%PDF-1.3
%%�����
%%Page: 1 1            
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 13 Tf 100 Tz
88.1395 -8.4 Td
1.3 Tw
0 Tc
(FOR PUBLICATION) Tj
/F1 15 Tf 100 Tz
-78.2395 -24 Td
1.5 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
43.47 -16 Td
(FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-53.37 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(INYAM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(BOU) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(LKASSIM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(RITEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HMED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(GIZA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARAG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HMAD) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ASHMILAH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISHER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(-R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AWI) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
215.07 -2.4 Td
(No. 08-15693) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-143.418 -10.8 Td
(Plaintiffs-Appellants,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
155.082 -7.2 Td
(D.C. No.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-45.114 -7.9 Td
2 Tw
(�) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-99.12 -2.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(v.) Tj
118.506 -2.4 Td
(5:07-CV-02798-JW) Tj
-201.006 -15.6 Td
(J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.,) Tj
224.34 -2.4 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-149.316 -10.8 Td
(Defendant-Appellee,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-75.024 -18 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATES OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
74.364 -13.2 Td
(Intervenor-Appellee.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
107.256 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
17.442 -13.2 Td
(for the Northern District of California) Tj
.096 -13.2 Td
(James Ware, District Judge, Presiding) Tj
14.994 -26.2 Td
(Argued and Submitted En Banc) Tj
-37.986 -13.2 Td
(December 15, 2009�San Francisco, California) Tj
55.914 -26.2 Td
(Filed September 8, 2010) Tj
-81.21 -26.2 Td
(Before: Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Mary M. Schroeder,) Tj
35.016 -13.2 Td
(William C. Canby, Michael Daly Hawkins,) Tj
8.154 -13.2 Td
(Sidney R. Thomas, Raymond C. Fisher,) Tj
4.686 -13.2 Td
(Richard A. Paez, Richard C. Tallman,) Tj
-26.88 -13.2 Td
(Johnnie) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(B.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Rawlinson, Consuelo) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(M.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Callahan and) Tj
47.67 -13.2 Td
(Carlos) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(T.) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Bea, Circuit Judges.) Tj
10.728 -26.2 Td
(Opinion by Judge Fisher;) Tj
-5.316 -13.2 Td
(Concurrence by Judge Bea;) Tj
2.322 -13.2 Td
(Dissent by Judge Hawkins) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -65.95 m 183.8 -65.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -139.1 m 186.6 -73.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -221.4 m 186.6 -156.1 l s
.9 w 0 -228.35 m 183.3 -228.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
292.25 -664.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13515) Tj
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
4047
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2            
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -236 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -26.2 Td
.52 Tw
(Steven M. Watt, Ben Wizner \(argued\), Jameel Jaffer and Ste-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(ven R. Shapiro, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.18 Tw
(New York, New York; Ann Brick and Julia Harumi Mass,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.42 Tw
(American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern Cali-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.83 Tw
(fornia, ) Tj
(San Francisco, California; Paul Hoffman, Schonbrun) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -216.55 m 300 -216.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13519) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
1065
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3            
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.47 Tw
0 Tc
(DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP, Venice, Califor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.81 Tw
(nia; Hope Metcalf, National Litigation Project, Allard K.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.6 Tw
(Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(School, New Haven, Connecticut, for the plaintiffs-appellants.) Tj
0 -26 Td
4.86 Tw
(Clive Stafford-Smith and Zachary KatzNelson, Reprieve,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(London, England, for plaintiff-appellant Binyam Mohamed.) Tj
0 -26 Td
3.9 Tw
(Margaret L. Satterthwaite and Amna Akbar, International) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.43 Tw
(Human Rights Clinic, Washington Square Legal Services,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(Inc., New York, New York, for plaintiff-appellant Mohamed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Farag Ahmad Bashmilah. ) Tj
0 -26 Td
0 Tw
(Daniel P. Collins \(argued\), Paul J. Watford, Mark R. Yohalem) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.28 Tw
(and Henry Weissmann, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.14 Tw
(Angeles, California, for defendant-appellee Jeppesen Data-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(plan, Inc.) Tj
0 -26 Td
.83 Tw
(Ian Heath Gershengorn, Michael F. Hertz, Joseph P. Russon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.71 Tw
(iello, Douglas N. Letter \(argued\), Sharon Swingle and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(Michael P. Abate, United States Department of Justice, Wash-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.38 Tw
(ington, D.C., for intervenor-appellee United States of Amer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ica.) Tj
0 -26 Td
1.25 Tw
(Gary Bostwick and Jean-Paul Jassy, Bostwick & Jassy LLP,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(Los Angeles, California, for amici curiae Professors William) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(G. Weaver and Robert M. Pallitto.) Tj
0 -26.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(Barbara Moses and David J. Stankiewicz, Morvillo, Abra-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(mowitz, Grand, Iason, Anello & Bohrer, P.C., New York,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(New York; Aziz Huq and Jonathan Hafetz, Brennan Center) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(for Justice at NYU School of Law, New York, New York, for) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(amici curiae former United States diplomats.) Tj
0 -26.1 Td
2.46 Tw
(Wiliam J. Aceves, California Western School of Law, San) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(Diego, California; Gerald Staberock and Carlos Lopez, Inter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(national Commission of Jurists, Geneva, Switzerland; Carla) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.95 Tw
(Ferstman, Lorna McGregor and Lucy Moxham, REDRESS,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13520) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
2887
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4            
18 0 obj
<<
/Length 19 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.85 Tw
0 Tc
(London, United Kingdom; Denna R. Hurwitz, Human Rights) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.85 Tw
(Program, University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottes-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(ville, Virginia, for amici curiae REDRESS and the Interna-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(tional Commission of Jurists.) Tj
0 -26.5 Td
0 Tw
(Stephen I. Vladeck, American University Washington College) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
5 Tw
(of Law, Washington, D.C.; Natalie L. Bridgeman, Law) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.85 Tw
(Offices of Natalie L. Bridgeman, San Francisco, California,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(for amici curiae professors of constitutional law, federal juris-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(diction and foreign relations law. ) Tj
0 -26.5 Td
2.25 Tw
(Andrew G. McBride, Thomas R. McCarthy and Stephen J.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.95 Tw
(Obermeier, Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(curiae Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.) Tj
0 -26.5 Td
2.96 Tw
(Daniel J. Popeo and Richard A. Samp, Washington Legal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.6 Tw
(Foundation, Washington, D.C., for amici curiae Washington) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Legal Foundation and Allied Educational Foundation.) Tj
0 -26.5 Td
2.93 Tw
(Richard R. Wiebe, Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe, San) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.28 Tw
(Francisco, California; Cindy A. Cohn, Lee Tien, Kurt Opsahl,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3 Tw
(Kevin S. Bankston, Corynne Mcherry and James S. Tyre,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.5 Tw
(Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, for) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(amicus curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation. ) Tj
0 -26.5 Td
.77 Tw
(James M. Ringer, Clifford Chance US LLP, New York, New) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(York, for amici curiae Commonwealth Lawyers Association) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(and JUSTICE.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -44.7 Td
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26.4 Td
(FISHER, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(This case requires us to address the difficult balance the) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.55 Tw
(state secrets doctrine strikes between fundamental principles) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(of our liberty, including justice, transparency, accountability) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -392.95 m 300 -392.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13521) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
19 0 obj
2749
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 18 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5            
21 0 obj
<<
/Length 22 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.25 Tw
0 Tc
(and national security. Although as judges we strive to honor) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
1.41 Tw
(all) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( of these principles, there are times when exceptional cir-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(cumstances create an irreconcilable conflict between them.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(On those rare occasions, we are bound to follow the Supreme) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.9 Tw
(Court's admonition that ) Tj
(�even the most compelling necessity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.2 Tw
(cannot overcome the claim of privilege if the court is ulti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(mately satisfied that [state] secrets are at stake.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.11 Tw
(v. Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. 1, 11 \(1953\). After much deliberation,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.57 Tw
(we reluctantly conclude this is such a case, and the plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(action must be dismissed. Accordingly, we affirm the judg-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ment of the district court.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
107.8335 -26 Td
(I.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(B) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ACKGROUND) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-95.8335 -26 Td
1.42 Tw
(We begin with the factual and procedural history relevant) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(to this appeal. In doing so, we largely draw upon the three-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.32 Tw
(judge panel's language in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 579 F.3d 943, 949-52 \(9th Cir.\) \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Jeppesen I) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(rehearing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(en banc granted) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 586 F.3d 1108 \(9th Cir. 2009\).) Tj
( We empha-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(size that this factual background is based only on the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(allega-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.14 Tw
(tions ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(of plaintiffs' complaint, which at this stage in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(litigation we construe ) Tj
(�in the light most favorable to the plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(tiff[s], taking all [their] allegations as true and drawing all) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.77 Tw
(reasonable inferences from the complaint in [their] favor.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.8 Tw
(Doe v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 \(9th Cir. 2005\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(Whether plaintiffs' allegations are in fact true has not been) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(decided in this litigation, and, given the sensitive nature of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(allegations, nothing we say in this opinion should be under-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(stood otherwise. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Factual Background) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The Extraordinary Rendition Program) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26 Td
5.88 Tw
(Plaintiffs allege that the Central Intelligence Agency) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(\(�CIA�\), working in concert with other government agencies) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(and officials of foreign governments, operated an extraordi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.14 Tw
(nary rendition program to gather intelligence by apprehending) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13522) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
22 0 obj
3764
endobj
20 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 21 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6            
24 0 obj
<<
/Length 25 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.9 Tw
0 Tc
(foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorist activi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.18 Tw
(ties and transferring them in secret to foreign countries for) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(detention and interrogation by United States or foreign offi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.25 Tw
(cials. According to plaintiffs, this program has allowed agents) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.16 Tw
(of the U.S. government ) Tj
(�to employ interrogation methods that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(would [otherwise have been] prohibited under federal or inter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(national law.) Tj
(� Relying on documents in the public domain,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(plaintiffs, all foreign nationals, claim they were each pro-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(cessed through the extraordinary rendition program. They also) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(make the following individual allegations.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.46 Tw
(Plaintiff Ahmed Agiza, an Egyptian national who had been) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
(seeking asylum in Sweden, was captured by Swedish authori-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.46 Tw
(ties, allegedly transferred to American custody and flown to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(Egypt. In Egypt, he claims he was held for five weeks ) Tj
(�in a) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(squalid, windowless, and frigid cell,) Tj
(� where he was ) Tj
(�severely) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.67 Tw
(and repeatedly beaten) Tj
(� and subjected to electric shock) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.44 Tw
(through electrodes attached to his ear lobes, nipples and geni-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.15 Tw
(tals. Agiza was held in detention for two and a half years,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.34 Tw
(after which he was given a six-hour trial before a military) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.18 Tw
(court, convicted and sentenced to 15 years in Egyptian prison.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.1 Tw
(According to plaintiffs, ) Tj
(�[v]irtually every aspect of Agiza's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.41 Tw
(rendition, including his torture in Egypt, has been publicly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(acknowledged by the Swedish government.) Tj
(�) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.38 Tw
(Plaintiff Abou Elkassim Britel, a 40-year-old Italian citizen) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(of Moroccan origin, was arrested and detained in Pakistan on) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(immigration charges. After several months in Pakistani deten-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.36 Tw
(tion, Britel was allegedly transferred to the custody of Ameri-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(can officials. These officials dressed Britel in a diaper and a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(torn t-shirt and shackled and blindfolded him for a flight to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(Morocco. Once in Morocco, he says he was detained incom-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.91 Tw
(municado by Moroccan security services at the Temara) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(prison, where he was beaten, deprived of sleep and food and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(threatened with sexual torture, including sodomy with a bottle) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.71 Tw
(and castration. After being released and re-detained, Britel) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.22 Tw
(says he was coerced into signing a false confession, convicted) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13523) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
25 0 obj
3537
endobj
23 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 24 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7            
27 0 obj
<<
/Length 28 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.18 Tw
0 Tc
(of terrorism-related charges and sentenced to 15 years in a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Moroccan prison.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
.16 Tw
(Plaintiff Binyam Mohamed, a 28-year-old Ethiopian citizen) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.52 Tw
(and legal resident of the United Kingdom, was arrested in) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.16 Tw
(Pakistan on immigration charges. Mohamed was allegedly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(flown to Morocco under conditions similar to those described) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(above, where he claims he was transferred to the custody of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(Moroccan security agents. These Moroccan authorities alleg-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.71 Tw
(edly subjected Mohamed to ) Tj
(�severe physical and psychologi-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
(cal torture,) Tj
(� including routinely beating him and breaking his) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.83 Tw
(bones. He says they cut him with a scalpel all over his body,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.25 Tw
(including on his penis, and poured ) Tj
(�hot stinging liquid) Tj
(� into) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(the open wounds. He was blindfolded and handcuffed while) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.16 Tw
(being made ) Tj
(�to listen to extremely loud music day and night.) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.28 Tw
(After 18 months in Moroccan custody, Mohamed was alleg-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4 Tw
(edly transferred back to American custody and flown to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.64 Tw
(Afghanistan. He claims he was detained there in a CIA ) Tj
(�dark) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(prison) Tj
(� where he was kept in ) Tj
(�near permanent darkness) Tj
(� and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.47 Tw
(subjected to loud noise, such as the recorded screams of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.4 Tw
(women and children, 24 hours a day. Mohamed was fed spar-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.47 Tw
(ingly and irregularly and in four months he lost between 40) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.33 Tw
(and 60 pounds. Eventually, Mohamed was transferred to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.16 Tw
(U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.9 Tw
(remained for nearly five years. He was released and returned) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(to the United Kingdom during the pendency of this appeal.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.4 Td
3.14 Tw
(Plaintiff Bisher al-Rawi, a 39-year-old Iraqi citizen and) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.22 Tw
(legal resident of the United Kingdom, was arrested in Gambia) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(while traveling on legitimate business. Like the other plain-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.9 Tw
(tiffs, al-Rawi claims he was put in a diaper and shackles and) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.14 Tw
(placed on an airplane, where he was flown to Afghanistan. He) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.76 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Mohamed's allegations have been discussed in other litigation in both) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
0 Tw
(the United States and the United Kingdom. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Mohammed v. Obama) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 689) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.19 Tw
(F. Supp. 2d 38 \(D.D.C. 2009\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(R \(Mohamed\) v. Secretary of State for For-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.58 Tw
(eign and Commonwealth Affairs) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, [2010] EWCA \(Civ\) 65 \(decision of the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(United Kingdom Court of Appeal\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13524) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
28 0 obj
3843
endobj
26 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 27 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8            
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.93 Tw
0 Tc
(says he was detained in the same ) Tj
(�dark prison) Tj
(� as Mohamed) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(and loud noises were played 24 hours per day to deprive him) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.8 Tw
(of sleep. Al-Rawi alleges he was eventually transferred to) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.25 Tw
(Bagram Air Base, where he was ) Tj
(�subjected to humiliation,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.81 Tw
(degradation, and physical and psychological torture by U.S.) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.42 Tw
(officials,� including being beaten, deprived of sleep and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(threatened with death. Al-Rawi was eventually transferred to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.74 Tw
(Guantanamo; in preparation for the flight, he says he was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(�shackled and handcuffed in excruciating pain) Tj
(� as a result of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(his beatings. Al-Rawi was eventually released from Guanta-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(namo and returned to the United Kingdom.) Tj
12 -26 Td
2.38 Tw
(Plaintiff Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a 38-year-old Yemeni) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(citizen, says he was apprehended by agents of the Jordanian) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(government while he was visiting Jordan to assist his ailing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(mother. After a brief detention during which he was ) Tj
(�subjec-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(t[ed] to severe physical and psychological abuse,) Tj
(� Bashmilah) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.43 Tw
(claims he was given over to agents of the U.S. government,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(who flew him to Afghanistan in similar fashion as the other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(plaintiffs. Once in Afghanistan, Bashmilah says he was placed) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(in solitary confinement, in 24-hour darkness, where he was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(deprived of sleep and shackled in painful positions. He was) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(subsequently moved to another cell where he was subjected) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(to 24-hour light and loud noise. Depressed by his conditions,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.76 Tw
(Bashmilah attempted suicide three times. Later, Bashmilah) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(claims he was transferred by airplane to an unknown CIA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(�black site) Tj
(� prison, where he ) Tj
(�suffered sensory manipulation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.04 Tw
(through constant exposure to white noise, alternating with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(deafeningly loud music) Tj
(� and 24-hour light. Bashmilah alleges) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(he was transferred once more to Yemen, where he was tried) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(and convicted of a trivial crime, sentenced to time served) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(abroad and released.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26 Td
4.66 Tw
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
4.66 Tw
(Jeppesen's Alleged Involvement in the Rendition) Tj
21 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Program) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-31 -26 Td
.33 Tw
(Plaintiffs contend that publicly available information estab-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(lishes that defendant Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a U.S. corpora-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13525) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
3487
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9            
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.51 Tw
0 Tc
(tion, provided flight planning and logistical support services) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.76 Tw
(to the aircraft and crew on all of the flights transporting each) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(of the five plaintiffs among the various locations where they) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.21 Tw
(were detained and allegedly subjected to torture. The com-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.71 Tw
(plaint asserts ) Tj
(�Jeppesen played an integral role in the forced) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(abductions and detentions and ) Tj
(�provided direct and substan-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.52 Tw
(tial services to the United States for its so-called `extraordi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.16 Tw
(nary rendition' program,) Tj
(� thereby ) Tj
(�enabling the clandestine) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.75 Tw
(and forcible transportation of terrorism suspects to secret) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.14 Tw
(overseas detention facilities.) Tj
(� It also alleges that Jeppesen) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.85 Tw
(provided this assistance with actual or constructive ) Tj
(�knowl-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.21 Tw
(edge of the objectives of the rendition program,) Tj
(� including) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.91 Tw
(knowledge that the plaintiffs ) Tj
(�would be subjected to forced) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.91 Tw
(disappearance, detention, and torture) Tj
(� by U.S. and foreign) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(government officials.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Summary of the Claims) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26.2 Td
3.18 Tw
(Plaintiffs brought suit against Jeppesen under the Alien) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.62 Tw
(1350, alleging seven theories of lia-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.55 Tw
(bility marshaled under two claims, one for ) Tj
(�forced disappear-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.22 Tw
(ance� and another for ) Tj
(�torture and other cruel, inhuman or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(degrading treatment.) Tj
(� First Am. Compl. ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(253-66.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.91 Tw
(With respect to the forced disappearance claim, plaintiffs) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.74 Tw
(assert four theories of liability: \(1\) direct liability for active) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(participation, \(2\) conspiracy with agents of the United States,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.2 Tw
