Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 15 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 17-1320 (CKK)

PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON ELECTION
INTEGRITY, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
(July 6, 2017)
The Court hereby sets a hearing on Plaintiff’s [3] Motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order, to be held at 4:00 P.M. on July 7, 2017, in Courtroom 28A. Counsel should be prepared to
discuss the following issues in particular:
•

The ownership and control of all computer systems that have or will be used in the
collection, storage, and transfer of data collected at the behest of the Presidential
Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, including the computer systems that
are associated with the website https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/safe/Welcome.aspx,
the email address ElectionIntegrityStaff@ovp.eop.gov, and the “White House
computer system,” ECF No. 8-1, at 3.

•

The services that have or will be provided by the General Services Administration
for the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

•

The involvement of Commissioner Christy McCormick and/or the Election
Assistance Commission in the decision-making process of the Presidential
Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.

•

The manner and extent to which the Commission expects “[r]elevant executive
departments and agencies . . . to cooperate with the Commission.” Executive Order
No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389, 22,390 (May 11, 2017).

•

The authority, if any, relied upon by the Presidential Advisory Commission on
Election Integrity to systematically collect voter information.

•

The harm, if any, that Plaintiff or its members would suffer given Defendants’
representation that only publicly available data will be collected by the Presidential

1

 Case 1:17-cv-01320-CKK Document 15 Filed 07/06/17 Page 2 of 2

Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.
•

The harm, if any, that Defendants would suffer from conducting a Privacy Impact
Assessment, and whether any factors make the disclosure of such a Privacy Impact
Assessment not “practicable.”

Furthermore, in undertaking its independent duty to assess its subject-matter jurisdiction
over this action, see NetworkIP, LLC v. F.C.C., 548 F.3d 116, 120 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the Court notes
that the parties have not addressed informational standing in this case, despite Plaintiff’s request
for the public release of a Privacy Impact Assessment, see Friends of Animals v. Jewell, 828 F.3d
989 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the parties shall file supplemental briefing on this issue by 1:00
P.M. on July 7, 2017, with each party limited to 3 pages. The parties should be prepared to discuss
Plaintiff’s standing to bring this suit at the hearing.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge

2