See 15 U.S.C. § 1691e(b).2 Under the FCRA, a very limited waiver of sovereign immunity expressly restricts recovery of damages from agencies of the United States, including punitive damages, to certain types of violations unrelated to this case (i.e., disclosure of information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for counterintelligence purposes). See 15 U.S.C. § 1681u(j). As recognized in Stellick, construing “person” to waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity renders § 1681u(j) meaningless.

J. CASE NO. 3:15-CV-03503-HSG 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 - 13 - types of investigations in which the FBI may use NSLs is specified by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 2709; 15 U.S.C. § 1681v; 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u(a) & (b); 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5)(A). • The FBI argues that if would-be criminals know the procedural requirements that FBI agents must satisfy to issue an NSL, those wrongdoers could somehow take advantage of that information to avoid detection should the FBI fail to adhere to those internal requirements.

However, in order to get that information the FBI must issue a national security letter (“NSL”) to the phone company. NSLs do not require any judicial oversight, see 18 U.S.C. § 2709; 12 U.S.C. § 3414, 15 U.S.C. § 1681u; 15 U.S.C. § 1681v; 50 U.S.C. § 3162, meaning they are hardly a check on potential abuses. There is also nothing stopping the Government from skipping the NSL step altogether and using public databases or any of its other vast resources to match phone numbers with subscribers.

toll record provide for reimbursement of costs, although some offices NSL statute. ECPA, 18 USC 2701, and financial record do pay when requested in order to keep on good terms with NSL statute, RFPA, 12 USC 3414, permit dissemination if servce providers per AGguidelinesandinformationis clearlyrelvantto NSL for financial records RFPA, ruirs reimbursementrmGponsgilitnes of recipintragetny credit report 1681u of costs; Title 12, CRF Part 219, and appendix, provides responsibilities of rcipient agency-,credit report 169 u reimbursement cost schedule NSL statute, FCRA, 15 USC 1681u permits NSL for financial institution information and consumer dissemination to other federal agencies as may be identi fin inniormation, FCRA, section a168d provides necessary for the approval or conduct of a FCI for payment but no schedule has been promulgated ovestigat no spcial statutory rules fordissemination NSL for full credit reports, FCRA, section 1681v does not of 15 1681v infoation) provide for reimbursement of costs FISA - Business Records FISA - Business Records Under FISA, 50 USC 1861, FBI can apply to ta inb t A (ico mab :n ..

[feet o.lCertain Substantive Proposals on Court Operations The following substantive proposals would impose significant new demands on the FISC and ultimately the Court of Review. ChanKes to National Security Letter Practices: The Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) uses national security letters (NSLs), which are akin to administrative subpoenas, mainly to obtain subscriber information, see Review Group Report at 90, although other types of records may also be obtained, see, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 1681u (consumer report records). An NSL-related recommendation of the Review Group could increase the FISCs annual caseload severalfold.

(emphasis added). The Echols court also highlighted that in a separate provision of the FCRA, Congress specifically asserted an express waiver in unequivocal terms when in 15 U.S.C.§ 1681u(i), now § 1681u(j), it stated “[a]ny agency or department of the United States obtaining or disclosing any consumer reports, records, or information contained therein in violation of this section is liable to the consumer. . .”. Echols, 2013 WL 752629, at *5.

....................................................... 17 Case 3:15-cv-03503-HSG Document 30 Filed 05/09/16 Page 4 of 30 DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND MEM. IN SUPPORT, CASE NO. 15-CV-03503-HSG 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 Wilkinson v. FBI, 633 F. Supp. 336 (C.D. Cal. 1986) .................................................................................................. 19 Yonemoto v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 686 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................................... 4 STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 552 .............................................................................................. 2, 4, 9, 11, 14, 18, 19, 24 12 U.S.C. § 3414 ................................................................................................................................ 2 15 U.S.C. § 1681u .............................................................................................................................. 2 15 U.S.C. § 1681v .............................................................................................................................. 2 18 U.S.C. § 2709 ................................................................................................................................ 2 50 U.S.C. § 3162 ................................................................................................................................ 2 50 U.S.C. § 3024 ........................................................................................................................ 12, 13 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ............................................................................................................................... 1 Civil L.R. 56 ..........................................................................................................

t to the authority provided in the Patriot Act. Enacted in October 2001, the Patriot Act modified existing law and created new authorities for electronic surveillance and foreign intelligence gathering, including: permitting “roving” surveillance, Patriot Act § 206 (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1805); allowing for an application for FISA surveillance when foreign intelligence gathering is a “significant” rather than “primary” purpose, § 218 (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804, 1823); expanding the Posse Comitatus Act exceptions, § 104 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2332e); authorizing “sneak and peek” search warrants, § 213 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3103a); permitting nationwide and perhaps worldwide execution of warrants in terrorism cases, § 220 (codified at scattered sections of Titles 18, 31, and 50); and easing government access to confidential information, § 505 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2709, 12 Case 3:13-mc-00005-RRB Document 16 Filed 03/04/13 Page 46 of 55 43 U.S.C. § 3414, 15 U.S.C. § 1681u) & § 507 (codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1232). See also Charles Doyle, THE USA PATRIOT ACT: A SKETCH, Congressional Research Service 2002, available at http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21203.pdf.

¶ 8. 2 Other statutes also permit the FBI to issue NSLs for bank account information, 12 U.S.C. § 3414, and credit reports, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u, v, in specific types of national security investigations. Case 1:11-cv-00939-RJL Document 13 Filed 12/13/11 Page 3 of 37 4 to certain congressional committees, on a semiannual basis, concerning all NSL requests made under § 2709.

Case 1:07-cv-00656-JDB Document 42 Filed 01/28/10 Page 1 of 6 2 Background The FBI has for many years possessed a limited power in certain investigations to issue National Security Letters (“NSLs”), which are demands for customer account information and transactional records from third parties such as telephone companies, Internet service providers, financial institutions, and consumer credit agencies. See Right to Financial Privacy Act, 12 U.S.C. § 3414(a)(5); Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681u, 1681v; Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2709; National Security Act, 50 U.S.C. § 436. Signed into law shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“PATRIOT Act”) substantially expanded the FBI’s preexisting legal authority to collect third-party records through NSLs. Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, §505 (2001). The NSL provision is one of the more contentious aspects of a divisive statute; as this Court has noted, “[e]ver since it was proposed, the Patriot Act has engendered controversy and debate.” American Civil Liberties Union v. Dep’t of Justice, 265 F. Supp. 2d 20, 24 (D.D.C. 2003). Reflecting Congress’s concern about the potential abuse of enhanced post-9/11 investigative powers, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-177, § 119, directed the DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General (“