Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 1 of 10

--=========.:=-..:..·.=-::::-=:;:;;-

t"SDC SD.NY

. ;: '.)NICALLY FILED
aNITEJ) ~n ATES DlSTRJCT COlJR T
80l lTJffRN rHSTRlCT OF Nf W YORK
.. ·-"··

-

.....

·---··-----

MMM .lOl[NSON,

l'faint:rt:
-aguini,t-

;7 Civ. tn~qCM)

CENTRAL. 11':'l ELIUENCE AGENCY,

De.fend:1n1.
•. __ x

MEMOR1\Nl>OM ORDER REOAiUHNG THE OOVERNMENT'~ AND Pl J\INTIFF'~
RESPECTIVE MOTIONS FOR Sl!MMARY .TIIDGMEN"I
McMnhnn, C'.T.
The i:;i.uc in this FOIA c,u~e is :1uuightfo1wiu·tt - and fascinating

An<l it ,s an 1ss11e ol lirsl impn:ssfon in this Circuit, and quite pw,!ltbly anywhere.
in Jispn!c a1c live c1-mt1l chains, only portions of which have bctn disclo.sell in rcsponsi:
'.o Johnsoll':; FO!A request,

a

1'11e ( '1A ':; Ollicc ot Public Affairs (CINOJIA) is pt1rtit-ipar1t tm ~ach nfthc emails.
in t11osc e.im1ils, CJNC JPA divulged
~
I
:
lccrtain classified iuformntmn lo repnrter.s who, as far as lh<·
court knows, m-e nut legally authorized to have nccc.,s lo that cla.c;sificd mformntion. In response
to plamtit't's H)IA request, Cl/\ ha.-i turned over the reporters' email:,; t<• C(A, but not CIA's
rcJ1po11sc:; ll arguc:s tlmt the information ii is not disclosing is prot<.:clcd ,,y various cXl.'mpt1rn1:. !ti
FOJA disclosure.

Pluinliff':; pos1tilln is lhat he is just as enlitlt:d to th1:. infom1atiun as !Illy other repo1tc1
now lhat it has been voluntarily disclosed by CIA to certain memberH oftbe prc.o;s- who a,c, in
add1ticm, mcmbc~5 of the public. Plaintiff c!llcs 1ml comcsc that the withhc.ld iuformalic>tl would
not be (11.cmpt ti'om disclosa1c if it had not been divulged lo his competitors; rather, he argues
that CIA has, by d1sdosing to i-eporte1s not authori;,ed lo have access to this classified
intormation, w<1iv<.>.t1 it~ nght to rely on the relevant exemption:i.

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 2 of 10

..._.!Emails

._I_ _

-T--------------

f.our of the email chains conce1·r1 oner--r..

•

•

The informntion cliscloscd by CIA/Ol'A to three national~secm·ity journalists. trom three
prominent national publiCl:ltions, 1 concerned three topics:I

•

___________

__.

••

111tis information will hcrcinallcr be referred to as "the withheld

informal ion."
A.If oi this informatton is highly classified, as it tends to confinn that!,.,_ _ _:____)
---trhereforc, all of it would ordinarily be protected from POIA disclmmrc under both

___________

Exemption I (for classified information) and Exemption 3 on the 1,,rround that the National
.,__
__,
Security Act ,md the CIA Act bar disclosure
Nonethcle:is, it is undisputed that CIA disclosed the withheld infonnatio11 to the three
journalists.
·me information was allegecll divul ed ursuant to a ro rr-clln or Jractice al CIA that

1

Sioblmn Gonnan from Lhc Wall Strcel Jn11rnal, David lgnntiu.~ from 1hc Washington Post, 1,nd Scort Sltune from the
New Yori, limes. <iovt. Memo at 2, Sun Deel. EK~. C-Ci
2

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 3 of 10

-.:~J~

I

that the program or practice is no longer operative, or has at the very least been modified, albeit
in ways that have not been dii;closed t.o Ute court.

