The narrow exception does not apply here. First, as with plaintiffs’ APA claims, Larson “provides no authority to grant relief,” because Congress has created an exclusive remedy in 18 U.S.C. § 2712, and that statute’s “precisely drawn, detailed” provisions “preempt[] more general remedies” under Larson. See Block, 461 U.S. at 284-86 & n.22; Babbitt II, 75 F.3d at 451-53.

In 8 addition, Congress has further confirmed that section 1806(f)'s procedures apply broadly to 9 sureillance-related evidence in any type of proceeding, by expressly acknowledging the 10 "exclusive" applicability of section 1806(f)'s procedures in actions under other statutes, and 11 declining to create additional, separate review procedures. See 18 US.C. § 2712(b)(4) 12 (expressly confirming that in actions against the United States under section 2712, including 13 claims under ECPA and the Wiretap Act, section 1806(f)'s procedures "shall be the exclusive 14 means" for reviewing materials subject to section 1806(£)). 15 As in Hepting, which involved the same underlying facts as this case, the gravamen of all 16 of Plaintiffs' claims here is that the governent and private telecommunications companies like 17 AT&T have created an illegal, comprehensive "dragnet that collects the content and records of 18 (AT&T's) customers' communications.

Section 2712 sets the parameters regarding those damages claims, such as requiring the claims to be in excess of $10,000 and making available litigation costs as an additional remedy. 18 U.S.C. § 2712. Thus, only damages claims, and not equitable relief claims, are “within the purview” of Section 2712.

§ 2712(d). Section 2712 thus deals with claims for misuses of information obtained under FISA in great detail, including the intended remedy, and Plaintiffs cannot rely on section 702 to bring a claim for violation of FISA’s terms that Congress did not provide for under 18 U.S.C. § 2712. Pottawatomi Indians, 132 S. Ct. at 2205.

§ 2712(d). Section 2712 thus deals with claims for misuses of information obtained under FISA in great detail, including the intended remedy, and Plaintiffs cannot rely on section 702 to bring a claim for violation of FISA’s terms that Congress did not provide for under 18 U.S.C. § 2712. Pottawatomi Indians, 132 S. Ct. at 2205.

The SCA provides a separate cause of action against the United States to recover money damages for willful violations of the SCA’s prohibitions directed at Government conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(1), but no such action can be commenced unless the plaintiff has first presented a claim to the appropriate department or agency of the Government under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, id. § 2712(b). The Plaintiffs have not purported to bring suit under section 2712(a), nor have they complied with the exhaustion requirement of section 2712(b). Case 1:13-cv-00851-RJL Document 68 Filed 01/10/14 Page 14 of 17 12 IV. THE PLAINTIFFS’ TORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE DISMISSED The Plaintiffs’ amended complaints set forth tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, and seek equitable relief and damages “in excess of $3 billion U.S. dollars,” jointly and severally against “each and every defendant,” including the Government Defendants—the Department of Justice, the NSA, and the individual federal defendants sued in their official capacities. See Klayman I SAC ¶¶ 70-80 (fourth and fifth claims for relief); Klayman II Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90-100 (fourth and fifth claims for relief). The tort claims against the Government Defendants are improper, however, because the United States is the proper party for such claims. See Zakiya v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 47, 57 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Dorman v. Thornburgh, 740 F. Supp. 875, 879 (D.D.C. 1990

The SCA provides a separate cause of action against the United States to recover money damages for willful violations of the SCA’s prohibitions directed at Government conduct, 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(1), but no such action can be commenced unless the plaintiff has first presented a claim to the appropriate department or agency of the Government under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act, id. § 2712(b). The Plaintiffs have not purported to bring suit under section 2712(a), nor have they complied with the exhaustion requirement of section 2712(b). Case 1:13-cv-00881-RJL Document 51 Filed 01/10/14 Page 14 of 17 12 IV. THE PLAINTIFFS’ TORT CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE DISMISSED The Plaintiffs’ amended complaints set forth tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, and seek equitable relief and damages “in excess of $3 billion U.S. dollars,” jointly and severally against “each and every defendant,” including the Government Defendants—the Department of Justice, the NSA, and the individual federal defendants sued in their official capacities. See Klayman I SAC ¶¶ 70-80 (fourth and fifth claims for relief); Klayman II Am. Compl. ¶¶ 90-100 (fourth and fifth claims for relief). The tort claims against the Government Defendants are improper, however, because the United States is the proper party for such claims. See Zakiya v. United States, 267 F. Supp. 2d 47, 57 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Dorman v. Thornburgh, 740 F. Supp. 875, 879 (D.D.C. 1990

See 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a). Plaintiffs nonetheless contend that Section 1810 authorizes claims against “persons,” see 50 U.S.C. § 1810, that the FISA definition of “person” includes “entities,” see 50 U.S.C. § 1801(m), which has been held to include local governments, and, thus, must also include the United States.

20 Plaintiffs’ fail in their attempt to divorce § 2712 from the Ninth Circuit’s statement in Al-Haramain, 690 F.3d at 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2012), that “[u]nder this scheme, Al–Haramain can bring a suit for damages against the United States for use of the collected information, but cannot bring suit against the government for collection of the information itself.” The scheme to which the court referred was “[s]ection 1806(f), combined with 18 U.S.C. § 2712.” Id.

In Section 2712(a), Congress indisputably authorized suit against “the United States” for violations of specific provisions of the FISA, but did not authorize punitive damages against the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (authorizing “civil actions against the United States” for “actual damages” not less than $10,000 (and litigation costs) for willful violations of sections 106(a), 305(a), and 405(a) of the FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(a), 1825(a), and 1845(a)). The FISA sections listed in Section 2712 provide (respectively) that information obtained through electronic surveillance, physical searches, or pen register trap and trace devices may be used and disclosed only for lawful purposes (and, where applicable, in accord with certain minimization procedures).