Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
U.S. drone memo

U.S. drone memo

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,897|Likes:
Published by scprweb

More info:

Published by: scprweb on Jun 23, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





13-422-cv  The New York Times Company v. United States
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE SECOND CIRCUITAugust Term 2013Submitted: October 1, 2013Decided: June 23, 2014Docket Nos. 13-422(L), 13-445(Con)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, CHARLIE SAVAGE,SCOTT SHANE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, CENTRALINTELLIGENCE AGENCY,Defendants-Appellees.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Before: NEWMAN, CABRANES, and POOLER, Circuit Judges. Appeal from the January 24, 2013, judgment of the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of New York(Colleen McMahon, District Judge), dismissing, on motion forsummary judgment, a suit under the Freedom of Information Actseeking documents relating to targeted killings of United Statescitizens carried out by drone aircraft.We conclude that (1) a redacted version of the OLC-DOD
Case: 13-422 Document: 229 Page: 1 06/23/2014 1254659 97
Memorandum must be disclosed, (2) a redacted version of theclassified Vaughn index (described below) submitted by OLC mustbe disclosed, (3) other legal opinions prepared by OLC must besubmitted to the District Court for in camera inspection anddetermination of waiver of privileges and appropriate redaction,
(4) the Glomar and “no number, no list” responses areinsufficiently justified, (5) DOD and CIA must submit Vaughnindices to the District Court for in camera inspection anddetermination of appropriate disclosure and appropriateredaction
 and (6) the OIP search was sufficient. We thereforeaffirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.David E. McCraw, The New York TimesCompany, New York, N.Y. (StephenN. Gikow, New York, N.Y., on thebrief), for Plaintiffs-AppellantsThe New York Times Company,Charlie Savage, and Scott Shane.Jameel Jaffer, American Civil
The double underlined portions of this sealed opinion are
passages that have been redacted from the publicly availableopinion filed today. These portions appear with doubleunderlining to assist those involved in any further review ineasily identifying the redactions from the publicly availableopinion that were made at the request of the Government topreserve its opportunities for further appellate review.
Case: 13-422 Document: 229 Page: 2 06/23/2014 1254659 97
Liberties Union Foundation, NewYork, N.Y. (Hina Shamsi, Brett MaxKaufman, American Civil LibertiesUnion Foundation, New York, N.Y.,Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, Dorsey &Whitney LLP, New York, N.Y., EricRuzicka, Colin Wicker, Dorsey &Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, M.N., onthe brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellants American CivilLiberties Union and American CivilLiberties Union Foundation.Sharon Swingle, U.S. Appellate StaffAtty., Washington, D.C. (PreetBharara, U.S. Atty., Sarah S.Normand, Asst. U.S. Atty., NewYork, N.Y., Stuart F. Delery,Acting Asst. U.S. Atty. General,Washington, D.C., on the brief),for Defendants-Appellees.(Bruce D. Brown, Mark Caramanica,Aaron Mackey, The ReportersCommittee for Freedom of Press,Arlington, V.A., for amicus curiaeThe Reporters Committee forFreedom of Press, in support ofPlaintiffs-Appellants.)(Marc Rotenberg, Alan Butler, GingerMcCall, David Brody, JuliaHorwitz, Electronic PrivacyInformation Center, Washington,D.C., for amicus curiae ElectronicPrivacy Information Center, insupport of Plaintiffs-Appellants.)JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge:This appeal of a judgment dismissing challenges to denialsof requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”)
Case: 13-422 Document: 229 Page: 3 06/23/2014 1254659 97

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->