In this particular case, senior CIA officials authorized the disclosw-e of classified
information to repmters who were not cleared lo receive

CIA's position is that its side of tile email cxchang-es----in which ·1
ot be funner disclosed

All that i.~ undoubtedly tl'Ue, but it is beside the point The issue for the cou1t is: has CIA
waived the ri~htto rely on Exemptions 1 and 3 by selectively disctosing classified information
~o certain ''trusted"' repol'ters.

l___-i: _
Email~

111e fifth email exchange was between OPA and Siobhan Oomum of the Watl Street
Journal.

•

c:

[

..

I

.:

:

:

]

~

:_I

CIA/OPA's side of the email exchange would, if discloscd,f.__ _ _ _ _ _ _
.,,

- ::

I

::

3

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 4 of 10

Again, the justification for why the CIA shar<:d confidential information with the WSJ
reporter, while interesting, appears to be inclevnnt.
The issue: is whether the CfA waived its right to rely on otherwise applicable ex.emptions
lo !;OJA disclosure hy admittedly disclosing information selectively to one particular repot1cr.
Stan<lurd~ for Summmy)udgmsnt

Summary judgment is the typical method for disposmg of cases cltnllcnging a
Government agency's FO f A response. See C<!nler for Bio!c,gica/ Diversity v. rI.S. Mcwim

Corps, No. 00 Civ 2387, 2003 WL 26121134, at *3 (DDC Ang. 21, 200J) (citing Fcd.R.Civ.P.
56(c); McGehee Y. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1101 (D.C. Cu·. 1983); Fmm,ling Cl1urch of'Scientology
v. NSA, 610 F 2<l 824, 836 (D.C. l 979); Nat'l C"hle Televisio111!.1-s'n, Inc. v. FCC, 479 F 2d 183,
186 (D.C. Cir 1973). ln this case as in any othet·, the standards uppJicablc to a motion ro,
summary judgment outlined in Ped. R. Civ P 56(c) and Anderson v. Libcwty Lohhy, Inc., 477
lJ.S. 242, 247-48 (l 9R6) arc applicable.

A district court reviews tl1e agency's FOIA detel'mi.nation de 1wvn, Wilner v NSA, 592 F
3d f>O, 69 (2d Cir. 2009); see cifso 5 U.S.C . § 552(a)(4)(B). Exemptions are lo be nnrrnwly
construed, ;md al! doubts a:; lo the applicability of the asserted FOIA exemption arc to be
rc:mlvcd in favor of disclosure. llctlpen1 v. FBI, 181 F 3d 279, 287 (2d Cir. 1999); Wilner,
supra., 592 F. lei at 69.
An agency resisting disclosure of records re.,;ponsive to a FOIA request beam the burden
of demonstrnting that the asserted POI A exemption applies Wi/11e1·, 11t 68-69 ! [owcver,
affidavits or declarations ... giving reasonably detailed ex.plnnn!ions why nny withheld documents
foll within uu exemption arc suOicitmt to sustain the agtmcy's burden. " Carney v. Dept. of
Justice, 681 F. 1tl 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary judgment in the agency's favor is approp1iate

where
.... the uffidavics dcsctibc the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably
specific detail, demonstrate !hat the information logically falls withi.11 the claimed
exemption, and are not controverted by eithe1 contrary evidence in the record 01· by
evidence of agency bad faith.
Wilner, supra., 592 J;. 3d at 73 .

In tile national securi[y context, agency declarations are entitled to substantial defox·ence.
CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 179; ACLUv. l)ept <!l.liL,·lice, 681 F. 3d 61, '72 (2d Cir. 2012),
Nonetheless, FOi/\ empowers a district. e,'Om't to conduct in ccmu:ra revi~w of documents
withheld pursuant to a FO!A exemption (.me 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(l3)); although when the
responding agency hi the CIA, in camera review of documents is discouraged, and the statute
directs the court to "to the fullest extent practicoble, determine issuei; of fact hased on sworn
written submissions of the pnrties." 50 lJ.S.C. §431 (f)(2)
4

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 5 of 10

In this case, ltl}ither deforcnce nor hr camera review is implicated, because the
applicnbility of these exemptions lo the withheld informalio11 is not in dispute.

Ci A asserts that the information it hns withheld falls within boC.h Rxemplion One and
EKcmption Tim:<: l.o di$Clomirc.