(\(3\) aiding and abetting agents of the United States and \(4\)) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(direct liability ) Tj
(�because [Jeppesen] demonstrated a reckless) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.16 Tw
(disregard as to whether Plaintiffs would be subjected to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.28 Tw
(forced disappearance through its participation in the extraor-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.57 Tw
(dinary rendition program and specifically its provision of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(flight and logistical support services to aircraft and crew that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(it knew or reasonably should have known would be used to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.64 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Among the materials plaintiffs filed in opposition to the government's) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.15 Tw
(motion to dismiss is a former Jeppesen employee's declaration, which) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(plaintiffs assert demonstrates this knowledge. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Dissent at 13561 n.3. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13526) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
3896
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10            
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
4.24 Tw
0 Tc
(transport them to secret detention and interrogation.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(254-57.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
3.14 Tw
(On the torture and degrading treatment claim, plaintiffs) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(assert three theories of liability: \(1\) conspiracy with agents of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.22 Tw
(the U.S. in plaintiffs' torture and degrading treatment, \(2\) aid-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.06 Tw
(ing and abetting agents of the U.S. in subjecting plaintiffs to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.08 Tw
(torture and degrading treatment and \(3\) direct liability ) Tj
(�be-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.05 Tw
(cause [Jeppesen] demonstrated a reckless disregard as to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.07 Tw
(whether Plaintiffs would be subjected to torture or other cruel,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.08 Tw
(inhuman, or degrading treatment by providing flight and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(logistical support to aircraft and crew it knew or reasonably) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(should have known would be used in the extraordinary rendi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.75 Tw
(tion program to transport them to detention and interroga-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(262-64.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.33 Tw
(Regarding Jeppesen's alleged actual or constructive knowl-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.2 Tw
(edge that its services were being used to facilitate ) Tj
(�forced dis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
7.5 Tw
(appearance,� plaintiffs allege that Jeppesen ) Tj
(�knew or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(reasonably should have known that the flights involved the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(transportation of terror suspects pursuant to the extraordinary) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(rendition program,) Tj
(� that their ) Tj
(�knowledge of the objectives of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.14 Tw
(the rendition program) Tj
(� may be inferred from the fact that they) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(allegedly ) Tj
(�falsified flight plans submitted to European air traf-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.47 Tw
(fic control authorities to avoid public scrutiny of CIA flights) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.5 Tw
(and that a Jeppesen employee admitted actual knowledge that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(the company was performing extraordinary rendition flights) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(for the U.S. government. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.67 Tw
(16, 17, 56. Similarly, plain-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.13 Tw
(tiffs allege that Jeppesen knew or should have known that that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(torture would result because it should have known it was car-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(rying terror suspects for the CIA and that ) Tj
(�the governments) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.75 Tw
(of the destination countries routinely subject detainees to tor-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.11 Tw
(ture and other forms of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treat-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.41 Tw
(ment.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.41 Tw
(17, 56. They also rely on U.S. State Department) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(country reports describing torture as ) Tj
(�routine) Tj
(� in some of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.34 Tw
(countries to which plaintiffs were allegedly rendered, and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(note that Jeppesen claims on its website that it ) Tj
(�monitors) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13527) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
3858
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11            
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.03 Tw
0 Tc
(political and security situations) Tj
(� as part of its trip planning) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(services. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ��) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(14, 42, 56.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26 Td
(C.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Procedural History) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26 Td
.57 Tw
(Before Jeppesen answered the complaint, the United States) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(moved to intervene and to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint under) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(the state secrets doctrine. The then-Director of the CIA, Gen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(eral Michael Hayden, filed two declarations in support of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.82 Tw
(motion to dismiss, one classified, the other redacted and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(unclassified. The public declaration states that ) Tj
(�[d]isclosure of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(the information covered by this privilege assertion reasonably) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(could be expected to cause serious � and in some instances,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(exceptionally grave � damage to the national security of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.18 Tw
(United States and, therefore, the information should be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(excluded from any use in this case.) Tj
(� It further asserts that ) Tj
(�be-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(cause highly classified information is central to the allegations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.09 Tw
(and issues in this case, the risk is great that further litigation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(will lead to disclosures harmful to U.S. national security and,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(accordingly, this case should be dismissed.) Tj
(�) Tj
12 -26 Td
.63 Tw
(The district court granted the motions to intervene and dis-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(miss and entered judgment in favor of Jeppesen, stating that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(�at the core of Plaintiffs' case against Defendant Jeppesen are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(`allegations' of covert U.S. military or CIA operations in for-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(eign countries against foreign nationals � clearly a subject) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(matter which is a state secret.) Tj
(� Plaintiffs appealed. A three-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(judge panel of this court reversed and remanded, holding that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(the government had failed to establish a basis for dismissal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(under the state secrets doctrine but permitting the government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(to reassert the doctrine at subsequent stages of the litigation.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.27 Tw
(Jeppesen I) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 579 F.3d at 953, 961-62. We took the case en) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(banc to resolve questions of exceptional importance regarding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.44 Tw
(the scope and application of the state secrets doctrine. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Fed. R. App. P. 35\(a\)\(2\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.65 Tw
(The government maintains its assertion of privilege on) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.21 Tw
(appeal, continuing to rely on General Hayden's two declara-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13528) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
3602
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12            
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.53 Tw
0 Tc
(tions. While the appeal was pending Barack Obama suc-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.4 Tw
(ceeded George W. Bush as President of the United States. On) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3 Tw
(September 23, 2009, the Obama administration announced) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.62 Tw
(new policies for invoking the state secrets privilege, effective) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.36 Tw
(October 1, 2009, in a memorandum from the Attorney Gen-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(eral. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Memorandum from the Attorney Gen. to the Heads) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.41 Tw
(of Executive Dep'ts and Agencies on Policies and Procedures) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
(Governing Invocation of the State Secrets Privilege \(Sept. 23,) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
14.2 Tw
(2009\) \() Tj
(�Holder Memo) Tj
(�\), http://www.justice.gov/opa/) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.33 Tw
(documents/state-secret-privileges.pdf. The government certi-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.55 Tw
(fied both in its briefs and at oral argument before the en banc) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.53 Tw
(court that officials at the ) Tj
(�highest levels of the Department of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.66 Tw
(Justice) Tj
(� of the new administration had reviewed the assertion) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.07 Tw
(of privilege in this case and determined that it was appropriate) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.81 Tw
(under the newly announced policies. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Redacted, Unclassi-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(fied Br. for U.S. on Reh'g ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(En Banc) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \() Tj
(�U.S. Br.) Tj
(�\) 3.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
84.8112 -24.7 Td
(II.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TANDARD OF) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EVIEW) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-72.8112 -24.7 Td
.18 Tw
(We review de novo the interpretation and application of the) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(state secrets doctrine and review for clear error the district) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
5.06 Tw
(court's underlying factual findings. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain Islamic) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Found., Inc. v. Bush) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d 1190, 1196 \(9th Cir. 2007\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
59.639 -24.8 Td
(III.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(T) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(HE) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(TATE) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ECRETS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( D) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCTRINE) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-47.639 -24.8 Td
.75 Tw
([1]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(The Supreme Court has long recognized that in excep-) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
3 Tw
(tional circumstances courts must act in the interest of the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
4.42 Tw
(country's national security to prevent disclosure of state) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.93 Tw
(secrets, even to the point of dismissing a case entirely. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.13 Tw
(Totten v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. 105, 107 \(1876\). The contem-) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.71 Tw
(porary state secrets doctrine encompasses two applications of) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
3.14 Tw
(this principle. One completely bars adjudication of claims) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(premised on state secrets \(the ) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
(�\); the other is an) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.9 Tw
(evidentiary privilege \() Tj
(�the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege) Tj
(�\) that excludes) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.55 Tw
(privileged evidence from the case and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(may) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( result in dismissal) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
2.9 Tw
(of the claims.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See United States v. Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. 1) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -24.7 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.6 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Were this a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(criminal) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( case, the state secrets doctrine would apply more) Tj
-10 -10.6 Td
.95 Tw
(narrowly. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See El-Masri v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d 296, 313 n.7 \(4th Cir.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -467.85 m 300 -467.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13529) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
4914
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13            
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.26 Tw
0 Tc
(\(1953\). We first address the nature of these applications and) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(then apply them to the facts of this case.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -27 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bar) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -27 Td
.3 Tw
(In 1876 the Supreme Court stated ) Tj
(�as a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(general principle) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
([) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(]) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
2.33 Tw
(that public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.24 Tw
(court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.26 Tw
(disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confiden-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.81 Tw
(tial.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at 107 \(emphasis added\). The Court) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.11 Tw
(again invoked the principle in 1953, citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.63 Tw
(proposition that ) Tj
(�where the very subject matter of the action) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.09 Tw
(is ) Tj
(�a matter of state secret,) Tj
(� an action may be ) Tj
(�dismissed on) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.41 Tw
(the pleadings without ever reaching the question of evidence) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.93 Tw
(because it is ) Tj
(�so obvious that the action should never prevail) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.27 Tw
(over the privilege.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 11 n.26. This appli-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(cation of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s general principle � which we refer to as) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.93 Tw
(the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar � is ) Tj
(�designed not merely to defeat the) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.47 Tw
(asserted claims, but to preclude judicial inquiry) Tj
(� entirely.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(Tenet v. Doe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. 1, 7 n.4 \(2005\).) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
1.36 Tw
(The Court first applied this bar in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( itself, where the) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.33 Tw
(estate of a Civil War spy sued the United States for breaching) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.36 Tw
(an alleged agreement to compensate the spy for his wartime) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
5.28 Tw
(espionage services. Setting forth the ) Tj
(�general principle) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.85 Tw
(quoted above, the Court held that the action was barred) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.8 Tw
(because it was premised on the existence of a ) Tj
(�contract for) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.41 Tw
(secret services with the government,) Tj
(� which was ) Tj
(�a fact not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(to be disclosed.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at 107.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.9 Td
1.3 Tw
(A century later, the Court applied the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wein-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.14 Tw
(berger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.58 Tw
(454 U.S. 139, 146-47 \(1981\). There, the plaintiffs sued under) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.7 Td
2.68 Tw
(2007\) \() Tj
(�[T]he Executive's authority to protect [state secrets] is much) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(broader in civil matters than in criminal prosecutions.) Tj
(�\)) Tj
(; ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Reyn-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(olds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 12. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -454.35 m 300 -454.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13530) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
4153
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14            
52 0 obj
<<
/Length 53 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.41 Tw
0 Tc
(the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(4321 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, to compel the Navy to prepare an environmen-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.25 Tw
(tal impact statement regarding a military facility where the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.37 Tw
(Navy allegedly proposed to store nuclear weapons. The Court) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.24 Tw
(held that the allegations were ) Tj
(�beyond judicial scrutiny) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.36 Tw
(because, ) Tj
(�[d]ue to national security reasons, . . . the Navy can) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(neither admit nor deny that it proposes to store nuclear weap-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ons at [the facility].) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id. ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\(citing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at 107\). ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.67 Tw
(The Court more recently reaffirmed and explained the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tot-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(ten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar in a case involving two former Cold War spies who) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.63 Tw
(accused the CIA of reneging on a commitment to provide) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(financial support in exchange for their espionage services.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.58 Tw
(Relying on ) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s core concern) Tj
(� of ) Tj
(�preventing the exis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(tence of the plaintiffs' relationship with the Government from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(being revealed,) Tj
(� the Court held that the action was, like ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tot-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.12 Tw
(ten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, incapable of judicial review. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. at 8-10.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.5 Td
1.22 Tw
([2]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.22 Tw
(Plaintiffs contend that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar applies ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(only) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to a) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
2.37 Tw
(narrow category of cases they say are not implicated here,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.14 Tw
(namely claims premised on a plaintiff's espionage relation-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(ship with the government. We disagree. We read the Court's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(discussion of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to mean that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.2 Tw
(applies to cases in which ) Tj
(�the very subject matter of the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.7 Tw
(action� is ) Tj
(�a matter of state secret.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 11) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.3 Tw
(n.26. ) Tj
(�[A] contract to perform espionage) Tj
(� is only an example.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.5 Tw
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( This conclusion is confirmed by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, which relied) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.81 Tw
(on the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar to hold that a case involving nuclear weap-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.44 Tw
(ons secrets, and having nothing to do with espionage con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(tracts, was ) Tj
(�beyond judicial scrutiny.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.75 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( also made clear that application of the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( bar does not) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.53 Tw
(require a formal assertion of the state secrets privilege by the government) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.13 Tw
(that meets the procedural requirements explained in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( and dis-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(cussed below. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 8-9 \(applying the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( bar\);) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Doe) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.69 Tw
(v. Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 329 F.3d 1135, 1151-52 \(9th Cir. 2003\) \(underlying appellate) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(decision noting that no formal assertion had yet been filed\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13531) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
53 0 obj
5115
endobj
51 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 52 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15            
55 0 obj
<<
/Length 56 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.17 Tw
0 Tc
(U.S. at 146-47; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 9 \(characterizing) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.2 Td
.18 Tw
(Weinberger ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(as a case applying the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar\). Thus, although) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
2.46 Tw
(the claims in both ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( were premised on the) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
4.38 Tw
(existence of espionage agreements, and even though the) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.7 Tw
(plaintiffs in both ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( were themselves parties to) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.93 Tw
(the espionage agreements, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar rests on a general) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.62 Tw
(principle that extends beyond that specific context. We there-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(fore reject plaintiffs' unduly narrow view of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(and reaffirm our holding in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( that the bar ) Tj
(�has) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(evolved into the principle that where the very subject matter) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.56 Tw
(of a lawsuit is a matter of state secret, the action must be dis-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
5.24 Tw
(missed without reaching the question of evidence.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.2 Tw
(Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1197. As we explain below, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.2 Td
.97 Tw
(bar is a narrow rule, but it is not as narrow as plaintiffs con-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(tend.) Tj
12 -24.2 Td
.41 Tw
(We also disagree with plaintiffs' related contention that the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -12.2 Td
2.45 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar cannot apply unless the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(plaintiff ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(is a party to a) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
3.28 Tw
(secret agreement with the government. The environmental) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.58 Tw
(groups and individuals who were the plaintiffs in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.2 Td
1.11 Tw
(were not parties to agreements with the United States, secret) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.84 Tw
(or otherwise. The purpose of the bar, moreover, is to prevent) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(the revelation of state secrets harmful to national security, a) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.52 Tw
(concern no less pressing when the plaintiffs are strangers to) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
4.32 Tw
(the espionage agreement that their litigation threatens to) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.2 Tw
(reveal. Thus, even if plaintiffs were correct that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.18 Tw
(is limited to cases premised on espionage agreements with the) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(government, we would reject their contention that the bar is) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.3 Tw
(necessarily limited to cases in which the plaintiffs are them-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(selves parties to those agreements.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -24.2 Td
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Privilege) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -24.2 Td
1.11 Tw
([3]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.11 Tw
(In addition to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar, the state secrets doctrine) Tj
-12 -12.2 Td
.9 Tw
(encompasses a ) Tj
(�privilege against revealing military [or state]) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.18 Tw
(secrets, a privilege which is well established in the law of evi-) Tj
0 -12.2 Td
.96 Tw
(dence.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 6-7.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( A successful assertion of) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -24.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.05 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The two applications of the doctrine remain distinct; ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(�in no) Tj
-10 -10.4 Td
1.06 Tw
(way signaled [a] retreat from ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s broader holding.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S.) Tj
0 -10.4 Td
1 Tw
(at 9. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -457.95 m 300 -457.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13532) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
56 0 obj
5067
endobj
54 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 55 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16            
58 0 obj
<<
/Length 59 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.61 Tw
0 Tc
(privilege under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( will remove the privileged evidence) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.33 Tw
