372 F.3d 776 | 6th Cir. | 2004
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
2 Tenenbaum, et al. v. Simonini, et al. No. 02-2297 Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2004 FED App. 0183P (6th Cir.) Decided and Filed: May 19, 2004 [*] File Name: 04a0183p.06 Before: BATCHELDER, GIBBONS, and COOK, Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Judges. FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ _________________ COUNSEL D AVID A ARON T ENENBAUM ; (cid:88) ARGUED: Jason R. Hirsch, MORGANROTH & (cid:45) M ADELINE G AIL T ENENBAUM , MORGANROTH, Southfield, Michigan, for Appellants. (cid:45) Plaintiffs-Appellants, Peter A. Caplan, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES (cid:45) No. 02-2297 ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: (cid:45) > Mayer Morganroth, Jeffrey B. Morganroth, Daniel E. Harold, v. (cid:44) MORGANROTH & MORGANROTH, Southfield, Michigan, (cid:45) for Appellants. Peter A. Caplan, ASSISTANT UNITED J OHN S IMONINI , Lt. Col.; (cid:45) STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellees. A LBERT D. S NYDER ; M ARK P. (cid:45) (cid:45) Y OURCHOCK ; R OBERT M. _________________
(cid:45) R ILEY , Individually and in (cid:45) OPINION their Representative (cid:45) _________________ Capacities as Employees for (cid:45) the Various Federal Agencies (cid:45) COOK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants David (cid:45) Tenenbaum and his wife sued various federal agency that Employ Them; and the (cid:45) employees and the United States, alleging that Defendants U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA , (cid:45) conducted a criminal espionage investigation of Tenenbaum Defendants-Appellees. (cid:45) solely because he is Jewish. The district court granted (cid:78) Defendants’ summary judgment motion, accepting their
argument that they could not defend themselves against Appeal from the United States District Court Tenenbaum’s claims without disclosing information protected for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. by the state secrets doctrine. The Tenenbaums challenge the No. 98-74473—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge. summary judgment ruling, contending that (1) disclosure of the privileged material is not critical to defending against
Argued: February 6, 2004 their religious discrimination case, and (2) the district court the basis for dismissal of an entire case); Molerio v. FBI , 749
de novo, Stephenson v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 328 F.3d 822, 826 F.2d 815, 825 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (stating that if the state secrets (6th Cir. 2003), while according the government’s assertion privilege so hampers the defendant in establishing a valid of the state secrets doctrine considerable deference, Ellsberg defense that the trier of fact is likely to reach an erroneous v. Mitchell , 709 F.2d 51, 58 (D.C. Cir. 1983). conclusion, dismissal is appropriate).
Having reviewed the materials Defendants produced under We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary seal, we agree with the district court that the state secrets judgment in favor of Defendants. doctrine applies because a reasonable danger exists that disclosing the information in court proceedings would harm national security interests, or would impair national defense capabilities, disclose intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities, or disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments. Ellsberg , 709 F.2d at 56-57; United States v. Reynolds , 345 U.S. 1, 10 (1953) (holding that courts may accept the government’s assertion of the state secrets privilege if they are satisfied that there is a “reasonable danger” that disclosing the evidence will expose information that “in the interest of national security, should not be divulged.”).
We further conclude that Defendants cannot defend their conduct with respect to Tenenbaum without revealing the privileged information. Because the state secrets doctrine thus deprives Defendants of a valid defense to the Tenenbaums’ claims, we find that the district court properly dismissed the claims. Kasza v. Browner , 133 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[I]f the privilege deprives the defendant of information that would otherwise give the defendant a valid defense to the claim, then the court may grant summary judgment to the defendant.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Totten v. United States , 92 U.S. 105, 107 (1875) (“[P]ublic policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the
NOTES
[*] This decision was originally issued as an “unpublished opinion” filed on M ay 19, 2004. On June 4, 2004, the court designated the opinion as one recommend ed for full-text publication. 1 No. 02-2297 Tenenbaum, et al. v. Simonini, et al. 3 4 Tenenbaum, et al. v. Simonini, et al. No. 02-2297 should have allowed the case to proceed by employing law itself regards as confidential, and respecting which it will evidentiary controls to protect the privileged material. We not allow the confidence to be violated.”); Weston v. affirm. Lockheed Missiles & Space, Co. , 881 F.2d 814, 816 (9th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that the state secrets doctrine alone can be We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment
