×
You have no more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
California District Court Rips Feds for “False and Misleading Information” in FOIA Case, Then Does Nothing
In a lawsuit filed by six Islamic organizations and five individuals, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, found that the FBI and the U.S. government had “provided false and misleading information to the court” when they represented that their responses to the plaintiffs’ Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were complete when they were not. Notwithstanding that finding, the court agreed to withhold the requested FOIA records because they “could reasonably be expected to compromise national security.”
The plaintiffs filed their FOIA requests in May 2006, asking for “information reflecting any investigation or surveillance of them” by the FBI. When they were not satisfied with the government’s response, they filed suit in federal court in September 2007 seeking the requested information.
In 2009, the U.S. government represented in court filings that it had fully complied with the plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. Following an in camera review of the FOIA records, however, the district court determined that the FBI’s claims that “A significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiff’s FOIA request ... were then, and remain today, blatantly false.... The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security. The Government’s argument is untenable. The Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the court.”
The district court further stated that “Numerous statutes, rules, and cases reflect the understanding that the Judiciary cannot carry out its essential function if lawyers, parties, or witnesses [hide] the facts.”
The district court issued a sealed ex parte order regarding the government’s deception, indicating that it intended to unseal the order and make its contents public. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.D.C. (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 8:07-cv-01088-CJC-ANx.
The government argued that the order contained “sensitive national security and law enforcement information,” and filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit to prevent the order from being unsealed.
In a March 30, 2011 decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the district court was “justifiably annoyed with the government’s withholding of documents from the plaintiffs and the court.” However, while the appellate court did “not necessarily endorse the government’s conduct during the litigation, we agree with the government that the Sealed Order contains information that should not become public.”
“Poor litigation strategy by the government is not an independent basis to make public information which, based upon our review of the record, should be kept within the privacy of the agencies that oversee it,” the Ninth Circuit wrote. Accordingly, the district court’s sealed order was vacated and the case remanded. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Following remand, in an April 27, 2011 order, the district court continued to lambaste the government for concealing information. “The Government argues that there are times when the interests of national security require the Government to mislead the Court. The Court strongly disagrees. The Government’s duty of honesty to the Court can never be excused, no matter what the circumstance.”
Regardless, the district court held that the “Plaintiffs are not entitled to any further information regarding the Government’s previous searches for [the requested FOIA] documents, and the Government does not need to conduct any additional searches for responsive documents.” The FBI was not required to confirm or deny whether any of the plaintiffs were under investigation. So at the end of the day, government lawyers lie to the court and nothing happens, they win. This illustrates the poverty of the rule of law. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011 WL 1576476.
The plaintiffs filed their FOIA requests in May 2006, asking for “information reflecting any investigation or surveillance of them” by the FBI. When they were not satisfied with the government’s response, they filed suit in federal court in September 2007 seeking the requested information.
In 2009, the U.S. government represented in court filings that it had fully complied with the plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. Following an in camera review of the FOIA records, however, the district court determined that the FBI’s claims that “A significant amount of information within those documents was outside the scope of Plaintiff’s FOIA request ... were then, and remain today, blatantly false.... The Government asserts that it had to mislead the Court regarding the Government’s response to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request to avoid compromising national security. The Government’s argument is untenable. The Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the court.”
The district court further stated that “Numerous statutes, rules, and cases reflect the understanding that the Judiciary cannot carry out its essential function if lawyers, parties, or witnesses [hide] the facts.”
The district court issued a sealed ex parte order regarding the government’s deception, indicating that it intended to unseal the order and make its contents public. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S.D.C. (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 8:07-cv-01088-CJC-ANx.
The government argued that the order contained “sensitive national security and law enforcement information,” and filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit to prevent the order from being unsealed.
In a March 30, 2011 decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the district court was “justifiably annoyed with the government’s withholding of documents from the plaintiffs and the court.” However, while the appellate court did “not necessarily endorse the government’s conduct during the litigation, we agree with the government that the Sealed Order contains information that should not become public.”
“Poor litigation strategy by the government is not an independent basis to make public information which, based upon our review of the record, should be kept within the privacy of the agencies that oversee it,” the Ninth Circuit wrote. Accordingly, the district court’s sealed order was vacated and the case remanded. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011).
Following remand, in an April 27, 2011 order, the district court continued to lambaste the government for concealing information. “The Government argues that there are times when the interests of national security require the Government to mislead the Court. The Court strongly disagrees. The Government’s duty of honesty to the Court can never be excused, no matter what the circumstance.”
Regardless, the district court held that the “Plaintiffs are not entitled to any further information regarding the Government’s previous searches for [the requested FOIA] documents, and the Government does not need to conduct any additional searches for responsive documents.” The FBI was not required to confirm or deny whether any of the plaintiffs were under investigation. So at the end of the day, government lawyers lie to the court and nothing happens, they win. This illustrates the poverty of the rule of law. See: Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011 WL 1576476.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
| Year | 2011 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 635 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
| Year | 2011 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2011 WL 1576476 |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
Islamic Shura Council of Southern California v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
| Year | 2009 |
|---|---|
| Cite | U.S.D.C. (C.D. Cal.), Case No. 8:07-cv-01088-CJC-ANx |
| Level | District Court |
| Injunction Status | N/A |