884 F. Supp. 2d 1022
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are three Southern California Muslim residents alleging a group of FBI counterterrorism ops, Operation Flex, constituted a dragnet targeting Muslims from 2006–2007.
- FBI used confidential informant Monteilh to infiltrate mosques and collect information on Muslims, with broader surveillance beyond specific targets.
- Defendants include the FBI, United States, Mueller, Martinez, and five Agent Defendants (Armstrong, Allen, Tidwell, Walls, Rose) in official/individual capacities; Monteilh’s handling and surveillance were directed by those agents.
- Essential operation details and many materials remain classified; Government asserts state secrets privilege over information about targets, reasons, and sources/methods.
- Plaintiffs filed suit February 22, 2011 with a First Amended Complaint (Sept. 13, 2011) alleging violations of First Amendment, RFRA, Equal Protection, Privacy Act, Fourth Amendment, FISA, and FTCA.
- Court grants state secrets privilege and dismisses all non-FISA claims under Reynolds privilege; FISA claim treated separately in a concurrent order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Application of Reynolds privilege to non-FISA claims | Fazağa argues privilege should not bar non-FISA claims | Government argues privilege requires dismissal of these claims | Reynolds privilege requires dismissal of non-FISA claims |
| Procedural adequacy of invoking the privilege | Procedural safeguards not adequately satisfied | Holder declaration and State Secrets Policy met requirements | Government properly invoked state secrets privilege |
| Separable vs inseparable privileged information | Privileged material can be disentangled from nonprivileged evidence | Privileged and nonprivileged information are inseparable | Dismissal warranted due to inseparability and risk of revealing state secrets |
Key Cases Cited
- Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 107 (1875) (public policy bar against disclosure of confidential state secrets matters)
- Reynolds v. United States, 345 U.S. 1 (1953) (privilege to withhold evidence when disclosure could harm national security)
- Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. v. United States, 614 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (two-part Reynolds privilege framework; categorically limits disclosure)
- Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2007) (state secrets privilege can warrant dismissal when necessary to protect security)
- El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007) (court balancing of national security with transparency; central facts matter)
- Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1998) (privilege may bar discovery or dismissal when sensitive info is essential)
- Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005) ( Totten bar and Reynolds privilege interplay; safeguard state secrets)