Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al

MEMORANDUM in Support Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction [REDACTED]

N.D. Cal.May 25, 2006

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION CINDY COHN (145997) cindy@eff.org LEE TIEN (148216) tien@eff.org KURT OPSAHL (191303) kurt@eff.org KEVIN S. BANKSTON (217026) bankston@eff.org CORYNNE MCSHERRY (221504) corynne@eff.org JAMES S. TYRE (083117) jstyre@eff.org 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: 415/436-9333 415/436-9993 (fax) TRABER & VOORHEES BERT VOORHEES (137623) bv@tvlegal.com THERESA M. TRABER (116305) tmt@tvlegal.com 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: 626/585-9611 626/ 577-7079 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiffs [Additional counsel appear on signature page.] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TASH HEPTING, GREGORY HICKS, CAROLYN JEWEL and ERIK KNUTZEN, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AT&T CORP., et al. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. C-06-00672-VRW CLASS ACTION PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION [REDACTED] Hepting et al v. AT&T Corp. et al Doc. 149 Dockets.Justia.com TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - i - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................................................................. 3 A. The Government’s Statements About the Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Program .......................................................................................... 3 B. AT&T’s Collaboration with the Government Program......................................... 5 C. AT&T’s Creation of a Secure Room to Facilitate the Government Program’s Internet Surveillance........................................................................... 6 D. The Significance of the Surveillance Configuration............................................. 8 E. The Surveillance Configuration Violates the Rights of Plaintiff Jewel ............... 10 III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................... 10 A. Plaintiffs Meet the Legal Standard for Preliminary Injunction ........................... 10 B. Plaintiffs Raise Serious Questions and Have a Reasonable Likelihood of Success on the Merits ........................................................................................ 11 1. The Legal Framework: Wiretapping Under the Fourth Amendment and Under Statute .............................................................. 12 2. Defendants’ Ongoing Surveillance for the Government Violates Title III .................................................................................................. 15 a. Defendants Are Intercepting and Using Plaintiffs’ Communications in Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 ........... 15 b. Defendants Are Also Disclosing, Using and Divulging Plaintiffs’ Communications in Violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 .............................................................................. 18 c. Neither Title III nor FISA Authorizes Defendants’ Conduct ....... 19 3. Defendants’ Warrantless Surveillance Violates the Fourth Amendment .......................................................................... 22 a. By Assisting the Program, Defendants Are Acting as Agents of the Government...................................................... 22 b. Plaintiffs Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Their Internet Communications .................................................. 23 c. Plaintiffs Are Harmed by Defendants’ Participation in the Program ..................................................................................... 25 Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - ii - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. The Fourth Amendment Prohibits Dragnet, Suspicionless Searches of the Type Present Here.............................................. 26 e. The Program’s Sweeping Dragnet Surveillance Cannot Be Reconciled with the Fourth Amendment..................................... 27 C. The Balance of Hardships Tilts Sharply in Favor of Plaintiffs............................ 29 1. The Plaintiffs Face Irreparable Harm ..................................................... 29 a. Plaintiffs Face Irreparable Harm to Their Constitutional Rights......................................................................................... 29 b. Irreparable Harm Is Presumed Because AT&T Is Violating Title III....................................................................................... 30 2. AT&T Faces No Harm from a Preliminary Injunction............................ 31 D. A Preliminary Injunction Serves the Public’s Interest ........................................ 31 IV. AMOUNT OF BOND................................................................................................... 32 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 33 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & A IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - iii - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976)...................................................................................................... 26 Asseo v. Pan Am. Grain Co., 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1986) ............................................................................................. 3 Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963)........................................................................................................ 25 Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................... 31 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)...................................................................................................... 12 Benda v. Grand Lodge of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists, 584 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 937 (1979).................................................................................. 28 Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)..................................................................................................passim Bubis v. United States, 384 F.2d 643 (9th Cir. 1967)......................................................................................... 13 Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 934 F.2d 1064 (9th Cir. 1991) ....................................................................................... 29 Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967)...................................................................................................... 26 Campiti v. Walonis, 611 F.2d 387 (1st Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................... 17 Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1990) ....................................................................................... 29 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971)...................................................................................................... 22 Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. v. Hannigan, 92 F.3d 1486 (9th Cir. 1996)......................................................................................... 29 Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878)........................................................................................................ 24 Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1984) ......................................................................................... 3 Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972)........................................................................................................ 30 Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - iv - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 George v. Carusone, 849 F. Supp. 159 (D. Conn. 1994)............................................................................16, 17 Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................... 29 Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005) .......................................................................................... 16 Hodge v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 555 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1977)......................................................................................... 13 Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Christie, 812 F.2d 1097 (9th Cir. 1987) ....................................................................................... 