(from the litigation. Unlike the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar, a valid claim of) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.47 Tw
(privilege under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( does not automatically require dis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.11 Tw
(missal of the case. In some instances, however, the assertion) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.16 Tw
(of privilege will require dismissal because it will become) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.58 Tw
(apparent during the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis that the case cannot) Tj
0 -13 Td
.03 Tw
(proceed without privileged evidence, or that litigating the case) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.96 Tw
(to a judgment on the merits would present an unacceptable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(risk of disclosing state secrets.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.67 Tw
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( involved a military aircraft carrying secret elec-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.54 Tw
(tronic equipment. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 3. After the plane crashed, the estates) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(of three civilian observers killed in the accident brought tort) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(claims against the government. In discovery, plaintiffs sought) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(production of the Air Force's official accident investigation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.87 Tw
(report and the statements of three surviving crew members.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.66 Tw
(The Air Force refused to produce the materials, citing the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(need to protect national security and military secrets. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 4-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(5. The district court ordered the government to produce the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(documents in camera so the court could determine whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(they contained privileged material. When the government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(refused, the court sanctioned the government by establishing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(the facts on the issue of negligence in plaintiffs' favor. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(5. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.38 Tw
(The Supreme Court reversed and sustained the govern-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.67 Tw
(ment's claim of privilege because ) Tj
(�there was a reasonable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.52 Tw
(danger that the accident investigation report would contain) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(references to the secret electronic equipment which was the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(primary concern of the mission.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 10. The Court also) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(provided guidance on how claims of privilege should be ana-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(lyzed and held that, under the circumstances, the district court) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(should have sustained the privilege without even requiring the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(government to produce the report for in camera review. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(10-11. The Court did not, however, dismiss the case outright.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(Rather, given that the secret electronic equipment was unre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(lated to the cause of the accident, it remanded to the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(court, affording plaintiffs the opportunity to try to establish) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13533) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
59 0 obj
4039
endobj
57 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 58 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17            
61 0 obj
<<
/Length 62 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.08 Tw
0 Tc
(their claims without the privileged accident report and witness) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(statements. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 11.) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.21 Tw
(Analyzing claims under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege involves) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(three steps:) Tj
22 -26 Td
.38 Tw
(First, we must ) Tj
(�ascertain that the procedural require-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(ments for invoking the state secrets privilege have) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(been satisfied.) Tj
(� Second, we must make an indepen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(dent determination whether the information is privi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.7 Tw
(leged. . . . Finally, ) Tj
(�the ultimate question to be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(resolved is how the matter should proceed in light of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the successful privilege claim.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-22 -26 Td
.07 Tw
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1202 \(citation omitted\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(El-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(Masri v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d 296, 304 \(4th Cir. 2007\)\).) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(We discuss these steps in turn.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26 Td
(1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Procedural Requirements) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26 Td
0 Tw
(a.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
0 Tw
(Assertion of the privilege) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
(�The privilege belongs to the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.93 Tw
(Government and must be asserted by it; it can neither be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(claimed nor waived by a private party.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.1 Tw
(at 7 \(footnotes omitted\). The privilege ) Tj
(�is not to be lightly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(invoked.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. This is especially true when, as in this case, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.08 Tw
(government seeks not merely to preclude the production of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(particular items of evidence \(as in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(\) but to obtain dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(missal of the entire action.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.1 Td
1.44 Tw
([4]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.44 Tw
(To ensure that the privilege is invoked no more often) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.42 Tw
(or extensively than necessary, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( held that ) Tj
(�[t]here) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(department which has control over the matter, after actual per-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(sonal consideration by that officer.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 7-8 \(footnote omit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(ted\). This certification is fundamental to the government's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(claim of privilege. As we have observed in a different context,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(the decision to invoke the privilege must ) Tj
(�be a serious, con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(sidered judgment, not simply an administrative formality.) Tj
(�) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13534) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
62 0 obj
3713
endobj
60 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 61 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18            
64 0 obj
<<
/Length 65 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.16 Tw
0 Tc
(United States v. W.R. Grace) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 526 F.3d 499, 507-08 \(9th Cir.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.82 Tw
(2008\) \(en banc\). The formal claim must reflect the certifying) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.18 Tw
(official's ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(personal) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( judgment; responsibility for this task may) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.87 Tw
(not be delegated to lesser-ranked officials. The claim also) Tj
0 -13 Td
.45 Tw
(must be presented in sufficient detail for the court to make an) Tj
0 -13 Td
.18 Tw
(independent determination of the validity of the claim of priv-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(ilege and the scope of the evidence subject to the privilege.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.24 Tw
(In the present case, General Michael Hayden, then-Director) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(of the CIA, asserted the initial, formal claim of privilege and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(submitted detailed public and classified declarations. We were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(informed at oral argument that the current Attorney General,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(Eric Holder, has also reviewed and approved the ongoing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(claim of privilege. Although ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( does not require review) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.58 Tw
(and approval by the Attorney General when a different) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(agency head has control of the matter, such additional review) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(by the executive branch's chief lawyer is appropriate and to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(be encouraged.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.86 Tw
([5]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
2.86 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(b.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
2.86 Tw
(Timing) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Plaintiffs contend that the government's) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(assertion of privilege was premature, urging that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(privilege cannot be raised before an obligation to produce) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.22 Tw
(specific evidence subject to a claim of privilege has actually) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.63 Tw
(arisen. We disagree. The privilege may be asserted at any) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(time, even at the pleading stage.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.25 Tw
(The privilege indisputably may be raised with respect to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(discovery requests seeking information the government con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(tends is privileged. Courts have repeatedly sustained claims of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(privilege under those circumstances. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(U.S. at 3 \(document production requests\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kasza v. Browner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.2 Tw
(133 F.3d 1159, 1170 \(9th Cir. 1998\) \(various discovery) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(requests\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Halkin v. Helms) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 690 F.2d 977, 985-87 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.38 Tw
(1982\) \(interrogatories, document production requests and oral) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(depositions\). In addition, the government may raise the privi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(lege to prevent the disclosure of privileged information in a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.13 Tw
(responsive pleading, as it did in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg v. Mitchell) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(51, 54 & n.6 \(D.C. Cir. 1983\), and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Black v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13535) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
65 0 obj
4091
endobj
63 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 50 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 64 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19            
67 0 obj
<<
/Length 68 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.22 Tw
0 Tc
(F.3d 1115, 1117-19 \(8th Cir. 1995\). ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Huey v. Honeywell,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.3 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 82 F.3d 327, 333 \(9th Cir. 1996\) \(explaining that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.44 Tw
(contents of an answer may be evidentiary\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lockwood v. Wolf) Tj
0 -13 Td
.36 Tw
(Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 629 F.2d 603, 611 \(9th Cir. 1980\) \(holding that admis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.66 Tw
(sions in opposing parties' pleadings are admissible as evi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(dence\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.15 Tw
(We also conclude that the government may assert a ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reyn-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(olds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege claim prospectively, even at the pleading stage,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(rather than waiting for an evidentiary dispute to arise during) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.58 Tw
(discovery or trial. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 308) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.75 Tw
(\(�[D]ismissal at the pleading stage is appropriate if state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.09 Tw
(secrets are so central to a proceeding that it cannot be litigated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.18 Tw
(without threatening their disclosure.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Black) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(1117-19 \(dismissing the action at the pleading stage based on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(the government's assertion of privilege over certain categories) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.06 Tw
(of information concerning U.S. intelligence operations\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Grimes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 635 F.2d 268, 281 \(4th) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(Cir. 1980\) \(en banc\) \(per curiam\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.36 Tw
(F.3d at 1201 \(recognizing that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( may result in dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.05 Tw
(missal even without ) Tj
(�await[ing] preliminary discovery) Tj
(�\). In) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.43 Tw
(some cases, the court may be able to determine with certainty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(from the nature of the allegations and the government's decla-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(rations in support of its claim of secrecy that litigation must) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.3 Tw
(be limited or cut off in order to protect state secrets, even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(before any discovery or evidentiary requests have been made.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(In such cases, waiting for specific evidentiary disputes to arise) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.85 Tw
(would be both unnecessary and potentially dangerous. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(Sterling v. Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 F.3d 338, 344 \(4th Cir. 2005\) \() Tj
(�Courts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(are not required to play with fire and chance further disclosure) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(� inadvertent, mistaken, or even intentional � that would) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.85 Tw
(defeat the very purpose for which the privilege exists.) Tj
(�\). The) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(showing the government must make to prevail on a claim of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.28 Tw
(state secrets privilege may be especially difficult when) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(attempted before any request for specific information or evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(dence has actually been made, but foreclosing the government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(from even trying to make that showing would be inconsistent) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(with the need to protect state secrets.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13536) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
68 0 obj
4159
endobj
66 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 67 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20            
71 0 obj
<<
/Length 72 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
33 -8.4 Td
1.33 Tw
0 Tc
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(The Court's Independent Evaluation of the Claim) Tj
21 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(of Privilege) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-42 -26 Td
1.78 Tw
(When the privilege has been properly invoked, ) Tj
(�we must) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.55 Tw
(make an independent determination whether the information) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.16 Tw
(is privileged.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1202. The court) Tj
0 -13 Td
.11 Tw
(must sustain a claim of privilege when it is satisfied, ) Tj
(�from all) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.1 Tw
(the circumstances of the case, that there is a reasonable dan-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(ger that compulsion of the evidence will expose . . . matters) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.66 Tw
(which, in the interest of national security, should not be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(divulged.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 10. If this standard is met,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(the evidence is absolutely privileged, irrespective of the plain-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(tiffs' countervailing need for it. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 11 \() Tj
(�[E]ven the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(most compelling necessity cannot overcome the claim of priv-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(ilege if the court is ultimately satisfied that [state] secrets are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(at stake.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Halkin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 690 F.2d at 990.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.87 Tw
(This step in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis ) Tj
(�places on the court a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(special burden to assure itself that an appropriate balance is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(struck between protecting national security matters and pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(serving an open court system.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(1203. In evaluating the need for secrecy, ) Tj
(�we acknowledge) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.15 Tw
(the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(and national security and surely cannot legitimately find our-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(selves second guessing the Executive in this arena.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( But) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(�the state secrets doctrine does not represent a surrender of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(judicial control over access to the courts.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.13 Tw
(at 312. Rather, ) Tj
(�to ensure that the state secrets privilege is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(asserted no more frequently and sweepingly than necessary,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(it is essential that the courts continue critically to examine) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.17 Tw
(instances of its invocation.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d at 58. ) Tj
(�We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(take very seriously our obligation to review the [government's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(claims] with a very careful, indeed a skeptical, eye, and not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(to accept at face value the government's claim or justification) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(of privilege,) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1203, though we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(must ) Tj
(�do so without forcing a disclosure of the very thing the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.36 Tw
(privilege is designed to protect . . . . Too much judicial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(inquiry into the claim of privilege would force disclosure of) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13537) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
72 0 obj
4196
endobj
70 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 71 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21            
74 0 obj
<<
/Length 75 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.37 Tw
0 Tc
(the thing the privilege was meant to protect, while a complete) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.38 Tw
(abandonment of judicial control would lead to intolerable) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(abuses.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 8.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.96 Tw
([6]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.96 Tw
(We do not offer a detailed definition of what consti-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.23 Tw
(tutes a state secret. The Supreme Court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( found it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(sufficient to say that the privilege covers ) Tj
(�matters which, in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(the interest of national security, should not be divulged.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
2.5 Tw
(at 10. We do note, however, that an executive decision to) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(classify) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( information is insufficient to establish that the infor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.58 Tw
(mation is privileged. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d at 57 \() Tj
(�[T]he) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(privilege may not be used to shield any material not strictly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(necessary to prevent injury to national security.) Tj
(�\). Although) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(classification may be an indication of the need for secrecy,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.62 Tw
(treating it as conclusive would trivialize the court's role,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(which the Supreme Court has clearly admonished ) Tj
(�cannot be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(abdicated to the caprice of executive officers.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. at 9-10. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26 Td
(3.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(How Should the Matter Proceed?) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26 Td
2.3 Tw
(When a court sustains a claim of privilege, it must then) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(resolve ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.1 Tw
(`how the matter should proceed in light of the suc-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(cessful privilege claim.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.08 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1202) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 304\). The court must assess) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(whether it is feasible for the litigation to proceed without the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(protected evidence and, if so, how.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.14 Tw
(When the government successfully invokes the state secrets) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.18 Tw
(privilege, ) Tj
(�the evidence is completely removed from the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(case.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d at 1166. ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.91 Tw
(`[W]henever possible, sen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.43 Tw
(sitive information must be disentangled from nonsensitive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(information to allow for the release of the latter.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.84 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( \(quot-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(ing ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d at 57\). However, there will be occa-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.08 Tw
(sions when, as a practical matter, secret and nonsecret) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(information cannot be separated. In some cases, therefore, ) Tj
(�it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(is appropriate that the courts restrict the parties' access not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(only to evidence which itself risks the disclosure of a state) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13538) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
75 0 obj
4160
endobj
73 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 74 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22            
77 0 obj
<<
/Length 78 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.7 Tw
0 Tc
(secret, but also those pieces of evidence or areas of question-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.55 Tw
(ing which press so closely upon highly sensitive material that) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.74 Tw
(they create a high risk of inadvertent or indirect disclosures.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
2 Tw
(Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973 F.2d 1138, 1143-44) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.36 Tw
(\(5th Cir. 1992\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d at 1166 \() Tj
(�[I]f seem-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.71 Tw
(ingly innocuous information is part of a . . . mosaic, the state) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.73 Tw
(secrets privilege may be invoked to bar its disclosure and the) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.66 Tw
(court cannot order the government to disentangle this infor-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(mation from other [i.e., secret] information.) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
1.8 Tw
(Ordinarily, simply excluding or otherwise walling off the) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
.66 Tw
(privileged information may suffice to protect the state secrets) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.75 Tw
(and ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.75 Tw
(`the case will proceed accordingly, with no conse-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.7 Tw
(quences save those resulting from the loss of evidence.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.7 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.73 Tw
(Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1204 \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d at) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.5 Tw
(64\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Webster v. Doe) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 486 U.S. 592, 604-05 \(1988\)) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
3.55 Tw
(\(permitting case to continue without privileged evidence\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 11-12 \(same\).) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
2.81 Tw
(In some instances, however, application of the privilege) Tj
-12 -12.7 Td
4.22 Tw
(may require dismissal of the action. When this point is) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
.08 Tw
(reached, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege converges with the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.48 Tw
(because both require dismissal. There are three circumstances) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.46 Tw
(when the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege would justify terminating a case.) Tj
12 -25.3 Td
.14 Tw
(First, if ) Tj
(�the plaintiff cannot prove the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(prima facie) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( elements) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.74 Tw
(of her claim with nonprivileged evidence, then the court may) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.53 Tw
(dismiss her claim as it would with any plaintiff who cannot) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.13 Tw