Exemption One to FOlA exempts from disclosure records that arc "(A) spccitically

aulhori;,ed under ,:nteria established by an Executive Order to he kept secret in .the interest uf
nHlionnl defense or foreign policy and (B) arc 111 fact properly classified pursuant to such
Executive Order." 5 U.S.C. § 522(h) (I).
Exemplion Three to FO[A exempts from disclosure records and information "specifically
exempted from dtsclosurc by statute." S U.S.C. § 552 (b) (3). ·nie National Secmity /\ct, 11s
amended. 50 U.8.C. § 403-l(i) (!), provides that "the Director ofNational InteUigencc shall
pn>lcct intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure " This is im exempting
::;tatutc within the meaning of Exemption 3. See, e.J:., American Civil Ubc,-ties Union v
Depurlmenl 1i.!u.l'ftc:e, 681 f.Jd 61, 72-73 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing l,ar.wm v. DOS, 565 F. 3d 857,
86S (D.C. Circ. 2009)). 80 is Section 6 of the CIA Act, 50 U S.C. §403(g). CIA invoke.<; these
.~f.itutc.<; in this case
The applicability of !he two exemptiClns to the withheld informahon cunnot be doubted.
In fuel, it is not even in dispute. Thc1e is i1111ple evidence in the record that the information
contained in the non-clisclosc<l portions of the email ch.-uns is properly classified, and plaintiff
does not argue otherwise. Nor does plaintiff contest the fact that the matel'inl he seeks falls
within the exempting :.tatutc:i.

But the protection of both of these exemptions can, like any othel' legal light, be waived.
"Voluntary disclosures of nil c,r part of a document may waive an otherwise valid POIA
exemption." Dow .lone.1· & Co., Inc., v. Dept. o_f'Justiee, 8k0 P. Supp. J 45, 150-5 l (S.D.N. Y.
1995) (citing Mobil Oil Corp., v. EPA, 879 F 2d 698, 700 (9m Cir. 1989) and Ashfar v. l)epl. of
Stme, 707 F. 2d 1125, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1983); see also, New York Times v Depart1ne111 ofJwHice,
756 F. ld I 00 (2d Cir. 2014). IIcrc, CIA h,is admittedly disclosed the information sought by
plaintiff to reporters, and ha.'> donll so of its own voliti()n. At first blush, it would seem thnl CTA
h11s wmvcd its right to rely on the exemptions.

or comse, for the protections of the exemptiot1s to be waived, the FOIA request must be
tor (I) specific information, (2) that ha:i already been disclosed to the public, and (3) by someone
autho1fr.cd to make :such disclosure. Wilson v. CIA, 586 1:_3d 171, 186 (2d Cir. 2009). But the
plaintiff seek:; only disclosure of the emails that were admiuedly senl to other repurters, afl:e1·
OPA was authorized by senior officials to do so. IJc has not a.<iked for nny other informatioll. So
CIA cannot argue that plaintiff is trying to obtain information in excess of that which was
5

