U.S. _____, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) ........................................................................ 8 12 Walsh v. McCain Foods Ltd., 13 81 F.3d 722 (7th Cir. 1996) ..................................................................................................... 10 14 Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S. 305 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 4 15 STATUTES 16 Fed. R. Civ. P 23 ........................................................................................................................ 7, 8 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 .......................................................................................................................... 10 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ............................................................................................................................ 1 19 5 U.S.C. § 702 .............................................................................................................................. 13 20 5 U.S.C. § 706 ...................................................................................................................... 2, 5, 13 21 22 MISCELLANEOUS 23 AR 70-25 ................................................................................................................................... 9, 14 24 25 26 27 28 NO. C 09-37 CW iii DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER LIMITING DISCOVERY Case4:09-cv-00037-CW Document286 Filed09/09/11 Page5 of 20 1 The overwhelming majority of Plaintiffs’ opposition was devoted to their contention that 2 they somehow maintained constitutional claims for notice and health care against the Central 3 Intelligence