(prove her case.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d at 1166; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.53 Tw
(709 F.2d at 65. Second, ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.53 Tw
(`if the privilege deprives the defen-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(dant ) Tj
(of information that would otherwise give the defendant) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.63 Tw
(a valid defense to the claim, then the court may grant sum-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.28 Tw
(mary judgment to the defendant.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.28 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d at 1166) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.33 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Bareford) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973 F.2d at 1141\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(accord In re Sealed) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.93 Tw
(Case) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 F.3d 139, 153 \(D.C. Cir. 2007\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(Tenenbaum v. Simonini,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 372 F.3d 776, 777 \(6th Cir. 2004\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -25.4 Td
5.17 Tw
([7]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
5.17 Tw
(Third, and relevant here, even if the claims and) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.32 Tw
(defenses might theoretically be established without relying on) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13539) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
78 0 obj
4629
endobj
76 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 77 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23            
80 0 obj
<<
/Length 81 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.52 Tw
0 Tc
(privileged evidence, it may be impossible to proceed with the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.66 Tw
(litigation because � privileged evidence being inseparable) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.33 Tw
(from nonprivileged information that will be necessary to the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.63 Tw
(claims or defenses � litigating the case to a judgment on the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.08 Tw
(merits would present an unacceptable risk of disclosing state) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.91 Tw
(secrets. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Sealed Case) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 F.3d at 153 \() Tj
(�If the) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.39 Tw
(district court determines that the subject matter of a case is so) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.93 Tw
(sensitive that there is no way it can be litigated without risk-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.66 Tw
(ing national secrets, then the case must be dismissed.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(El-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.73 Tw
(Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 308 \() Tj
(�[A] proceeding in which the state) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.71 Tw
(secrets privilege is successfully interposed must be dismissed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.32 Tw
(if the circumstances make clear that privileged information) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.69 Tw
(will be so central to the litigation that any attempt to proceed) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.1 Tw
(will threaten that information's disclosure.) Tj
(�\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Bareford) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.66 Tw
(F.2d at 1144 \() Tj
(�We are compelled to conclude that the trial of) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.2 Tw
(this case would inevitably lead to a significant risk that highly) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.1 Tw
(sensitive information concerning this defense system would) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.32 Tw
(be disclosed.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Fitzgerald v. Penthouse Int'l, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 776 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.33 Tw
(1236, 1241-42 \(4th Cir. 1985\) \() Tj
(�[I]n some circumstances sen-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.13 Tw
(sitive military secrets will be so central to the subject matter) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.8 Tw
(of the litigation that any attempt to proceed will threaten dis-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.61 Tw
(closure of the privileged matters.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Farnsworth Cannon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 635) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.96 Tw
(F.2d at 281 \(dismissing the action at the outset because ) Tj
(�any) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.3 Tw
(attempt on the part of the plaintiff to establish a prima facie) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
3 Tw
(case would so threaten disclosure of state secrets that the) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.66 Tw
(overriding interest of the United States and the preservation) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.33 Tw
(of its state secrets precludes any further attempt to pursue this) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.71 Tw
(litigation) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 279-80 \(Phillips, J., specially concurring) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.61 Tw
(and dissenting from the three-judge panel decision\) \(conclud-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1 Tw
(ing that ) Tj
(�litigation should be entirely foreclosed at the outset) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.79 Tw
(by dismissal of the action) Tj
(� if it appears that ) Tj
(�the danger of) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
3.18 Tw
(inadvertent compromise of the protected state secrets out-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
.57 Tw
(weighs the public and private interests in attempting formally) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(to resolve the dispute while honoring the privilege) Tj
(�\). As we) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.53 Tw
(shall explain, this circumstance exists here and requires dis-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(missal.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13540) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
81 0 obj
4074
endobj
79 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 80 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 24 24            
83 0 obj
<<
/Length 84 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
104.8205 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(IV.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(PPLICATION) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-92.8205 -26.3 Td
.07 Tw
(We therefore turn to the application of the state secrets doc-) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.46 Tw
(trine in this case. The government contends that plaintiffs') Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(lawsuit should be dismissed, whether under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar or) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.37 Tw
(the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege, because ) Tj
(�state secrets are so central to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.17 Tw
(this case that permitting further proceeding[s] would create an) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.04 Tw
(intolerable risk of disclosure that would jeopardize national) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.51 Tw
(security.� U.S. Br. 13.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Plaintiffs argue that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.84 Tw
(does not apply and that, even if the government is entitled to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.78 Tw
(some protection under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege, at least some) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.71 Tw
(claims survive. The district court appears to have dismissed) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(the action under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar, making a ) Tj
(�threshold determi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.45 Tw
(nation� that ) Tj
(�the very subject matter of the case is a state) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(secret.� Having dismissed on that basis, the district court did) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.47 Tw
(not address whether application of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(privilege) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(would require dismissal.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.44 Tw
(We do not find it quite so clear that the very subject matter) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.66 Tw
(of this case is a state secret. Nonetheless, having conducted) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.96 Tw
(our own detailed analysis, we conclude that the district court) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(reached the correct result because dismissal is warranted even) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.83 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. Recognizing the serious consequences to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(plaintiffs of dismissal, we explain our ruling so far as possible) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(within the considerable constraints imposed on us by the state) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(secrets doctrine itself.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
11 -26.2 Td
(A.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Bar) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1 -26.2 Td
0 Tw
(The categorical, ) Tj
(�absolute protection [the Court] found nec-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.66 Tw
(essary in enunciating the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( rule) Tj
(� is appropriate only in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.18 Tw
(narrow circumstances. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 11. The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(applies only when the ) Tj
(�very subject matter) Tj
(� of the action is) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(a state secret � i.e., when it is ) Tj
(�obvious) Tj
(� without conducting) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.98 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The government's classified briefing and supporting declarations pro-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.62 Tw
(vide more specific support for the government's state secrets contentions.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.32 Tw
(This information is crucial to our decision. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 312.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13541) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
84 0 obj
4333
endobj
82 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 69 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 83 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 25 25            
86 0 obj
<<
/Length 87 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.66 Tw
0 Tc
(the detailed analysis required by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(�that the action) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
([c]ould never prevail over the privilege.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.66 Tw
(at 11 n.26. The Court has applied the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar on just three) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.12 Tw
(occasions, involving two different kinds of state secrets: In) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.63 Tw
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the Court applied the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(bar to ) Tj
(�the dis-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(tinct class of cases that depend upon clandestine spy relation-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.72 Tw
(ships,� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at 9-10; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at 107,) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.93 Tw
(and in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( the Court applied the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar to a case) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.63 Tw
(that depended on whether the Navy proposed to store nuclear) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(weapons at a particular facility, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(146-47. Although the Court has not limited the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.08 Tw
(cases premised on secret espionage agreements or the location) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.11 Tw
(of nuclear weapons, neither has it offered much guidance on) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3 Tw
(when the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(bar applies beyond these limited circum-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.41 Tw
(stances. Because the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar is rarely applied and not) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.62 Tw
(clearly defined, because it is a judge-made doctrine with) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.05 Tw
(extremely harsh consequences and because conducting a more) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.96 Tw
(detailed analysis will tend to improve the accuracy, transpar-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.62 Tw
(ency and legitimacy of the proceedings, district courts pres-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.51 Tw
(ented with disputes about state secrets should ordinarily) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
6.11 Tw
(undertake a detailed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis before deciding) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(whether dismissal on the pleadings is justified. ) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.4 Tw
(Here, some of plaintiffs' claims) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( might well fall within the) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar. In particular, their allegations that Jeppesen con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.03 Tw
(spired with agents of the United States in plaintiffs' forced) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.61 Tw
(disappearance, torture and degrading treatment are premised) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.75 Tw
(on the existence of an alleged covert relationship between) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.53 Tw
(Jeppesen and the government � a matter that the Fourth Cir-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.18 Tw
(cuit has concluded is ) Tj
(�practically indistinguishable from that) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.28 Tw
(categorically barred by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.33 Tw
(at 309.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On the other hand, allegations based on plaintiffs') Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.28 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We do not decide whether any of plaintiffs' claims are cognizable) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.3 Tw
(under the Alien Tort Statute \() Tj
(�ATS) Tj
(�\). But assuming that the conspiracy) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.38 Tw
(claims are cognizable, they require proof of an agreement. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Pres-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.13 Tw
(byterian Church of Sudan v. Talisman Energy, Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 582 F.3d 244, 260 \(2d) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.58 Tw
(Cir. 2009\) \(holding that conspiracy liability under the ATS would require) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -432.85 m 300 -432.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13542) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
87 0 obj
4993
endobj
85 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 86 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 26 26            
90 0 obj
<<
/Length 91 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.81 Tw
0 Tc
(theory that Jeppesen should be liable simply for what it) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.14 Tw
(�should have known) Tj
(� about the alleged unlawful extraordi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(nary rendition program while participating in it are not so) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.11 Tw
(obviously tied to proof of a secret agreement between Jep-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(pesen and the government. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.8 Td
2.25 Tw
([8]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
2.25 Tw
(We do not resolve the difficult question of precisely) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
(which claims may be barred under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( because application) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.66 Tw
(of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege leads us to conclude that this litiga-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(tion cannot proceed further. We rely on the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(rather than the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar for several reasons. First, the gov-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.25 Tw
(ernment has asserted the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege along with the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
.96 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar, inviting the further inquiry ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( requires and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(presenting a record that compels dismissal even on this alter-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.77 Tw
(nate ground. Second, we have discretion to affirm on any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(basis supported by the record. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Thigpen v. Roberts) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 468) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.73 Tw
(U.S. 27, 29-30 \(1984\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Shanks v. Dressel) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 540 F.3d 1082,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.41 Tw
(1086 \(9th Cir. 2008\). Third, resolving this case under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reyn-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.14 Tw
(olds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( avoids difficult questions about the precise scope of the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
3.14 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar and permits us to conduct a searching judicial) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.47 Tw
(review, fulfilling our obligation under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(�to review) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.37 Tw
(the [government's claim] with a very careful, indeed a skepti-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.54 Tw
(cal, eye, and not to accept at face value the government's) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.6 Td
.05 Tw
(either an ) Tj
(�agreement) Tj
(� or ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.05 Tw
(`a criminal intention to participate in a common) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
2.26 Tw
(criminal design') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.26 Tw
(�\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Prosecutor v. Tadic) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, Case No. IT-94-1-A,) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(Appeal Judgment, �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.55 Tw
(206 \(July 15, 1999\)\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Cabello v. Fernandez-Larios) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.63 Tw
(402 F.3d 1148, 1159 \(11th Cir. 2005\) \(holding that conspiracy liability) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.27 Tw
(under the ATS requires proof that ) Tj
(�two or more persons agreed to commit) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
3.16 Tw
(a wrongful act) Tj
(�\). Plaintiffs' allegations confirm that their conspiracy) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
2.65 Tw
(claims depend on proof of a covert relationship. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, First Am.) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.94 Tw
(Compl. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.94 Tw
(255 \() Tj
(�Jeppesen entered into an agreement) Tj
( with agents of the) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
4.1 Tw
(United States to unlawfully render Plaintiffs to secret detention in) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(Morocco, Egypt, and Afghanistan.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.48 Tw
(262 \() Tj
(�Defendant entered into) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.09 Tw
(an agreement with agents of the United States to provide flight and logisti-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(cal support services to aircraft and crew used in the extraordinary rendi-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.4 Tw
(tion program to unlawfully render Plaintiffs to detention and interrogation) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(in Morocco, Egypt, and Afghanistan, where they would be subjected to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -317.15 m 300 -317.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13543) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
91 0 obj
5041
endobj
89 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 90 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 27 27            
93 0 obj
<<
/Length 94 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.7 Tw
0 Tc
(claim or justification of privilege.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(1203.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
1.2 Tw
(B.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(The ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Privilege) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
1.33 Tw
([9]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(There is no dispute that the government has complied) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.32 Tw
(with ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(' procedural requirements for invoking the state) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(secrets privilege by filing General Hayden's formal claim of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.52 Tw
(privilege in his public declaration.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We therefore focus on the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.06 Tw
(second and third steps in the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis: ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(First) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, whether) Tj
0 -13 Td
.63 Tw
(and to what extent the matters the government contends must) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(be kept secret are in fact matters of state secret; and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(second) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.37 Tw
(if they are, whether the action can be litigated without relying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(on evidence that would necessarily reveal those secrets or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(press so closely upon them as to create an unjustifiable risk) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(that they would be revealed. In doing so, we explain our deci-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(sion as much as we can without compromising the secrets we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(are required to protect.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26 Td
( 1.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Whether and to What Extent the Evidence Is ) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(Privileged) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26 Td
4 Tw
([10]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
4 Tw
(The government asserts the state secrets privilege) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(over four categories of evidence. In particular, the govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(ment contends that neither it nor Jeppesen should be com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(pelled, through a responsive pleading, discovery responses or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.62 Tw
(otherwise, to disclose: ) Tj
(�[1] information that would tend to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(confirm or deny whether Jeppesen or any other private entity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(assisted the CIA with clandestine intelligence activities; [2]) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.83 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This skepticism is all the more justified in cases that allege serious) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.28 Tw
(government wrongdoing. Such allegations heighten the risk that govern-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(ment officials may be motivated to invoke the state secrets doctrine not) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.49 Tw
(only by their obligation to protect national security but also by a desire to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(protect themselves or their associates from scrutiny. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.18 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As previously noted, the government filed declarations meeting the) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.46 Tw
(procedural requirements for the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(privilege even though such dec-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.39 Tw
(larations are not strictly necessary to support a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( claim. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(544 U.S. at 11. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -385.45 m 300 -385.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13544) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
94 0 obj
4295
endobj
92 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 93 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 28 28            
96 0 obj
<<
/Length 97 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.33 Tw
0 Tc
(information about whether any foreign government cooper-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.41 Tw
(ated with the CIA in clandestine intelligence activities; [3]) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(information about the scope or operation of the CIA terrorist) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(detention and interrogation program; [or 4] any other informa-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.88 Tw
(tion concerning CIA clandestine intelligence operations that) Tj
0 -13 Td
.91 Tw
(would tend to reveal intelligence activities, sources, or meth-) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.44 Tw
(ods.� U.S. Br. 7-8. These indisputably are matters that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(state secrets privilege may cover. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Tenet) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.71 Tw
(11 \(emphasizing the ) Tj
(�absolute protection) Tj
(� the state secrets) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.26 Tw
(doctrine affords against revealing espionage relationships\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(CIA v. Sims) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 471 U.S. 159, 175 \(1985\) \() Tj
(�Even a small chance) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.25 Tw
(that some court will order disclosure of a source's identity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(could well impair intelligence gathering and cause sources to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.72 Tw
(`close up like a clam.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.72 Tw
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(In re Sealed Case) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 F.3d at 152) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.71 Tw
(\(prohibiting ) Tj
(�all discussion of intelligence sources, capabili-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(ties, and the like) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1204 \(applying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.85 Tw
(the privilege to ) Tj
(�the means, sources and methods of intelli-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(gence gathering) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d at 57 \(applying the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(privilege to the ) Tj
(�disclosure of intelligence-gathering methods) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(or capabilities) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
([11]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(We have thoroughly and critically reviewed the gov-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
(ernment's public and classified declarations and are con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(vinced that at least some of the matters it seeks to protect) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.7 Tw
(from disclosure in this litigation are valid state secrets,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.06 Tw
(�which, in the interest of national security, should not be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(divulged.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 10. The government's classi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(fied disclosures to the court are persuasive that compelled or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(inadvertent disclosure of such information in the course of lit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.33 Tw