10 Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F.3d 815 (9th Cir. 2002)......................................................................................... 10 Int'l Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1986)......................................................................................... 29 Jacobsen v. Rose, 592 F.2d 515 (9th Cir. 1978)....................................................................................17, 21 Jorgensen v. Cassiday, 320 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2003)......................................................................................... 32 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)................................................................................................passim Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., 302 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1193 (2003).....................................................................15, 16, 18 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................... 30 Kos Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700 (3d Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 3 Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property, 367 U.S. 717 (1961).............................................................................................2, 25, 26 Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants Rights v. INS, 743 F.2d 1365 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................... 10 Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Coston, 773 F.2d 1513 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................... 11 New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ........................................................................... 3 Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - v - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)...................................................................................................... 25 Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc., 204 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2000)......................................................................................... 10 Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos, 862 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1988) ..............................................................................3, 10, 11 Rosen Entm't Sys. LP v. Eiger Vision, 343 F. Supp. 2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................. 3 Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415 (9th Cir. 1984) ....................................................................................... 10 Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs, 251 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2001)......................................................................................... 29 Smallwood v. Nat'l Can Co., 583 F.2d 419 (9th Cir. 1978)......................................................................................... 29 Stanford v. Texas, 379 U.S. 476 (1965).................................................................................................24, 26 Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)...................................................................................................... 25 Sun Microsystems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................... 10 Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., Farey-Jones v. Theofel, 543 U.S. 813 (2004) ................................................................ 16 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940)........................................................................................................ 25 United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982)....................................................................................... 14 United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974)...................................................................................................... 28 United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................16, 17 United States v. Goldstein, 532 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................13, 22, 23 United States v. Herring, 993 F.2d 784 (11th Cir. 1993) ....................................................................................... 15 Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - vi - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406 (C.A.A.F. 1996)......................................................................................... 24 United States v. Miller, 688 F.2d 652 (9th Cir. 1982)......................................................................................... 22 United States v. Rodriguez, 968 F.2d 130 (2d. Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 847 (1992).................................................................................. 16 United States v. Turner, 528 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied sub nom., Lewis v. United States, 423 U.S. 996 (1975).................................................................. 12 United States v. United States Dist. Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)................................................................................................passim United States. v. Walther, 652 F.2d 788 (9th Cir. 1981)......................................................................................... 22 Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)........................................................................................................ 2 White v. Weiss, 535 F.2d 1067, 1071 (8th Cir. 1976) ............................................................................. 17 Williams v. Poulos, 801 F. Supp. 867 (D. Me. 1992)...............................................................................29, 30 CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS U.S. Const. amend. IV............................................................................................................passim 50 U.S.C. §1801.............................................................................................................................. 4 §1802............................................................................................................................ 20 §1805(f)........................................................................................................................ 20 §§1809-10..................................................................................................................... 14 §1811............................................................................................................................ 21 18 U.S.C. §605.............................................................................................................................. 13 §2510(4) ............................................................................................................15, 16, 18 §2510(5) ....................................................................................................................... 17 §2510(8) ....................................................................................................................... 15 §2510(12) ...............................................................................................................passim §2510(15) ..................................................................................................................... 18 §2511......................................................................................................................passim §2511(1) .................................................................................................................passim Page PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF A MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - vii - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 §2511(2) ....................................................................................................................... 13 §2511(3) ....................................................................................................................... 18 §2511(18) ..................................................................................................................... 16 §2511(f)........................................................................................................................ 