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 Twitter28Share on Reddit15Share on Facebook41Google+0Email to someone

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @stephenlemons @RebekahLSanders @aliarau Yeah, but now it is going to be harder to take my growler boating.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Better link for the previous DOJ-OPR tweet http://t.co/4U1gLWhHxm @MonaHol
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Two "liberal" Obama appointees, Patricia Millett+Nina Pillard join hack Janice Rogers Brown to screw Shirley Sherrod http://t.co/S9WMGtTJND
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @joshgerstein Bleech
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Another suspension+disbarment for former AUSA where DOJ-OPR and David Margolis had whitewashed misconduct http://t.co/2vHBkAjhmO
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @OBEYshiba The case was originally Hart v. Hill and was first filed in late 1970's. Carroll was the judge on it forever+left quite a record.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @OBEYshiba Yes and no. Was good for Wake, but he was somewhat constrained by prior rulings in the case by Earl Carroll, the original judge.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TimothyS But it's okay bc he's a Jesuit.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TimothyS Oh wait--still unpub working thread. But check out DHS D that TTIC implemented. Start to finish this is Brennan.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @B_Amer Safe is most important. I assume you're headed via Missoula, tho? You'll like that.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TimothyS I didn't forget! I did, however, add the bit abt TTIC starting this which is a nice prelude.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @B_Amer I hear you. Tomorrow, right?
4hreplyretweetfavorite
March 2014
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031