(igation would seriously harm legitimate national security) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(interests. In fact, every judge who has reviewed the govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(ment's formal, classified claim of privilege in this case agrees) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.36 Tw
(that in this sense the claim of privilege is proper, although we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.6 Tw
(have different views as to the scope of the privilege and its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.53 Tw
(impact on plaintiffs' case. The plaintiffs themselves ) Tj
(�do not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(dispute that, during the course of litigation, there may well be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(relevant evidence that may be properly withheld pursuant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(the privilege.) Tj
(� Br. of Plaintiffs-Appellants 26. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13545) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
97 0 obj
4239
endobj
95 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 96 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 29 29            
99 0 obj
<<
/Length 100 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.83 Tw
0 Tc
(479 F.3d at 308-13 \(affirming the dismissal of a case involv-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.78 Tw
(ing essentially the same types of claims on the basis of the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(states secrets doctrine\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.2 Td
3.11 Tw
([12]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
3.11 Tw
(We are precluded from explaining precisely which) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.77 Tw
(matters the privilege covers lest we jeopardize the secrets we) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2 Tw
(are bound to protect. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Black) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 F.3d at 1119 \() Tj
(�Care in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(protecting state secrets is necessary not only during a court's) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.77 Tw
(review of the evidence, but in its subsequent treatment of the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.07 Tw
(question in any holding; a properly phrased opinion should) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(not strip the veil from state secrets even if ambiguity results) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(in a loss of focus and clarity.) Tj
(�\). We can say, however, that the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.4 Tw
(secrets fall within one or more of the four categories identi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(fied by the government and that we have independently and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(critically confirmed that their disclosure could be expected to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(cause significant harm to national security. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
22 -26.2 Td
(2.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(Effect on the Proceedings) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -26.2 Td
4.38 Tw
(Having determined that the privilege applies, we next) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
3.75 Tw
(determine whether the case must be dismissed under the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
2.28 Tw
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( We have thoroughly considered plain-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.75 Tw
(tiffs' claims, several possible defenses and the prospective) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.75 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As noted earlier, the district court did not conduct a detailed analysis) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(of plaintiffs' several claims because it concluded that the subject matter) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.27 Tw
(of the entire case is a state secret and therefore dismissed under the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.2 Td
.99 Tw
(bar. One option, vigorously urged by the dissent, would be to remand to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.87 Tw
(the district court for that court to conduct a more detailed analysis in the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.02 Tw
(first instance. As the case has developed during these en banc proceedings,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.31 Tw
(however, we find remand unnecessary because our own ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(persuades us that the litigation cannot proceed. Although it would have) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.39 Tw
(been preferable for the district court to conduct this analysis first, we now) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.62 Tw
(have had to do it ourselves and it makes no sense to suspend our own) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.1 Tw
(judgment that � given the record before us and the nature of plaintiffs') Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.61 Tw
(claims � this case realistically cannot be litigated against Jeppesen with-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.8 Tw
(out compromising state secrets. There is thus no point, and much risk, in) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.69 Tw
(remanding to the district court to go through the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis as the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(dissent would prefer. We accept and respect the principles that motivate) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.22 Tw
(the dissent, but those principles do not justify prolonging the process here.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -309.75 m 300 -309.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13546) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
100 0 obj
4356
endobj
98 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 99 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 30 30            
102 0 obj
<<
/Length 103 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.88 Tw
0 Tc
(path of this litigation. We also have carefully and skeptically) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.8 Tw
(reviewed the government's classified submissions, which) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.61 Tw
(include supplemental information not presented to the district) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.25 Tw
(court. We rely heavily on these submissions, which describe) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.44 Tw
(the state secrets implicated here, the harm to national security) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.58 Tw
(that the government believes would result from explicit or) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.03 Tw
(implicit disclosure and the reasons why, in the government's) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(view, further litigation would risk that disclosure.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.2 Td
.1 Tw
([13]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
.1 Tw
(Given plaintiffs' extensive submission of public docu-) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
1.75 Tw
(ments and the stage of the litigation, we do not rely on the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.81 Tw
(first two circumstances in which the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.81 Tw
(requires dismissal � that is, whether plaintiffs could prove a) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.21 Tw
(prima facie case without privileged evidence, or whether the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.71 Tw
(privilege deprives Jeppesen of evidence that would otherwise) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.86 Tw
(give it a valid defense to plaintiffs' claims. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.36 Tw
(F.3d at 1166; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Part III.B.3.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Instead, we assume without) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
4.42 Tw
(deciding that plaintiffs' prima facie case and Jeppesen's) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.81 Tw
(defenses may not inevitably depend on privileged evidence.) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
3.53 Tw
(Proceeding on that assumption, we hold that dismissal is) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.1 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(As noted before, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(supra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( n. 7 and related text, at least some of plain-) Tj
-10 -11.6 Td
1.45 Tw
(tiffs' claims would require proof of an agreement or covert relationship) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.31 Tw
(between the government and Jeppesen. These claims might well be barred) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.3 Tw
(under ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( and certainly would fall even under a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis. The) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.11 Tw
(dissent, however, suggests that plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.46 Tw
(for at least two of their claims without relying on privileged evidence and) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.97 Tw
(perhaps without any discovery at all � namely, that Jeppesen recklessly) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.27 Tw
(provided flight and logistical support for rendition flights while it knew or) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(should have known its support was being used for forced disappearance) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.39 Tw
(and torture) Tj
(. See ) Tj
(Dissent Appendix. Although our holding does not require) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.14 Tw
(us to resolve this question, we are not so sure. Plaintiffs' reliance on infor-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.18 Tw
(mation set forth in the dissent's Appendix would have to overcome evi-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.31 Tw
(dentiary and other obstacles, such as hearsay problems and the fact that) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.69 Tw
(the vast majority of the media reports cited as putting Jeppesen on notice) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(were published ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(after) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Jeppesen's services were alleged to have occurred.) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.69 Tw
(In any event, our own analysis under the third aspect of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( per-) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.93 Tw
(suades us these ) Tj
(�knew or should have known) Tj
(� claims must be dismissed) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(as well. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -280.65 m 300 -280.65 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13547) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
103 0 obj
4592
endobj
101 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 88 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 102 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 31 31            
105 0 obj
<<
/Length 106 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
0 Tw
0 Tc
(nonetheless required under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( because there is no feasi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(ble way to litigate Jeppesen's alleged liability ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(without creat-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.51 Tw
(ing an unjustifiable risk of divulging state secrets) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See El-) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.3 Tw
(Masri) Tj
(, 479 F.3d at 312 \(coming to the same conclusion in a) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.55 Tw
(related and comparable case\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cert. denied) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 552 U.S. 947) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(2007\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
1 0 0 1 156 541.9 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
297 -1 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-287 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.69 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, the Supreme Court declined to review the Fourth Cir-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.11 Tw
(cuit's dismissal of similar claims against the various United States govern-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.88 Tw
(ment and corporate actors alleged to be more directly responsible for the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
4.2 Tw
(rendition and interrogation programs at issue here. Nothing in the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
0 Tw
(Supreme Court's state secrets jurisprudence suggests that plaintiffs' claims) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(here, against an alleged provider of logistical support to those programs,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.46 Tw
(should proceed where claims against the government and corporate actors) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(who plaintiffs allege were primarily responsible failed. ) Tj
10 -16.2 Td
1.25 Tw
(As the dissent correctly notes, we have previously disapproved of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.39 Tw
(Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( for conflating the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(bar's ) Tj
(�very subject matter) Tj
(� inquiry with) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.42 Tw
(the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(privilege. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1201. We adhere to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.28 Tw
(that approach today by maintaining a distinction between the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(bar) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.04 Tw
(on the one hand and the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(privilege on the other. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
( Tenet) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.92 Tw
(U.S. at 9 \(explaining that Reynolds ) Tj
(�in no way signaled our retreat from) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.2 Td
2.85 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s broader holding that lawsuits premised on alleged espionage) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.91 Tw
(agreements are altogether forbidden) Tj
(�\). Maintaining that distinction, how-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(ever, does not mean that the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege can never be raised pro-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.9 Tw
(spectively or result in a dismissal at the pleading stage. As we explained) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.4 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( \(as do we in the text\), the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(bar and the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.2 Td
.95 Tw
(privilege form a ) Tj
(�continuum of analysis.) Tj
(� 507 F.3d at 1201. A case may) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.83 Tw
(fall outside the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(bar because its ) Tj
(�very subject matter) Tj
(� is not a state) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.3 Tw
(secret, and yet it may become clear in conducting a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis that) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.48 Tw
(plaintiffs cannot establish a prima facie case, that defendants are deprived) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.06 Tw
(of a valid defense or that the case cannot be litigated without presenting) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.7 Tw
(either a certainty or an unacceptable risk of revealing state secrets. When) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.33 Tw
(that point is reached, including,) Tj
( if applicable, at the pleading stage, dis-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.05 Tw
(missal is appropriate under the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(privilege. Notwithstanding its) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.45 Tw
(erroneous conflation of the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( bar and the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege, we rely) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.94 Tw
(on ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( because it properly concluded � with respect to allegations) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.39 Tw
(comparable to those here � that ) Tj
(�virtually any conceivable response to) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.11 Tw
([plaintiffs'] allegations would disclose privileged information,) Tj
(� and, there-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.5 Tw
(fore, that the action could not be litigated ) Tj
(�without threatening the disclo-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(sure� of state secrets. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 308, 310. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 541.9 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -12.75 m 300 -12.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13548) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
106 0 obj
5862
endobj
104 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 105 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 32 32            
109 0 obj
<<
/Length 110 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
1.33 Tw
0 Tc
([14]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
1.33 Tw
(We reach this conclusion because all seven of plain-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.14 Tw
(tiffs' claims, even if taken as true, describe Jeppesen as pro-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.91 Tw
(viding logistical support in a broad, complex process, certain) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(aspects of which, the government has persuaded us, are abso-) Tj
0 -13 Td
0 Tw
(lutely protected by the state secrets privilege. Notwithstanding) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.12 Tw
(that some information about that process has become public,) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.16 Tw
(Jeppesen's alleged role and its attendant liability cannot be) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.87 Tw
(isolated from aspects that are secret and protected. Because) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.25 Tw
(the facts underlying plaintiffs' claims are so infused with) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.87 Tw
(these secrets, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(any) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( plausible effort by Jeppesen to defend) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.91 Tw
(against them would create an unjustifiable risk of revealing) Tj
0 -13 Td
.9 Tw
(state secrets, even if plaintiffs could make a prima facie case) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.78 Tw
(on one or more claims with nonprivileged evidence. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(Kasza) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d at 1170; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Black) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 F.3d at 1118 \() Tj
(�[P]roof of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(`the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint are so tied) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(to the privileged information that further litigation will consti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(tute an undue threat that privileged information will be dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
8.11 Tw
(closed.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
8.11 Tw
(�\) \(quoting and affirming the district court\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.08 Tw
(Bareford) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973 F.2d at 1144 \() Tj
(�[T]he danger that witnesses) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.43 Tw
(might divulge some privileged material during cross-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.71 Tw
(examination is great because the privileged and non-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(privileged material are inextricably linked. We are compelled) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(to conclude that the trial of this case would inevitably lead to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.61 Tw
(a significant risk that highly sensitive information concerning) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(this defense system would be disclosed.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Fitzgerald) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 776) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.2d at 1243 \() Tj
(�In examining witnesses with personal knowl-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(edge of relevant military secrets, the parties would have every) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(incentive to probe dangerously close to the state secrets them-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(selves. In these circumstances, state secrets could be compro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.57 Tw
(mised even without direct disclosure by a witness.) Tj
(�\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(Farnsworth Cannon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 635 F.2d at 281 \() Tj
(�[T]he plaintiff and its) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(lawyers would have every incentive to probe as close to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.1 Tw
(core secrets as the trial judge would permit. Such probing in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(open court would inevitably be revealing. It is evident that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(any attempt on the part of the plaintiff to establish a prima) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.07 Tw
(facie case would so threaten disclosure of state secrets that the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(overriding interest of the United States and the preservation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(of its state secrets precludes any further attempt to pursue this) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13549) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
110 0 obj
4197
endobj
108 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 109 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 33 33            
112 0 obj
<<
/Length 113 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.43 Tw
0 Tc
(litigation.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also In re Sealed Case) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 494 F.3d at 152-54) Tj
0 -13 Td
7.4 Tw
(\(acknowledging the appropriateness of dismissal when) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.5 Tw
(unprivileged and privileged matters are so entwined that the) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(risk of disclosure of privileged material is unacceptably high,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(although concluding that the case before the court did not fall) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(within that category\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.3 Tw
(Here, further litigation presents an unacceptable risk of dis-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.07 Tw
(closure of state secrets no matter what legal or factual theories) Tj
0 -13 Td
.37 Tw
(Jeppesen would choose to advance during a defense. Whether) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.16 Tw
(or not Jeppesen provided logistical support in connection with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(the extraordinary rendition and interrogation programs, there) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(is precious little Jeppesen could say about its relevant conduct) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.28 Tw
(and knowledge without revealing information about how the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.41 Tw
(United States government does ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(or does not) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( conduct covert) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(operations. Our conclusion holds no matter what protective) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(procedures the district court might employ. Adversarial litiga-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(tion, including pretrial discovery of documents and witnesses) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.84 Tw
(and the presentation of documents and testimony at trial, is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
6.12 Tw
(inherently complex and unpredictable. Although district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(courts are well equipped to wall off isolated secrets from dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.32 Tw
(closure, the challenge is exponentially greater in exceptional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.04 Tw
(cases like this one, where the relevant secrets are difficult or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(impossible to isolate and even efforts to define a boundary) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(between privileged and unprivileged evidence would risk dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(closure by implication. In these rare circumstances, the risk of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(disclosure that further proceedings would create cannot be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(averted through the use of devices such as protective orders) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(or restrictions on testimony. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.08 Tw
([15]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
2.08 Tw
(Dismissal at the pleading stage under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is a) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(drastic result and should not be readily granted. We are not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.58 Tw
(persuaded, however, by the dissent's views that the state) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.83 Tw
(secrets privilege can never be ) Tj
(�asserted during the pleading) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.03 Tw
(stage to excise entire allegations,) Tj
(� or that the government) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(must be required ) Tj
(�to make its claims of state secrets with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(regard to specific items of evidence or groups of such items) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.3 Tw
(as their use is sought in the lawsuit.) Tj
(� Dissent 13560, 13565.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13550) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
113 0 obj
3801
endobj
111 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 112 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 34 34            
115 0 obj
<<
/Length 116 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.5 Tw
0 Tc
(A case may fall outside the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar and yet it may become) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(clear during the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis that dismissal is required) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(at the outset. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1201 \(explaining) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(that the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(bar and the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege form a ) Tj
(�contin-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.02 Tw
(uum of analysis,) Tj
(� and that in some cases ) Tj
(�the suit itself may) Tj
0 -13 Td
.5 Tw
(not be barred because of its subject matter and yet ultimately,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(the state secrets privilege may nonetheless preclude the case) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(from proceeding to the merits,) Tj
(� even without ) Tj
(�await[ing] pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.21 Tw
(liminary discovery) Tj
(�\). Here, our detailed ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(reveals that the claims and possible defenses are so infused) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.13 Tw
(with state secrets that the risk of disclosing them is both) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(apparent and inevitable. Dismissal under these circumstances,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(like dismissal under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar, reflects the general princi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.87 Tw
(ple that ) Tj
(�public policy forbids the maintenance of any suit in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.09 Tw
(a court of justice, the trial of which would inevitably lead to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.74 Tw
(dential, and respecting which it will not allow the confidence) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(to be violated.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at 107. ) Tj
136.8 -26 Td
(* * *) Tj
-124.8 -26 Td
3.55 Tw
(Although we are necessarily precluded from explaining) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(precisely why this case cannot be litigated without risking dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(closure of state secrets, or the nature of the harm to national) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(security that we are convinced would result from further liti-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(gation, we are able to offer a few observations.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
.48 Tw
([16]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