19 §2518............................................................................................................................ 12 §2518(7) ....................................................................................................................... 20 §2520.................................................................................................................15, 21, 29 §2701-12 ...................................................................................................................... 19 SECONDARY AUTHORITIES H.R. Conf. Rep. 95-1720, as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4048....................................................................... 21 S. Rep. 99-541, as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3555....................................................................... 19 S. Rep. No. 94-755 (1976)........................................................................................................ 13 S. Rep. No. 604(I), as reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3904, 3951, 3963...............................................14, 20 PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO: ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 8, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 6 of the above- captioned Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Ave., 17th Floor, San Francisco, California, plaintiffs will, and hereby do, move the Court for an order granting preliminary injunctive relief against AT&T Corp. and AT&T Inc. (“defendants”). Plaintiffs seek to preliminarily enjoin defendants from illegally intercepting, disclosing and otherwise using plaintiffs’ communications in violation of the Constitution and federal wiretap laws pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 65. This motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, memorandum of points and authorities, Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice, the declaration of Cindy Cohn, the declaration of Mark Klein, the declaration of plaintiffs’ expert J. Scott Marcus, plaintiffs’ motion to extend page limits, plaintiffs’ motion to lodge documents under seal (and all associated exhibits and attachments filed herewith), the pleadings and papers on file in this action, discovery to be scheduled and oral arguments of counsel. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, request that this Court immediately enter a preliminary injunction enjoining AT&T, 1 the world’s largest telecommunications company, from violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (“Title III”) by providing the government with direct access to the domestic and international Internet communicationsofmillions of its customers. A preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the statutory and constitutional privacy rights of plaintiffs and their fellow AT&T customers until a trial on the merits, where plaintiffs are likely to prove AT&T’s continued collaboration with the National Security Agency’s illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance program. 1 Plaintiffs refer to defendants AT&T Inc. and AT&T Corp. collectively as “AT&T” herein. PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - 4 - warrantless surveillancemore than thirty times and intends to continue doing so indefinitely. RJN at ¶3. The government has candidly admitted that the Foreign IntelligenceSurveillanceAct of 1978 (“FISA”), 50 U.S.C. §§1801 et. seq., the statute regulating electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, “requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance . . . unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress.” RJN at ¶4. The NSA surveillance program (“Program”) admittedly operates “in lieu of” court orders or other judicial authorization,RJN at ¶¶6- 7, and neither the President nor Attorney General authorizes the specific interceptions. RJN at ¶9. As General Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence, put it, the Program “is a more . . . ‘aggressive’ program than would be traditionally available under FISA,” in part because “[t]he trigger is quicker and a bit softer than it is for a FISAwarrant.” RJN at ¶10. The only review process is authorization by an NSA “shift supervisor” for interception of particular individuals’ communication. RJN at ¶9. Administration officials have said that the NSA intercepts communications when the agency has, in its own judgment, a “reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda,” as well as the communications of individuals it deems suspicious on the basis of its belief that they have some unspecified “link” to al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization or simply “want to kill Americans.” RJN at ¶11. While admitting that warrantless surveillance is occurring and will continue, RJN at ¶3, the President and other officials have carefully limited their discussions to “the Program as describedby the President,” 3 and have consistently refused to confirm that the “Program as described by the 805 F.2d 23 (1st Cir. 1986) (“The dispositive question is not their classification as hearsay but whether, weighing all the attendant factors, including the need for expedition, this type of evidence was appropriate given the character and objectives of the injunctive proceeding.”). 3 This limitation is used to create a logical tautology. For example, in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ February 28, 2006 letter to Senator Arlen Specter, RJN, Attachment 8, he describes the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” as “activities [that] involve the interception by the NSA of the contents of communications in which one party is outside the United States where there 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLTFS’ AMENDED NOT OF MOT AND MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN; PLTFS’ MEM OF P & IN SUPPORT OF MOT FOR PRELIM INJUN - C-06-00672-VRW - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 President” constitutes the entirety of the warrantless surveillance that they have been conducting and will continue to conduct. RJN at ¶13. The government is unable to state that the Program includes only limited interceptions of al Qaeda-related international communications as described by the President, because the Program also includes the warrantless interception of the communications of millions of ordinary Americans, made possible through the illegal and unconstitutional cooperation and collaboration of AT&T. B. AT&T’s Collaboration with the Government Program Numerous major newspapers and other reputable accounts have shown that major U.S. telecommunications companies, including AT&T, are assisting the NSA with the Program. See Cohn Decl., Exs. A and B (Leslie Cauley and John Diamond, Telecoms Let NSA Spy on Calls, USA Today (Feb. 6, 2006) andDionne Searcey, ShawnYoung andAmol Sharma,WiretappingFlapPuts Phone Firms Under Fire, Wall St. J., Feb. 7, 2006, at B3). Government officials have confirmed that “the N.S.A. has gained the cooperation of American telecommunications companies to obtain backdoor access to streams of domestic and international communications.” Cohn Decl., Ex. C (James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, Spy AgencyMined Vast Data Trove,Officials Report, N.Y. Times (Dec. 24, 2005)). As early as 2001, “the NSA approached U.S. carriers and asked for their cooperation in a ‘data-mining’ operation, which might eventually cull ‘millions’ of individual calls and e-mails.” Cohn Decl., Ex. D (Shane Harris and Tim Naftali, Tinker, Tailor, Miner, Spy: Why the NSA’s Snooping Is Unprecedented In Scale and Scope, Slate (Jan. 3, 2006)). Following President Bush’s order, U.S. intelligence officials secretly arranged with top officials of major telecommunications companies to gain access to large telecommunications switches carrying the bulk of America’s phone calls. The NSA also gained access to the vast majority of American e-mail traffic that flows through the U.S. telecommunications system. Cohn Decl., Ex. E at 48 (James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (Simon & Schuster 2006)). The new presidential order has given the NSA direct are reasonable grounds to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization,” and then limits his previous testimony to this aspect of the Program. This renders his discussions asserting a limited programmeaningless, since the scope of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” is also limited by the same restrictions.