U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
The Court DENIES Defendants’ request for a stay of this decision. The subjectmatter and legal questions presented by this lawsuit are timely. To the extent recent eventsinvolving the public disclosure of relevant, and previously classified, information bear on thefuture course of the litigation, the Court shall require that the parties submit further briefingto address these issues.
For the remaining facts, the Court refers to the
Complaint as it is moreinclusive. The facts pertinent to the Court’s analysis are also similarly alleged in the related
Complaint which was originally filed May 17, 2006, as part of a multi-districtlitigation action also remanded to this Court.3Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining, non-statutory claims.The Court shall require that the parties submit further briefing on the course of thislitigation going forward.
These cases are two in a series of many lawsuits arising from claims that the federalgovernment, with the assistance of major telecommunications companies, conducted widespread warrantless dragnet communications surveillance of United States citizensfollowing the attacks of September 11, 2001. Plaintiffs filed these putative class actions on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons described as “millions of ordinaryAmericans ... who use the phone system or the Internet” and
“a class comprised of all presentand future United States persons who have been or will be subject to electronic surveillance bythe National Security Agency without a search warrant or court order since September 12,2001.” (
Complaint at ¶¶ 1, 7, and 9;
see also Shubert
Complaint at ¶ 1, 2, 20.)
According to the allegations in the
Complaint, a program of dragnet surveillance(the “Program”) was first authorized by Executive Order of the President on October 4, 2001.(
Complaint at ¶¶ 3, 39.) Plaintiffs allege that, in addition to eavesdropping on or readingspecific communications, Defendants have “indiscriminately intercepted the communicationscontent and obtained the communications records of millions of ordinary Americans as part of the Program authorized by the President.” (
at ¶ 7.) The core component of the Program is anationwide network of sophisticated communications surveillance devices attached to the keyfacilities of various telecommunications companies that carry Americans’ Internet and
Case3:08-cv-04373-JSW Document148 Filed07/08/13 Page3 of 26