.48 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(First) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we recognize that plaintiffs have proffered hun-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.9 Tw
(dreds of pages of publicly available documents, many) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(catalogued in the dissent's Appendix, that they say corrobo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.67 Tw
(rate some of their allegations concerning Jeppesen's alleged) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.1 Tw
(participation in aspects of the extraordinary rendition pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(gram. As the government has acknowledged, its claim of priv-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(ilege does not extend to public documents. Accordingly, we) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(do not hold that any of the documents plaintiffs have submit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(ted are subject to the privilege; rather, we conclude that even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.38 Tw
(assuming plaintiffs could establish their entire case ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(solely) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(through nonprivileged evidence � unlikely as that may be �) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13551) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
116 0 obj
4063
endobj
114 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 115 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 35 35            
118 0 obj
<<
/Length 119 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.55 Tw
0 Tc
(any effort by Jeppesen to defend would unjustifiably risk dis-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.53 Tw
(closure of state secrets. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. El-Masri) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d at 309 \(con-) Tj
0 -13 Td
8.21 Tw
(cluding that ) Tj
(�virtually any conceivable response [by) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(government defendants to claims based on factual allegations) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.56 Tw
(materially identical to this case's] . . . would disclose privi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(leged information) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
3.63 Tw
([17]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
3.63 Tw
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Second) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we do not hold that the existence of the) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.28 Tw
(extraordinary rendition program is itself a state secret. The) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.38 Tw
(program has been publicly acknowledged by numerous gov-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(ernment officials including the President of the United States.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.7 Tw
(Even if its mere existence may once have been a ) Tj
(�matter[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(which, in the interest of national security, should not be) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(divulged,� it is not a state secret now. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(10; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1193 \(concluding ) Tj
(�[i]n light) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.45 Tw
(of extensive government disclosures) Tj
(� that a warrantless) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.88 Tw
(wiretapping program was not a matter of state secret\). None-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(theless, partial disclosure of the existence and even some) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.42 Tw
(aspects of the extraordinary rendition program does not pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(clude other details from remaining state secrets if ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(their) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( disclo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.7 Tw
(sure would risk grave harm to national security. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Al-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.57 Tw
(Haramain) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1203 \(concluding that some undis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(closed details of the wiretapping program were entitled to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(protection under the state secrets privilege\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Halkin) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 690 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.4 Tw
(at 994 \() Tj
(�We reject, as we have previously, the theory that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(`because some information about the project ostensibly is now) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.23 Tw
(in the public domain, nothing about the project in which the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(appellants have expressed an interest can properly remain) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(classified' or otherwise privileged from disclosure.) Tj
(� \(quoting) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(Military Audit Project v. Casey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 656 F.2d 724, 752 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.7 Tw
(1981\)\)\)) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(; see also Bareford) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 973 F.2d at 1144 \(explaining that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(in some circumstances, ) Tj
(�disclosure of information by govern-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.12 Tw
(ment officials can be prejudicial to government interests, even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.5 Tw
(if the information has already been divulged from non-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(government sources) Tj
(�\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2.61 Tw
(Third) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, we acknowledge the government's certification at) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(oral argument that its assertion of the state secrets privilege) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13552) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
119 0 obj
4158
endobj
117 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 118 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 36 36            
121 0 obj
<<
/Length 122 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.96 Tw
0 Tc
(comports with the revised standards set forth in the current) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.8 Tw
(administration's September 23, 2009 memorandum, adopted) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.92 Tw
(several years after the government first invoked the privilege) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.71 Tw
(in this case. Those standards require the responsible agency) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.47 Tw
(to show that ) Tj
(�assertion of the privilege is necessary to protect) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
(information the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(could be expected to cause significant harm to the national) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.26 Tw
(defense or foreign relations.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Holder Memo, supra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, at 1. They) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(also mandate that the Department of Justice ) Tj
(�will not defend) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.73 Tw
(an invocation of the privilege in order to: \(i\) conceal viola-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.55 Tw
(tions of the law, inefficiency, or administrative error; \(ii\) pre-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2 Tw
(vent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.51 Tw
(the United States government; \(iii\) restrain competition; or) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.8 Tw
(\(iv\) prevent or delay the release of information the release of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.08 Tw
(which would not reasonably be expected to cause significant) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.17 Tw
(harm to national security.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( at 2. That certification here is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.05 Tw
(consistent with our independent conclusion, having reviewed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(the government's public and classified declarations, that the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.82 Tw
(government is not invoking the privilege to avoid embarrass-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(ment or to escape scrutiny of its recent controversial transfer) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.85 Tw
(and interrogation policies, rather than to protect legitimate) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(national security concerns.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
95.4225 -26.7 Td
(V.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(O) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(THER) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EMEDIES) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-83.4225 -26.6 Td
.39 Tw
(Our holding today is not intended to foreclose � or to pre-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(judge � possible ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(nonjudicial) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( relief, should it be warranted for) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(any of the plaintiffs. ) Tj
(Denial of a judicial forum based on the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(state secrets doctrine poses concerns at both individual and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.16 Tw
(structural levels. For the individual plaintiffs in this action,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.63 Tw
(our decision forecloses at least one set of judicial remedies,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.88 Tw
(and deprives them of the opportunity to prove their alleged) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(mistreatment and obtain damages. At a structural level, termi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(nating the case eliminates further judicial review in this civil) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.78 Tw
(litigation, one important check on alleged abuse by govern-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.71 Tw
(ment officials and putative contractors. Other remedies may) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.48 Tw
(partially mitigate these concerns, however, although we rec-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13553) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
122 0 obj
3880
endobj
120 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 107 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 121 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 37 37            
124 0 obj
<<
/Length 125 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.44 Tw
0 Tc
(ognize each of these options brings with it its own set of con-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(cerns and uncertainties. ) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.03 Tw
(First, that the judicial branch may have deferred to the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5 Tw
(executive branch's claim of privilege in the interest of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(national security does not preclude the government from hon-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(oring the fundamental principles of justice. The government,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.61 Tw
(having access to the secret information, can determine) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(whether plaintiffs' claims have merit and whether misjudg-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(ments or mistakes were made that violated plaintiffs' human) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.4 Tw
(rights. Should that be the case, the government may be able) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(to find ways to remedy such alleged harms while still main-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(taining the secrecy national security demands. For instance,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(the government made reparations to Japanese Latin Ameri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.91 Tw
(cans abducted from Latin America for internment in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.14 Tw
(United States during World War II. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Mochizuki v. United) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 43 Fed. Cl. 97 \(1999\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26 Td
2 Tw
(Second, Congress has the authority to investigate alleged) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.62 Tw
(wrongdoing and restrain excesses by the executive branch.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.82 Tw
(�The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.96 Tw
(inherent in the legislative process.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Watkins v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(354 U.S. 178, 187 \(1957\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(accord Eastland v. U.S. Service-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.22 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Other governments have committed to doing this. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, Prime) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.3 Tw
(Minister David Cameron, A Statement Given by the Prime Minister to the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1.08 Tw
(House of Commons on the Treatment of Terror Suspects \(July 6, 2010\),) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/07/) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
2.6 Tw
(statement-on-detainees-52943 \() Tj
(�[W]e are committed to mediation with) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.36 Tw
(those who have brought civil claims about their detention in Guantanamo.) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(And wherever appropriate, we will offer compensation.) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.07 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In addition, Congress has constituted independent investigatory bodies) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.8 Tw
(within the executive branch. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 50 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.8 Tw
(403q \(establishing the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.45 Tw
(Office of Inspector General in the Central Intelligence Agency ) Tj
(�to initiate) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.75 Tw
(and conduct independently inspections, investigations, and audits relating) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.73 Tw
(to programs and operations of the Agency) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Office of Inspector) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.48 Tw
(General, Central Intelligence Agency, Special Review: Counterterrorism) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.1 Tw
(Detention and Interrogation Activities \(September 2001 � October 2003\),) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
7.14 Tw
(May 7, 2004 \(partially redacted\), ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(available at) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( http://graphics8.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20090825-DETAIN/2004CIAIG.pdf. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -307.85 m 300 -307.85 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13554) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
125 0 obj
4484
endobj
123 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 124 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 38 38            
128 0 obj
<<
/Length 129 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.21 Tw
0 Tc
(men's Fund) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 421 U.S. 491, 504 \(1975\). ) Tj
(�Congress unques-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(tionably has . . . broad authority to investigate, to inform the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.24 Tw
(public, and, ultimately, to legislate against suspected corrup-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.47 Tw
(tion and abuse of power in the Executive Branch.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Nixon v.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.36 Tw
(Adm'r of Gen. Servs.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 433 U.S. 425, 498 \(1977\) \(Powell, J.,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(concurring\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Branzburg v. Hayes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 408 U.S. 665, 741) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.48 Tw
(\(1972\) \(Stewart, J., dissenting\) \() Tj
(�We have long recognized) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4 Tw
(the ) Tj
(value of the role played by legislative investigations) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(. . . .) Tj
(�\).) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(Third, Congress also has the power to enact private bills.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(See Nixon v. Fitzgerald) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 457 U.S. 731, 762 n.5 \(1982\) \(Bur-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.78 Tw
(ger, C.J., concurring\) \() Tj
(�For uncompensated injuries Congress) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(may in its discretion provide separate nonjudicial remedies) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.62 Tw
(such as private bills.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 514) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(U.S. 211, 239 n.9 \(1995\) \() Tj
(�Private bills in Congress are still) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.37 Tw
(common, and were even more so in the days before establish-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.53 Tw
(ment of the Claims Court.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Rich-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.32 Tw
(mond) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 496 U.S. 414, 431 \(1990\) \() Tj
(�Congress continues to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(employ private legislation to provide remedies in individual) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.3 Tw
(cases of hardship.) Tj
(�\). Because as a general matter the federal) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.14 Tw
(courts are better equipped to handle claims, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see Kosak v.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.03 Tw
(United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S. 848, 867-69 \(1984\) \(Stevens, J., dis-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(senting\), Congress can refer the case to the Court of Federal) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.08 Tw
(Claims to make a recommendation before deciding whether to) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.96 Tw
(enact a private bill, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 28 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.96 Tw
(1492; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Banfi) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.66 Tw
(Prods. Corp. v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 40 Fed. Cl. 107, 109 \(1997\),) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.51 Tw
(although Congress alone will make the ultimate decision.) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
4.32 Tw
(When national security interests deny alleged victims of) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.52 Tw
(wrongful governmental action meaningful access to a judicial) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
-.58 Tw
(forum, private bills may be an appropriate alternative remedy.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.38 Tw
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Proceedings in the Court of Federal Claims following congressional) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.93 Tw
(referral may pose some of the same problems that require dismissal here) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.57 Tw
(� the Court of Federal Claims must avoid disclosure of state secrets too.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.25 Tw
(The referral proceedings might be less problematic than this lawsuit, how-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.69 Tw
(ever, because, for example, the question of third-party liability would not) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.15 Tw
(be the focus: a private bill addresses compensation by the government, not) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -421.15 m 300 -421.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13555) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
129 0 obj
4398
endobj
127 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 128 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 39 39            
131 0 obj
<<
/Length 132 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.87 Tw
0 Tc
(Fourth, Congress has the authority to enact remedial legis-) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.24 Tw
(lation authorizing appropriate causes of action and procedures) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2 Tw
(to address claims like those presented here. When the state) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
3.55 Tw
(secrets doctrine ) Tj
(�compels the subordination of appellants') Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.4 Tw
(interest in the pursuit of their claims to the executive's duty) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.44 Tw
(to preserve our national security, this means that remedies for) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.36 Tw
(. . . violations that cannot be proven under existing legal stan-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.24 Tw
(dards, if there are to be such remedies, must be provided by) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.62 Tw
(Congress. That is where the government's power to remedy) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.36 Tw
(wrongs is ultimately reposed.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Halkin v. Helms) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 690 F.2d at) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(1001 \(footnote omitted\).) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
105.764 -26.9 Td
(VI.) Tj
9 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F1 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ONCLUSION) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-93.764 -26.9 Td
.27 Tw
(We, like the dissent, emphasize that it should be a rare case) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.47 Tw
(when the state secrets doctrine leads to dismissal at the outset) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.94 Tw
(of a case. Nonetheless, there are such cases � not just those) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.5 Tw
(subject to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s per se rule, but those where the mandate) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
4.08 Tw
(for dismissal is apparent even under the more searching) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.55 Tw
(examination required by ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( This is one of those rare) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(cases. ) Tj
12 -26.8 Td
1.36 Tw
(For all the reasons the dissent articulates � including the) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
.53 Tw
(impact on human rights, the importance of constitutional pro-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.58 Tw
(tections and the constraints of a judge-made doctrine � we) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.8 Tw
(do not reach our decision lightly or without close and skepti-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.6 Tw
(cal scrutiny of the record and the government's case for) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.37 Tw
(secrecy and dismissal. We expect our decision today to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.6 Td
1.33 Tw
(by third parties. In addition, Congress might tailor its referral to protect) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.61 Tw
(state secrets, by, for example, requiring the Court of Federal Claims to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.56 Tw
(make its recommendation based solely on the plaintiffs' own testimony) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(and nonprivileged documents in the public domain. Moreover, Congress) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.67 Tw
(presumably possesses the power to restrict application of the state secrets) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.78 Tw
(privilege in the referral proceedings. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1205-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.32 Tw
(06 \(remanding to the district court to consider whether the Foreign Intelli-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(gence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.75 Tw
(1806\(f\), preempts the state secrets) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1 Tw
(privilege\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -386.25 m 300 -386.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13556) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
132 0 obj
3844
endobj
130 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 131 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 40 40            
134 0 obj
<<
/Length 135 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.95 Tw
0 Tc
(inform district courts that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( has its limits, that every) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.42 Tw
(effort should be made to parse claims to salvage a case like) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
4.37 Tw
(this using the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( approach, that the standards for) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
3.95 Tw
(peremptory dismissal are very high and it is the district) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
3.33 Tw
(court's role to use its fact-finding and other tools to full) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.52 Tw
(advantage before it concludes that the rare step of dismissal) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.52 Tw
(is justified. We also acknowledge that this case presents a) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.61 Tw
(painful conflict between human rights and national security.) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.37 Tw
(As judges, we have tried our best to evaluate the competing) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
.85 Tw
(claims of plaintiffs and the government and resolve that con-) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
2.5 Tw
(flict according to the principles governing the state secrets) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(doctrine set forth by the United States Supreme Court.) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -27.5 Td
.71 Tw
([18]) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
() Tj
3 Tw
( ) Tj
.71 Tw
(For the reasons stated, we hold that the government's) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
.16 Tw
(valid assertion of the state secrets privilege warrants dismissal) Tj
0 -13.9 Td
-.07 Tw
(of the litigation, and affirm the judgment of the district court.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(16) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(The government shall bear all parties' costs on appeal. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -27.5 Td
(AFFIRMED.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -53.8 Td
(BEA, Circuit Judge, concurring:) Tj
12 -27.5 Td
3 Tw
(I concur with Judge Fisher's well-reasoned opinion and) Tj
-12 -13.9 Td
.41 Tw
(join fully in his result. I also concur with Judge Fisher's anal-) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.46 Tw
(ysis with respect to ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United States v. Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. 1) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
2.07 Tw
(\(1953\). I write separately only because I would decide this) Tj
0 -13.8 Td
1.13 Tw
(case under ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. 105, 107 \(1876\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -27.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(16) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We do not share the dissent's confidence that the present proceedings) Tj
-10 -11.7 Td
.64 Tw
(come within Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12\(b\)\(6\). Dissent 13559-60,) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.66 Tw
(13565. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( necessarily entails consideration of materials outside the) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
.42 Tw
(pleadings: at minimum, the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( analysis requires the court to review) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
2.36 Tw
(the government's formal claim of privilege. That fact alone calls into) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(question reliance on Rule 12\(b\)\(6\). ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Lee v. City of Los Angeles) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 250) Tj
0 -11.7 Td
1 Tw
(F.3d 668, 688 \(9th Cir. 2001\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -284.05 m 300 -284.05 l s
.5 w 0 -406.95 m 300 -406.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13557) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
135 0 obj
3767
endobj
133 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 134 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 41 41            
137 0 obj
<<
/Length 138 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.77 Tw
0 Tc