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 6 of 10

previously disclosed, or that the disclosure was unauthorized. As n result, the key holdmg in
.~filrrm:v Audit Project v. Casey, 656 F. 2d 724 (D.C. Cite. l 98 l )--in which the court held tlmt
!he fact that "some infol'mation about the Glotni:11' Explorer pl'~jecl hnd been leaked or offichdl v
disclosed hy Oovcrnmcnt officials" did not mean that ''all of it rnust be released in response to·
PO!A rcqucsts"-- lrns no applicability hem.
Noncthcles:., ClA claims that it has not waived FOIA protection in either of these
111stanccs. It relics 011 a single 36 yctu· old case.
In US v. /J/1il/ip1, 655 1:. 2d 1325 (DC Cir. 198 I), the court was faced with an attempt by
the CIA to suppress publicity ubot1t a notorious project- the Gloma1· Ex.plorel' project, 1m effort to
n1i:1e a Soviet submarine from the ocean floor (and lhc source of the so-called ..Glomar"
exemption, under which the CIA frequently--lhough not in this case-asse!'ts thnt it can neither
confirm nor deny the existence of l'ccords relating to the subject matter of the For A 1·equest).
The prnjecr w11s cxposoo when a handt\il of armed men overwhelmed it guard, slipped
pnst a :;ophisticated elcclronii.~ alnrm system, and burned their way into a sate containing a
document thut described the project. What the court described us "somewhat garbled
infol'matio11 about the Glomar Explorer" project "somehow ended up" being published by the
Los Angde.~ l'i1m.-:;. CTA responded to the leak by brie!iog a dozen 01· so of the nntlon's most
prominc11t print and electronic news editors ubo\11 {he project, in exchange for promises that they
would not publish account!-> of the operation·· -ul least, not until someone else did so. An
impressive list of news orguntzution::; agreed to hole\ the story on that basis, J.ick Anderscm dirl
uot. Once he pnblishcd. everyone did
Reporters then tried to figure out why the CIJ\ "had unclcl'takcn the apparently hopeless
ta-tk of trying tn hottle up the story once iL had reuched the American press." Harriet Phillippi,
W11shington conespondcnt for Rolling Stone, file<l a FOIA request seeking "all records related to
attempts by CIA persormel ... to persuade any members of the news media not to broadcast,
write, publish, or in any other way make public the events relating to the uctivitics ofthc Cllomar
E,cplorcr." CIA rctused to produce any doc11ments, and Phillippi sued. The case wcncll,·d its way
up und down from the district oourt to tho Circuit and back to the district court again; ultimately
CIA disclosed some documcnls that were responsive lo the request. However, it deleted
"sensitive details" ubout tile Olomal' Explorer program from some released documents. Those
<let.ails foll imo three categories: transcdpts of telephone conversations between CIA Director
Willium Colhy and members of the press; C[A descriptions of convcrsntions between ClA
officials and memhern nf the press; and CIA memoranda recounting convetsations between and
among ClA ofllcinls. Por our pui·poscs, only the first two categories arc relevant. Plti/ltpi, 655
nt 1327-1328.

Relying lnrgcly on the decision in Millra,J,Alldit Projecr v Casey, 656 F. 2d 724 {D.C.
Ci1c. I981 ), the D.C Circuit co11cl1.1ded that Exempt10n 3 b1med disclosure of the information
6

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 7 of 10

sought, bccaust'! disclosure of the withheld information "can 1easonahly be expected to kiud to
unuuthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods." Phlllif>1, 655 nt 1329. The Court
held tlmt disc!o:mre of lhe11c ",;ensitlvc details" ''might reveal the purpose of the Glomar Explorer
project and the cxtcut to which its goals were accomplished," as well 11s impnir relations between
the United States and "the country that was lhc target of the project" Id. Much of the distJ-ict
cmu·t's discussion--an<l much of the discussion in Milila,J' Audi( -concerned a particular aspect
of the Olomar Explore:- case: the possibility that the ClA mighfy have invented a ''fall back coVCl'
slury" for the project, and thnt releasing !he documents might !end to confirm whether the
original :itory, the "fullback cover story," or some stol'y yet to s-utface, was in fact the tr1.1e story
behind the rnonmr Explorer pn~iect. Id. nt l 329-1330. A11 Plaintiff correctly points out, there is
no ''fullback cover story" that the CJA is trying lo protect at issue here, so none of this discusskm
mutters a whit.
I lowewr, iwmlar as 1s actually relevant to this case, the D.C. Circuit posited the
following hypolhelical scenario involving" ... the olher withheld documents, lhnse tnvolvmg
transcripts ar memorcmd(I rr!ICffi11g to confacts beiween CIA ojJicfuls and the press" (emphasis
added):

First, there is the obvious possibility Iha! the Ame,ic.an press did not
publish everything disclosed by the CIA at it.~ confidential briefings.
Wi!Ji.1m Colby'K cntrc11tics may Ii.we been nt least parti.illy succcs~ful. If
so, this case.appears m much the snme posture it would have had Colby
br;L,n entirely successful. For had Colby been successful, ajoumalist who,.
like the llppcllant horc, had not been briefed, might have tiled u FOTA
request sim1htr lo the one which the appellant litigates hcrn. Such a
jcmrnalisl could hnvc alleged as the appelfonts has in the present case lhut
he merely sought to b~ treated on an ec1ual basis with the othei-joumalisfs
who hn<l heen given confidential information about the prr~ject He could
have pointed out as the appellant has in the present case that the CIA had
provided the infom1a11011 at issue to other journalists who lucked security
clearance and who did not promise lo respect the scctccy of the
mformation provided to them.
Phillipi, 655 at 1331. Obviously, the hypothetical posited by the court in Phillippi is exactly
what is going on here

ln response to its own hypothetical, the DC Circuit opined, nlheil In dicta: ·'But such a
hypotheticul FOi/\ n:t1uest would surely fail, for F.xemption 3 could be successfully invoked by
the CJA to ba1 release of the documents i-equested." Id. at 1332.
The court offered two justifications for this far-from-self-evident couclusion.

