FISA Court Finally Discovers a Limit to the Word “Relevant”

A few weeks back I laughed that, in a probable attempt to score political points against those challenging the phone dragnet by asking to retain the phone dragnet longer than 5 years, DOJ had shown a rather unusual concern for defendant’s rights.

Judge Reggie Walton has just denied DOJ’s motion. In doing so he has found limits to the word “relevant” that otherwise seem unheard of at the FISC in recent memory.

For its part, the government makes no attempt to explain why it believes the records that are subject to destruction are relevant to the civil cases. The government merely notes that “‘[r]elevant’ in this context means relevant for purposes of discovery, … including information that relates to the claims or defenses of any party, as well as information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Motion at 6. Similarly, the government asserts that “[b]ased on the issues raised by Plaintiffs,” the information must be retained, but it fails to identify what those issues are and how the records might shed light on them. Id. at 7. Finally, the motion asserts, without any explanation, that “[b]ased on the claims raised and the relief sought, a more limited retention of the BR metadata is not possible as there is no way for the Government to know in advance and then segregate and retain only the BR metadata specifically relevant to the identified lawsuits.” Id. Of course, questions of relevance are ultimately matters for the courts entertaining the civil litigation to resolve. But the government now requests this Court to afford substantial weight to the purported interests of the civil litigants in retaining the BR metadata relative to the primary interests of the United States persons whose information the government seeks to retain. The government’s motion provides scant basis for doing so.

Shew. Given the way FISC has been defining the word “relevant” since 2004 to mean “virtually all,” I had thought the word had become utterly meaningless.

At least we know the word “relevant” has some limits at FISC, even if they’re unbelievably broad.

Mind you, I’m not sure whether FISC or the government is right in this case, as I do have concerns about the data from the troubled period during 2009 aging off.

But I will at least take some Friday afternoon amusement that the FISC just scolded the government about the word “relevant.”

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

5 Responses to FISA Court Finally Discovers a Limit to the Word “Relevant”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @ArarMaher Not least bc Newsweek has the same story out. http://t.co/l5FI2KCSVv But Bob Baer wasn't allowed to write it.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @allisonkilkenny: "I’d rather you miss an entire semester than you get the shot" http://t.co/qFmgMYouy3 How is this not abuse?
18mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @attackerman: Imad Mugniyah was a monster caked in blood. There is also no plausible argument assassinating him was an act of US self-de…
7hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @GottaLaff @ColMorrisDavis @DaisyBuddysMom I dunno, Matthews and Maddow are so pathetic anymore, getting them off air seems a public service
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @HanniFakhoury Oh, wait, that's just the legal fees? Nevermind, Arpaio is a piker then.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @HanniFakhoury Pretty cheap compared to what Arpaio has cost Maricopa County.
8hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @howappealing Sweet. Congratulations!
11hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @froomkin: Why is it not huge news when Israel kills UN personnel with impunity? Because it happens so often? Read @MazMHussain https://…
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @SarahKnuckey Thing is, NYPD has long history of using CT team on protests. CF Tony Bologna. @trevortimm
12hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I'm really saddened that the IPA scene in Seattle has been degraded such that @AllThingsHLS can't even bet Super Bowl w/@caidid much less me
12hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @caidid They've inflated his, um, ball number. @AllThingsHLS
12hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Hey @pourmecoffee! @ChuckGrassley is branching out from his NIU code. https://t.co/wU4MY2aYS0
12hreplyretweetfavorite
March 2014
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031