(The ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar requires our courts to dismiss cases ) Tj
(�where) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.33 Tw
(the very subject matter of the action) Tj
(� is ) Tj
(�a matter of state) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(secret.� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 11 n.26. In this case, every) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.88 Tw
(claim in the Plaintiffs' complaint is based on the allegation) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.5 Tw
(that officials of the United States government arrested and) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(detained Plaintiffs and subjected them to specific interroga-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.24 Tw
(tion techniques. Those alleged facts, not merely Jeppesen's) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(role in such activities, are a matter of state secret.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -52.4 Td
15.4 Tw
(HAWKINS, Circuit Judge, with whom Judges) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
5.66 Tw
(SCHROEDER, CANBY, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(Judges, join, dissenting:) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
97.8 -26.8 Td
(A Flawed Procedure) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-85.8 -26.8 Td
3.14 Tw
(I agree with my colleagues in the majority that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(United) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(States v. Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. 1 \(1953\), is a rule of evidence,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.11 Tw
(requiring courts to undertake a careful review of evidence that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.77 Tw
(might support a claim or defense to determine whether either) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.43 Tw
(could be made without resort to legitimate state secrets. I part) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.42 Tw
(company concerning when and where that review should take) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(place.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.36 Tw
(The majority dismisses the case in its entirety before Jep-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.03 Tw
(pesen has even filed an answer to Plaintiffs' complaint. Out-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.55 Tw
(side of the narrow ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( context, the state secrets privilege) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.52 Tw
(has never applied to prevent parties from litigating the truth) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.5 Tw
(or falsity of allegations, or facts, or information simply) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.14 Tw
(because the government regards the truth or falsity of the alle-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(gations to be secret. Within the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( framework, dis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.44 Tw
(missal is justified if and only if specific privileged evidence) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.17 Tw
(is itself indispensable to establishing either the truth of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.75 Tw
(plaintiffs' allegations or a valid defense that would otherwise) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(be available to the defendant. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Kasza v. Browner) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(F.3d 1159, 1166 \(9th Cir. 1998\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -128.25 m 300 -128.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13558) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
138 0 obj
3518
endobj
136 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 137 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 42 42            
140 0 obj
<<
/Length 141 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.3 Tw
0 Tc
(This is important, because an approach that focuses on spe-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.2 Tw
(cific evidence after issues are joined has the benefit of confin-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.72 Tw
(ing the operation of the state secrets doctrine so that it will) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.62 Tw
(sweep no more broadly than clearly necessary. The state) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.57 Tw
(secrets doctrine is a judicial construct without foundation in) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3.03 Tw
(the Constitution, yet its application often trumps what we) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.5 Tw
(ordinarily consider to be due process of law. This case now) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.9 Tw
(presents a classic illustration. Plaintiffs have alleged facts,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1 Tw
(which must be taken as true for purposes of a motion to dis-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.5 Tw
(miss, that any reasonable person would agree to be gross vio-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(lations of the norms of international law, remediable under the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.78 Tw
(Alien Tort Statute. They have alleged in detail Jeppesen's) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.57 Tw
(complicity or recklessness in participating in these violations.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(The government intervened, and asserted that the suit would) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(endanger state secrets. The majority opinion here accepts that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(threshold objection by the government, so Plaintiffs' attempt) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.97 Tw
(to prove their case in court is simply cut off. They are not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(even allowed to attempt to prove their case by the use of non-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.97 Tw
(secret evidence in their own hands or in the hands of third) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(parties. ) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
3.53 Tw
(It is true that, judicial construct though it is, the state) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
3.75 Tw
(secrets doctrine has become embedded in our controlling) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.52 Tw
(decisional law. Government claims of state secrets therefore) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.96 Tw
(must be entertained by the judiciary. But the doctrine is so) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.52 Tw
(dangerous as a means of hiding governmental misbehavior) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.83 Tw
(under the guise of national security, and so violative of com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.1 Tw
(mon rights to due process, that courts should confine its appli-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.91 Tw
(cation to the narrowest circumstances that still protect the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.3 Tw
(government's essential secrets.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( When, as here, the doctrine is) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.45 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Abuse of the Nation's information classification system is not unheard) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(of. Former U.S. Solicitor General Erwin Griswold, who argued the gov-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.8 Tw
(ernment's case in the Pentagon Papers matter, later explained in a ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Wash-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(ington Post ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(editorial that ) Tj
(�[i]t quickly becomes apparent to any person) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.11 Tw
(who has considerable experience with classified material that there is mas-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.97 Tw
(sive overclassification, and that the principal concern of the classifiers is) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.31 Tw
(not with national security, but rather with governmental embarrassment of) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -409.75 m 300 -409.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13559) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
141 0 obj
3957
endobj
139 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 126 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 140 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 43 43            
143 0 obj
<<
/Length 144 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.03 Tw
0 Tc
(successfully invoked at the threshold of litigation, the claims) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(of secret are necessarily broad and hypothetical. The result is) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.6 Tw
(a maximum interference with the due processes of the courts,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.45 Tw
(on the most general claims of state secret privilege. It is far) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.73 Tw
(better to require the government to make its claims of state) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(secrets with regard to specific items of evidence or groups of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(such items as their use is sought in the lawsuit. An official) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.07 Tw
(certification that evidence is truly a state secret will be more) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.87 Tw
(focused if the head of a department must certify that specific) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.2 Tw
(evidence sought in the course of litigation is truly a secret and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.14 Tw
(cannot be revealed without danger to overriding, essential) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.95 Tw
(government interests. And when responsive pleading is com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.78 Tw
(plete and discovery under way, judgments as to whether) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.41 Tw
(secret material is essential to Plaintiffs' case or Jeppesen's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(defense can be made more accurately.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.3 Td
.6 Tw
(one sort or another.) Tj
(� Erwin N. Griswold, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Secrets Not Worth Keeping: the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(Courts and Classified Information) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, Wash. Post, Feb. 15, 1989, at A25. ) Tj
10 -16.3 Td
1.38 Tw
(Former Attorney General ) Tj
(Herbert Brownell similarly complained in a) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
2.01 Tw
(1953 letter to President Eisenhower that classification procedures were) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.09 Tw
(then ) Tj
(�so broadly drawn and loosely administered as to make it possible for) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.07 Tw
(government officials to cover up their own mistakes and even their wrong-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.86 Tw
(doing under the) Tj
( guise of protecting national security.) Tj
(� Letter from Attor-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.77 Tw
(ney General Herbert Brownell to President Dwight Eisenhower \(June) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.67 Tw
(15,1953\) \(quoted in Kenneth R. Mayer, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(With the Stroke of a Pen: Execu-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(tive Orders and Presidential Power) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 145 \(2001\)\). ) Tj
10 -16.3 Td
2.14 Tw
(Even in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, avoidance of embarrassment�not preservation of) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.27 Tw
(state secrets�appears to have motivated the Executive's invocation of the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.35 Tw
(privilege. There the Court credited the government's assertion that ) Tj
(�this) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(accident occurred to a military plane which had gone aloft to test secret) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(electronic equipment,) Tj
(� and that ) Tj
(�there was a reasonable danger that the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.14 Tw
(accident investigation report would contain references to the secret elec-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
0 Tw
(tronic equipment which was the primary concern of the mission.) Tj
(� 345 U.S.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.49 Tw
(at 10. In 1996, however, the ) Tj
(�secret) Tj
(� accident report involved in that case) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
0 Tw
(was declassified. A review of the report revealed, not ) Tj
(�details of any secret) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.29 Tw
(project the plane was involved in,) Tj
(� but ) Tj
(�[i]nstead, . . . a horror story of) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.77 Tw
(incompetence, bungling, and tragic error.) Tj
(� Garry Wills, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Why the Govern-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.35 Tw
(ment Can Legally Lie) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 56 N.Y. Rev. of Books 32, 33 \(2009\). Courts) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(should be concerned to prevent a concentration of unchecked power that) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
(would permit such abuses. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -207.75 m 300 -207.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13560) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
144 0 obj
4481
endobj
142 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 143 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 44 44            
147 0 obj
<<
/Length 148 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.16 Tw
0 Tc
(By refusing to examine the voluminous public record mate-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
(rials submitted by Plaintiffs in support of their claims,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(failing to undertake an analysis of Jeppesen's ability to defend) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.41 Tw
(against those claims, the district court forced every judge of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(the court of appeals to undertake that effort. This was no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.95 Tw
(small undertaking. Materials the government considers top) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.34 Tw
(secret had to be moved securely back and forth across the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.96 Tw
(country and made available in a ) Tj
(�cone of silence) Tj
(� environ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(ment to first the three-judge panel assigned the case and then) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.5 Tw
(the twenty-seven active judges of this court to evaluate) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(whether the case merited en banc consideration. This quite lit-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.66 Tw
(erally put the cart before the horse, depriving a reviewing) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.74 Tw
(court of a record upon which its traditional review function) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.88 Tw
(could be carried out.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( This is more than a matter of conve-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.24 Tw
(nience. Making factual determinations is the particular prov-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.08 Tw
(ince of trial courts and for sound reason: they are good at it.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.13 Tw
(Not directing the district court to do that work sends exactly) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.47 Tw
(the wrong message in the handling of these critical and sensi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.1 Tw
(tive cases. Finding remand ) Tj
(�unnecessary,) Tj
(� as the majority) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.27 Tw
(does here, [Maj. Op. at 13546, n.10]) Tj
(, not only rewards district) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.57 Tw
(courts for failing to do their job, but ensures that future) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(appeals courts will have to do that job for them.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(This is an appeal from a Rule 12 dismissal, which means) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.87 Tw
(that the district court was required to assume that the well-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.74 Tw
(pleaded allegations of the complaint are ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(true) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, and that we) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.53 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(A summary of the some 1,800 pages of that information appears as an) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(Appendix to this dissent. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.47 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In another context, the Supreme Court has pointed out the structural) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.53 Tw
(problems created when appellate courts are presented with undeveloped) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(records. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Johnson v. Jones) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 515 U.S. 304, 309, 316-17 \(1998\). ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.09 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(I have confidence in the ability of district judges to make such determi-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.42 Tw
(nations, and in the process of handling information which the government) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.2 Tw
(considers secret. Dismissing this suit out of fear of ) Tj
(�compelled or inadver-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.28 Tw
(tent disclosure) Tj
(� of secret information during the course of litigation, [Maj.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.37 Tw
(Op. at 13545]) Tj
(, assumes that the government might make mistakes in what) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.46 Tw
(it produces, or that district courts might compel the disclosure of docu-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(ments legitimately covered by the state secrets privilege. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -348.95 m 300 -348.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13561) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
148 0 obj
4408
endobj
146 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 147 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 45 45            
150 0 obj
<<
/Length 151 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.84 Tw
0 Tc
(�construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.17 Tw
(plaintiff[s].� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Doe v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 419 F.3d 1058, 1062 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.75 Tw
(Cir. 2005\). The majority minimizes the importance of these) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2 Tw
(requirements by gratuitously attaching ) Tj
(�allegedly) Tj
(� to nearly) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.85 Tw
(each sentence describing what Plaintiffs say happened to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.51 Tw
(them, and by quickly dismissing the voluminous publicly) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(available evidence supporting those allegations, including that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.88 Tw
(Jeppesen knew what was going on when it arranged flights) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.96 Tw
(described by one of its own officials as ) Tj
(�torture flights.) Tj
(�) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
2.37 Tw
(Instead, the majority assumes that even if Plaintiffs' prima) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.11 Tw
(facie case and Jeppesen's defense did not depend on privi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.3 Tw
(leged evidence, dismissal is required ) Tj
(�because there is no fea-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.71 Tw
(sible way to litigate Jeppesen's alleged liability without) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(creating an unjustifiable risk of divulging state secrets.) Tj
(� [Maj.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.39 Tw
(Op. at 13548]. ) Tj
(But Jeppesen has yet to answer or even to oth-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.04 Tw
(erwise plead, so we have no idea what those defenses or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.42 Tw
(assertions might be. Making assumptions about the contours) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(of future litigation involves mere speculation, and doing so) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.2 Tw
(flies straight in the face of long standing principles of Rule 12) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.13 Tw
(law by extending the inquiry to what ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(might) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( be divulged in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(future litigation.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.34 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(According to the sworn declaration of former Jeppesen employee Sean) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.01 Tw
(Belcher, the Director of Jeppesen International Trip Planning Services,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.75 Tw
(Bob Overby, told him, ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(`We do all the extraordinary rendition flights,') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.75 Tw
(�) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.07 Tw
(which he also referred to as ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(`the torture flights') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.07 Tw
(� or ) Tj
(�spook flights.) Tj
(� Bel-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.39 Tw
(cher stated that ) Tj
(�there were some employees who were not comfortable) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.7 Tw
(with that aspect of Jeppesen's business) Tj
(� because they knew ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.7 Tw
(`some of) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.19 Tw
(these flights end up') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.19 Tw
(� with the passengers being tortured. He noted that) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.84 Tw
(Overby had explained, ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.84 Tw
(`that's just the way it is, we're doing them') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.84 Tw
(�) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(because ) Tj
(�the rendition flights paid very well.) Tj
(� ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.81 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Federal Practice and) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.07 Tw
(Procedure) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.07 Tw
(1356 ) Tj
(\(3d ed. 2010\) \(Rule) Tj
( 12\(b\)\(6\) inquiries are ) Tj
(�essentially) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.78 Tw
(. . . limited to the content of the complaint) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Tellabs, Inc. v.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.27 Tw
(Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 551 U.S. 308, 322-23 \(2007\) \(listing permis-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.99 Tw
(sible evidence to consider in a 12\(b\)\(6\) motion, with no mention of pro-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
5.31 Tw
(spective evidence, and with emphasis on an examination of the) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.26 Tw
(�underlying facts) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclu-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2 Tw
(sive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement in the Cloverly Subterranean) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.89 Tw
(Geological Formation) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 524 F.3d 1090, 1096 \(9th Cir. 2008\) \(the court) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -284.55 m 300 -284.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13562) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
151 0 obj
5022
endobj
149 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 150 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 46 46            
153 0 obj
<<
/Length 154 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.27 Tw
0 Tc
(We should have remanded this matter to district court to do) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
2.33 Tw
(the Reynolds) Tj
( work that should have been done in the first) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(place. ) Tj
12 -25.7 Td
1.96 Tw
(Because of this fundamental defect in the posture of this) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
1.5 Tw
(matter, the remainder of the dissent focuses on the scope of) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.77 Tw
(the state secrets privilege rather than its application to specu-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(lative facts. ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
109.8 -25.7 Td
(The ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Bar) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-97.8 -25.7 Td
3.11 Tw
(While it chooses not to apply it, the majority correctly) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
1.57 Tw
(recites the general interpretation of the non-justiciability bar) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.86 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. 105 \(1876\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(However, its) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.91 Tw
(definition of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s scope�applying to ) Tj
(�any case in which) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.2 Tw
(`the very subject matter of the action' is `a matter of state) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.83 Tw
(secret') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.83 Tw
(�[Maj. Op. at 13531]) Tj
(�and the concurrence's full-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(blown embrace of its application here merit response.) Tj
( ) Tj
12 -25.8 Td
.47 Tw
(Courts have applied the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(bar in one of two scenarios:) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
-.27 Tw
(\(1\) The plaintiff is party to a secret agreement with the govern-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.9 Td
.4 Tw
(ment;) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
(or \(2\) The plaintiff sues to solicit information from the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.75 Tw
(government on a ) Tj
(�state secret) Tj
(� matter.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Weinberger v.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -25.5 Td
2.55 Tw
(may consider in a 12\(b\)\(6\) motion ) Tj
(�only allegations contained in the) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.33 Tw
(pleadings, exhibits attached to the complaint, and matters properly subject) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.55 Tw
(to judicial notice) Tj
(�\) \(citing ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Outdoor Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Beaumont) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(506 F.3d 895, 899-900 \(9th Cir. 2007\)\). ) Tj
10 -13.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.11 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Wilson v. Libby) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 535 F.3d 697, 710 \(D.C. Cir. 2008\) \(discuss-) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.52 Tw
(ing ) Tj
(�the justiciability doctrine of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(�\);) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Am. Civil Lib-) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.89 Tw
(erties Union v. Nat'l Sec. Agency) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 493 F.3d 644, 650 n.2 \(6th Cir. 2007\)) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(\(the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( rule is a ) Tj
(�rule of non-justiciability) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain Islamic) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.36 Tw
(Found., Inc. v. Bush) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d 1190, 1197 \(9th Cir. 2007\) \(the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( rule) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(is ) Tj
(�a rule of non-justiciability, akin to a political question) Tj
(�\). ) Tj
10 -13.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.99 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( itself involved the estate of a former Civil War spy seeking) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.63 Tw
(compensation. 92 U.S. 105. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See also Tenet v. Doe) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 544 U.S. 1, 10 \(2005\)) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
.22 Tw
(\(suit against CIA director for failure to provide financial compensation for) Tj
0 -11.1 Td
1 Tw
(Cold War services\). ) Tj
10 -13.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.89 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(This category of ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(-bar cases is distinct from those involving a) Tj
-10 -11.1 Td
.11 Tw
(plaintiff's attempt to solicit information from the government via the Free-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -303.45 m 300 -303.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13563) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
154 0 obj