7

 Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 8 of 10

First, it :;md, "Neither we nor the appellant knows for sure that l!Verything the CIA
disclosed has in fact bceu prmtcd.... If jonmalii;ts voluntarily and patrioticaJ!y abstained from
publishing that information, disclosure of the documents requested by tht: appellant could lead a
foreign intelligence analyst lo information they (sic] would not otherw1~e have oblamecl." fd.
But the fact that journalists might not huve published everything they were cold does not
address a waiver argument. Waiver is the voluntary relinqujshmcut ofa known right. In this
case, the known right is for CIA to keep lhe public -all of it, every single member- --from
learning ce1"lain classified information that might reveal sou1ce.<; and method~. No third party can
by its actions work a waiver on bchalfof the CIA; only CIA can waive it, by disclosing lhat
which it is permitted by law not to disclose.

rn this case, CIA voluntarily disclosed to oursiders information that it had a perfect right
to keep private. There is absolutely no Btalutory provision that authorize.s limited disclosure of
\)thcrwise classified information lo anyone, including "trusted reporters,'' for any purpose,
including the protection of CIA source.~ and methods !hat might othc1w1se be omcd. The fact that
the 1eportcrs might not have printed what was disclosed to them has no logical m· legal impact on
the waiver nnalys1s, bi::cause the only fact relevant to waiver analysis is: Did the ClA do
something thnl worked a waiver of a right it otherwfoe had? The answer: CJA voluntndly
disclos(id what it had no ohligation to discl<,sc (and, indeed, had a statutory obligation 11<>! to
disclose). In the real world, disclosure to some who are unauthol'ized operates as a waiver of the
right lCl keep information private as to anyone else.
Second, the l'hi/lipc court said:
Without the disc!osmc of Hie doc\lmcuts demanded by the appellant,
foreign anulyst.~ remain in tbe dark as to the provcnienc-e of the
informal.ion appearing in published reports. Some of it may have come
from Director Colby and other CIA ofiicials, but no one who was not
privy to the CIA disclos\lre can know for sure which infonnation came
from CI/\ sources and which 111formation originated elsewhere unless the
appcllont receives the documents she requests. Release of those documents
would thus not be as innocuous ns the nppellant would have us believe.
Phil/;pt, 655 al 1332. CIA specifically invokes this aspect of the Phillippi holding here

•
Indeed it would. But the second Phillipi justification depends for il'i force on there being
~omc possibility that CI/\ is only one of several som-ccs for the mformation sought by the FOIA
re.quest. I fern, there is no pc>ssibHity that one "could not know for sure which infon11ution c-ame
from CIA sources." Th~ CIA 's volllntary disclosmc came in the form of an email sent by its inhouse Office of Public Relations; and the plaintiff here seeks only those emails that emanated
from CTA/OPA-- not any 0th.er mfonnalion. The Phillipi court's discu:;sion of possible
8

 '

.

Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 9 of 10

nlternu! ivc 1iot.rcc~: IJ'.. iuformat 10n ( which come:i in the (;Ontext of :t.'i dhcnssion of fake co\'er
stories) l!i, thl.'1t:f'l>rc, entirely irrelevant and ndd!l nothing to the analysi:;

