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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit Not sure why they would do that, but who knows?
4mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @ChMadar: Good to see an op-ed on a war crime. Bad to see few op-eds about Afghan War's big picture: strategy, costs, morality https://t…
30mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel That's right: When do we get our 5th anniversary OBL porn stash reenactment, Intel Community? WHEN!?!?!?! https://t.co/Nln8rvneO3
45mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @samsteinhp Curt Schilling, Urban Meyer
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @AriMelber: Breaking: No charges in VA tasing death Officer who tased 15x said suspect grabbed it - but his hands were cuffed: https://…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @kevinjonheller: You mean the doctor who gave fake vaccines, discrediting Western medicine and causing untold suffering to innocents? ht…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @deepakguptalaw @RMFifthCircuit Best of luck. I've been griping about this for years.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @deepakguptalaw: So you don't have to download it off PACER, here's our motion for class cert in our lawsuit challenging PACER fees: htt…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @GatorsBB: #Gators have been #1 in NINE of 12 polls this year. Surpasses 2012 season when we were #1 in 8 of first 12 polls. https://t…
2hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV @armandodkos Gonna be Urban Meyer.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @azcwatchdogs @yvonnewingett @AZPressClub Awesome choice. Congrats!
3hreplyretweetfavorite
March 2014
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031