Astonishingly, the Phillipi c-otn·t ncvc1· once mentions the doctrine of waiv~r iu d1scuss111g
ti~ hypolhct1cai. Waiver is the ii;suc hcl't\ 1ipcc:!ically: Does CIA •s admrttcd selective disclosure
of f.:t:rtair. int;.,nnatio:l lo imme. members of the public waive it.-; right to rely on Hxcmptwn.'I One
,rnd ·111rcC' when another m,:,mbcr of the public files a FOIA request seeking exuct.ly the .same
111form11t,on (the i.Jm1tic.i! cmuils. wun.1 tor word) from cxa<.1ly the sam~'. source (there he-111g nom·
:>:her Lhun CIA) <.\mtrary to the Oovermncnt's suggestion, Phillipi doc·s 11ot m;ncuncc that
limittl: dbc!oi.uic ofinformation that the CIA is not suppmit'd to d:sdo~;c cm~ never opcrntc as a
w,11ve,c ft do,:s m,t autho1iz,, tho.: Oovcrnmcnl to distinguish hl·twccn "trusted journalists" and
Olhcr 11mrm11ists i !t simply dues net address ..:ither the facts focmg this court or the legal
1mp!i;;;1tim1 of those fa..:ts .it ali.
The Gnvcma:cnt' s mc.morandit of law in support ofits motion a:-c entirely madcqua1c.
Its <1pcrnn[.:( hncf docs not even acknowledge what it had lo know Wmi the ouly issue of' substance
in 1h1s case; antl iri; rc.·ply tmd docs not adcquntcly come to grips with the issue of waiver nolab\y, flu:: pnmltms with ,he analysis in Phillipi, a deci~ion that is hoth unpersuasive and not
himlirig ,111 this com!. The Government's effort to focus lhc: Court's aHen(ion on the very real
danger
lonly underscores the lack of
wisdum of CIA':; ri~ky (and .ipparently disccmlim1ed) selcoctivc di:.clwmrc progrnm.

10( "

_

·

•

Thr. is:;ue h•rc is a serious one, und so are the possible conscqueuccs If the cmu·t were to
conciutle that CIA's limited disclosuri; '.l) so1ne members oflhc press op . . rn(cd as n wnive1 I
suggest, therefore, 1hat the Government go bnck and treat the qm:..~tion of wi1iwr wnh the
s1a-iom111css it dc:,crvc~. i\. comprehensive discussion of the doctline an<. nn analysis ot cnsc.s
(c.spec:ally FOJA cases) in which it was dt:,cusse<l is plainly called for c.:specially 1rnw that 11is
court hu.<: put tht'. c,nvt~rnment cm notice that it finds Phillipi to he unconvincing. In parlicutar,
the cciu1·1 b eager l11 know· whether any other court has discussed the p<lssih11ity thal Hxcmptir.>n .1
,cannot be wmvcd (J well know that Exemption l ciin he, but we have been unable In locate nny
cai,c that d,:;cu:;-sc:; the po$sihility oft.he no11-waivab1lity of Exemption 3). The. Gover11mcnt has
,icccss !O a librnry nl' nation::11 security cases that the court could never '.(,Cate; l wottld be vcn'
smpnscd w lea111 that nune of them ucld.-esses the issue of waiver by limited disclosmc, 1.n,
perhaps. whcll:cl' the fact that third parties do not fu11hcr publish tho cla:isitied infor111ntim1 tlmt
has bc"!n dtscios'-xl to thc:111 has :mme impac.t on conduct th;it would <>thc·wise constilulc wmvc,
The Governmcnl has until Janumy 31 ft) provide the court with a better reply to
?lninlirl~s brief in ,,pposition lo the motion. There is no need to n~itccalt: the rcnsorrn why th()
l:Xctnpt1ons apply, the only open issue is whcllic1· they have bi:en waived. I mast gh•c Plamtiffnn
· I ~uppose ic is po~:,1blu limt lh.:: Government doc~ 1101 cuosldcr mom lier., ol'ltie press tu be [litr! uf''thc pnbhc; •• I d(J
9

 ...

y

•

Ill

Case 1:17-cv-01928-CM Document 28 Filed 01/30/18 Page 10 of 10

opportunity lo respond to any unclassified information iu the Govcmment's 1"C',spom1e; ii has untiJ
February 15.

,, )

This constitutes the decision and
Datcd:January 19,2018

/

?o/lorche Court 7.
:_

! /'

Ji_,. . )[/(!

/

1

( w~{_,/
--~·M·----

V

---

Chief Judge

11Y I!J\NfJ TO TTIE OOVERNMENT IN UNREDACTED FORM
BY ECF IN REDACTED FORM TO ALL COUNSEL

10

- ,____