4938
endobj
152 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 153 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 47 47            
156 0 obj
<<
/Length 157 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
3.37 Tw
0 Tc
(Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Educ. Project) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.7 Tw
(139, 146 \(1981\) \() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(bar applies to suit against the United) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.92 Tw
(States Navy for failure to file an environmental impact state-) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
4.52 Tw
(ment regarding a ) Tj
(�nuclear capable) Tj
(� facility where Navy) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.92 Tw
(would have to admit or deny proposed storage of nuclear) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.81 Tw
(weapons at the facility\). More generally, the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar has) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.3 Tw
(been applied to suits against the government, and never to a) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.6 Tw
(plaintiff's suit against a third-party/non-governmental entity.) Tj
12 -26.9 Td
.14 Tw
(Here, the ) Tj
(�very subject matter) Tj
(� of this lawsuit is Jeppesen's) Tj
-12 -13.6 Td
1.42 Tw
(involvement in an overseas detention program. Plaintiffs are) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.3 Tw
(neither parties to a secret agreement with the government, nor) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
2.53 Tw
(are they attempting, as the result of this lawsuit, to solicit) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
1.53 Tw
(information from the government on a ) Tj
(�state secret) Tj
(� matter.) Tj
0 -13.6 Td
.67 Tw
(Rather, they are attempting to remedy ) Tj
(�widespread violations) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(of individual constitutional rights) Tj
(� occurring in a program) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(whose existence has been made public. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Hepting v. AT&T) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(439 F. Supp. 2d 974, 993 \(N.D. Cal. 2006\).) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.9 Td
.57 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
('s logic simply cannot be stretched to encompass the) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
3.96 Tw
(claims here, as they are brought by third-party plaintiffs) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.78 Tw
(against non-government defendant actors for their involve-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.6 Td
.47 Tw
(dom of Information Act \(FOIA\). ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Weinberger) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, which has a FOIA element,) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.02 Tw
(was decided on FOIA grounds and ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(grounds, and relevant here is the) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.5 Td
7.74 Tw
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(-related decision. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Weinberger ) Tj
(v. Catholic Action of) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.89 Tw
(Hawaii/Peace Educ. Project) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 454 U.S. 139, 146 \(1981\). The FOIA cases) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.1 Tw
(are easily distinguishable. The FOIA cases entail litigation for the sole and) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.38 Tw
(independent purpose of obtaining disclosure of classified information. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.5 Td
.3 Tw
(5 U.S.C. �) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.3 Tw
(552\(a\)\(4\)\(B\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also, e.g.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. v. Colby) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 509) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.47 Tw
(F.2d 1362, 1370 \(4th Cir. 1975\) \(addressing the court's authority under) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.22 Tw
(FOIA to order the disclosure of classified information for publication in) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.64 Tw
(a book\). While ) Tj
(�an informed citizenry [is] vital to the functioning of a) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.64 Tw
(democratic society,) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.7 Tw
(Ass'n) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 532 U.S. 1, 16 \(2001\) \(internal quotations omitted\), the balance of) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.87 Tw
(interests will more often tilt in favor of the Executive when disclosure is) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
.25 Tw
(the primary end in and of itself. FOIA therefore predictably entails greater) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(deference to the national classification system than does the state secrets) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
(doctrine. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -304.95 m 300 -304.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13564) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
157 0 obj
4549
endobj
155 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 156 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 48 48            
159 0 obj
<<
/Length 160 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.37 Tw
0 Tc
(ment in tortious activities.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Nothing Plaintiffs have done sup-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.36 Tw
(ports a conclusion that their ) Tj
(�lips [are] to be for ever sealed) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.96 Tw
(respecting) Tj
(� the claim on which they sue, such that filing this) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.53 Tw
(lawsuit would in itself defeat recovery. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 92 U.S. at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(106.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1.1 Tw
(Instead of ) Tj
(�avoid[ing] difficult questions about the precise) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
2.17 Tw
(scope of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar) Tj
(� [Maj. Op. at 13543]) Tj
(, the majority) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.88 Tw
(ought to have found the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( bar inapplicable, and rejected) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.62 Tw
(the district court's analysis.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cannot and does not) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(apply to Plaintiffs' claims.) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
59.7 -26.5 Td
(The ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Evidentiary Privilege) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-47.7 -26.4 Td
.85 Tw
(The majority correctly describes ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(as a rule of evi-) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
4.53 Tw
(dence, which only the government may assert. [Maj. at) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.9 Tw
(13534-35].) Tj
( However, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( cannot, as the majority con-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.77 Tw
(tends, be asserted during the pleading stage to excise entire) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(allegations. ) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
2.42 Tw
(The majority argues that because pleadings can serve as) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
.77 Tw
(evidence, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Huey v. Honeywell, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 82 F.3d 327, 333 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.13 Tw
(Cir. 1996\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Lockwood v. Wolf Corp) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(., 629 F.2d 603, 611 \(9th) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.67 Tw
(Cir. 1980\), the state secrets privilege ) Tj
(�may be asserted at any) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.52 Tw
(time, even at the pleading stage.) Tj
(� [Maj. Op. at 13535-36].) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Terkel v. AT&T Corp.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 441 F. Supp. 2d 899, 907 \(N.D. III. 2006\)) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
(\(refusing to apply ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(because ) Tj
(�the plaintiffs in this case were not par-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(ties to the alleged contract nor did they agree to its terms; rather, they) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.29 Tw
(claim that the performance of an alleged contract entered into by others) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(would violate their statutory rights) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Nat'l) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(Sec. Agency) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 438 F. Supp. 2d 754, 763 \(E.D. Mich. 2006\) \(refusing to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.06 Tw
(apply ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( because it ) Tj
(�applies [only] to actions where there is a secret) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
4.28 Tw
(espionage relationship between the Plaintiff and the Government) Tj
(�\),) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(vacated on other grounds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 493 F.3d 644 \(6th Cir. 2007\). ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.23 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Nor can the choice to affirm the district court under ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( be justi-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.13 Tw
(fied as an affirmance on ) Tj
(�any basis supported by the record.) Tj
(� [Maj. Op.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.74 Tw
(at 13543].) Tj
( The result the majority seeks here, a dismissal of Plaintiffs') Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(case in its entirety, is not supported by the case law. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -339.25 m 300 -339.25 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13565) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
160 0 obj
4631
endobj
158 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 145 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 159 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 49 49            
162 0 obj
<<
/Length 163 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.33 Tw
0 Tc
(Thus, the majority argues, this court would be incorrect to) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.66 Tw
(conclude that neither the Federal Rules nor ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( would) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(permit us to dismiss this case at the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(pleadings stage) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( on the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.84 Tw
(basis of an evidentiary privilege that must be invoked ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(during) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.92 Tw
(discovery ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(or ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(at trial) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. In the majority's view, the privilege) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.53 Tw
(applies at the pleadings stage in such a manner that permits) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(it to remove from a complaint any allegations where ) Tj
(�secret) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.8 Tw
(and nonsecret information cannot be separated.) Tj
(� [Maj. Op. at) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(13538].) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
.63 Tw
(Whatever validity there may be to the idea that evidentiary) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(privileges can apply at the pleadings stage, it is wrong to sug-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.63 Tw
(gest that such an application would permit the removal of) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
3 Tw
(entire allegations) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( resulting in out-and-out dismissal of the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.36 Tw
(entire suit. Instead, the state secrets privilege operates at the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.32 Tw
(pleadings stage to except from the implications of Rule) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.96 Tw
(8\(b\)\(6\) the refusal to answer certain allegations, not, as the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.42 Tw
(government contends, to permit the government or Jeppesen) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.36 Tw
(to avoid filing a responsive pleading at all. [Maj. Op. at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.41 Tw
(13544-45].) Tj
( In the Fifth Amendment context, the Fourth Cir-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.42 Tw
(cuit has explained that the privilege against self-incrimination) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(�protects an individual . . . from answering specific allega-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.73 Tw
(tions in a complaint or filing responses to interrogatories in a) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(civil action where the answers) Tj
(� would violate his rights under) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.36 Tw
(the privilege. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(N. River Ins. Co., Inc. v. Stefanou) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 831 F.2d) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.9 Tw
(484, 486-87 \(4th Cir. 1987\). Accordingly, ) Tj
(�when properly) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
8.5 Tw
(invoked, the fifth amendment privilege against self-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(incrimination . . . can avoid the operation of Rule [8\(b\)\(6\)].) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. at 487. ) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
1.07 Tw
(But a proper invocation of the privilege does not excuse a) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
.75 Tw
(defendant from the requirement to file a responsive pleading;) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.88 Tw
(the obligation is to answer those allegations that can be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.18 Tw
(answered and to make a specific claim of the privilege as to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.55 Tw
(the rest, so the suit can move forward. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. \(citing 5 C. Wright) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1 Tw
(& A. Miller,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Federal Practice and Procedure ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(1280, at 360) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(1969\)\).) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13566) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
163 0 obj
3886
endobj
161 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 162 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 50 50            
166 0 obj
<<
/Length 167 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.12 Tw
0 Tc
(According to this rationale, Plaintiffs are correct that the) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(government moving forward may assert the state secrets privi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.61 Tw
(lege to prevent Jeppesen from answering any allegations,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3 Tw
(where the answer would constitute evidence properly pro-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.83 Tw
(tected by the privilege. But, recognizing that the privilege) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.22 Tw
(may apply at the pleadings stage to prevent defendants from) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.78 Tw
(answering certain allegations vis-a-vis operation of Rule) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2 Tw
(8\(b\)\(6\) does not mean the privilege can be used to remove) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.81 Tw
(altogether certain subject matters from a lawsuit. Observing) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(that pleadings may constitute evidence, in other words, does) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1 Tw
(not transform an evidentiary privilege into an immunity doc-) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
.53 Tw
(trine.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The state secrets privilege, as an evidentiary privilege,) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.83 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(It is not at all clear that the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynold) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(s privilege can be asserted at the) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.85 Tw
(pleading stage, as the majority claims. [) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Maj. Op. at 13535]) Tj
(. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Ellsberg) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.08 Tw
(v. Mitchell) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 709 F.2d 51, 52 \(D.C. Cir. 1983\), on which the majority relies,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.73 Tw
(involved the formal claim of state secrets privilege entered by the United) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.25 Tw
(States ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( and,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.18 Tw
(while the opinion references the government's amended answer to the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.31 Tw
(complaint in a footnote, it focuses centrally on the refusal of the defen-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.03 Tw
(dants ) Tj
(�to respond to any of the plaintiffs' remaining allegations or ques-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.33 Tw
(tions� as presented in the plaintiffs' submitted interrogatories. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( at 53-54) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.9 Tw
(& n.6. In ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Black v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62 F.3d 1115, 1117 \(8th Cir. 1995\), on) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.75 Tw
(which the majority also relies, the Eighth Circuit dismissed a suit against) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.89 Tw
(the CIA by an electrical engineer with government security clearances at) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.38 Tw
(the pleading stage because the main information) Tj
( Black sought in his com-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.81 Tw
(plaint, which would ) Tj
(�confirm or deny Black's alleged contacts with gov-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.17 Tw
(ernment officers,) Tj
(� was the basis of Black's claim. Without it, his suit) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.95 Tw
(could not go forward. Here, where Plaintiffs arguably have ample public) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.02 Tw
(information to proceed with their suit, we do not have such a cut-and-dried) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(case of privilege. ) Tj
/F1 10 Tf 100 Tz
([) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Dissent App'x].) Tj
( ) Tj
10 -16.3 Td
.98 Tw
(Moreover, pleadings are not considered evidence. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See United States v.) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(Zermeno) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 66 F.3d 1058, 1062 \(9th Cir. 1995\) \() Tj
(�The government's asser-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.3 Tw
(tions in its pleadings are not evidence.) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(S. Pac. Co. v. Conway) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 115 F.2d) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.09 Tw
(746, 750 \(9th Cir. 1940\) \() Tj
(�[T]he office of a pleading is to state ultimate) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(facts and not evidence of such facts.) Tj
(�\). If the government is seeking to) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.78 Tw
(excise entire allegations with the invocation of the privilege at the plead-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.35 Tw
(ing stage, such an invocation would require an assertion that the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(very sub-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.92 Tw
(ject matter ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(of the lawsuit is a state secret, and not the assertion) Tj
( of an) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.39 Tw
(evidentiary privilege. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Moliero v. FBI) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 749 F.2d 815, 821 \(D.C. Cir.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.07 Tw
(1984\) \(where ) Tj
(�the whole object of the suit and of the discovery is to estab-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -167.55 m 300 -167.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13567) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
167 0 obj
5237
endobj
165 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 166 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 51 51            
169 0 obj
<<
/Length 170 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.54 Tw
0 Tc
(is relevant not to the sufficiency of the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(complaint) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, but only to) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.08 Tw
(the sufficiency of evidence available to later ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(substantiate ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(the) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(complaint. ) Tj
12 -27.2 Td
1.24 Tw
(Because the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege, like any other evidentiary) Tj
-12 -13.7 Td
2.5 Tw
(privilege, ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(`extends only to [evidence] and not to facts,') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.5 Tw
(�) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.7 Td
2.33 Tw
(Upjohn ) Tj
(Co. v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 449 U.S. 383, 395-96 \(1981\)) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
2.65 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Philadelphia v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 205 F.) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.63 Tw
(Supp. 830, 831 \(E.D. Pa. 1962\)\), it cannot be invoked to pre-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.5 Tw
(vent a litigant from persuading a jury of the truth or falsity of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
.48 Tw
(an allegation by reference to non-privileged evidence, regard-) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.75 Tw
(less whether privileged evidence might also be probative of) Tj
0 -13.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(the truth or falsity of the allegation.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.9 Td
.17 Tw
(lish a fact that is a state secret,) Tj
(� compliance with discovery as a whole can) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.42 Tw
(be ) Tj
(�excused in gross, without the necessity of examining individual docu-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.28 Tw
(ments�\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(cf. Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 507 F.3d at 1197 \(applying ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( directly) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
4.95 Tw
(to evidence�a sealed document�where privilege was asserted in) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.4 Tw
(response to government's accidental disclosure of documents to the plain-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.04 Tw
(tiffs, and declining to find ) Tj
(�the very subject matter) Tj
(� of the suit to be a state) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.35 Tw
(secret\). Here, while the majority declines to reach the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( bar question,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.38 Tw
(the ) Tj
(�very subject matter) Tj
(� of this lawsuit�Jeppesen's involvement in an) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.97 Tw
(overseas detention program�has been publicly acknowledged and is not) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1 Tw
(a state secret. ) Tj
10 -14.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.61 Tw
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Contrary to the majority's assertion, the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege cannot be) Tj
-10 -11.6 Td
.03 Tw
(asserted prospectively, without an examination of the evidence on an item-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.08 Tw
(by-item basis. To conclude that ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, like ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Totten) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, applies to prevent) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
2.43 Tw
(the litigation of allegations, rather than simply discovery of evidence,) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.11 Tw
(would be to erode the distinction between the two versions of the doctrine.) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.6 Tw
(Moreover, the Eighth Circuit case on which the majority relies, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Black) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 62) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.13 Tw
(F.3d at 1117, was ultimately not a prospective assertion of the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.6 Td
.97 Tw
(privilege. While the government asserted the privilege in response to the) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.52 Tw
(plaintiff's amended complaint, ultimately, the privilege was asserted as to) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
1.25 Tw
(one piece of information, without which the plaintiff could not proceed;) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
2 Tw
(he could not bring an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.22 Tw
(against the CIA without information about any existing contacts with gov-) Tj
0 -11.6 Td
.97 Tw
(ernment officers. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. The information on his contacts, which the plaintiff) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1.61 Tw
(attempted to solicit via his complaint, was privileged. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. To say ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Black) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.5 Td
.83 Tw
(permits the assertion of the ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( privilege in the pleading stage is to) Tj
0 -11.5 Td
1 Tw
(misstate its holding. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -184.75 m 300 -184.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13568) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
170 0 obj
5143
endobj
168 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 169 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 52 52            
172 0 obj
<<
/Length 173 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
79.032 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
(and Rule 12\(b\)\(6\)) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-67.032 -26.6 Td
2.33 Tw
(The majority claims) Tj
( there is ) Tj
(�no feasible way to litigate) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.65 Tw
(Jeppesen's alleged liability ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(without creating an unjustifiable) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(risk of divulging state secrets) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
(�) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( [Maj. Op. at 13548]) Tj
(, ignor-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.57 Tw
(ing well-established principles of civil procedure which, at) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.43 Tw
(this stage of the litigation, do not permit the prospective eval-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.33 Tw
(uation of hypothetical claims of privilege that the government) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(has yet to raise and the district court has yet to consider.) Tj
12 -26.6 Td
.5 Tw
(Our task in reviewing the grant of a Rule 12 motion to dis-) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.77 Tw
(miss ) Tj
(�is necessarily a limited one.) Tj
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Scheuer v. Rhodes) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(U.S. 232, 236 \(1974\). We are not to determine whether a par-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.95 Tw
(ticular party will ultimately prevail, but instead only whether) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
0 Tw
(the complaint ) Tj
(�state[s] a claim upon which relief can be grant-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ed,� Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12\(b\)\(6\). If Plaintiffs here have stated) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(a claim on which relief can be granted, they should have an) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.12 Tw
(opportunity to present evidence in support of their allegations,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.22 Tw
(without regard for the likelihood of ultimate success. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Sch-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.77 Tw
(euer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 416 U.S. at 236 \(a district court acts ) Tj
(�prematurely) Tj
(� and) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(�erroneously) Tj
(� when it dismisses a well-pleaded complaint,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.61 Tw
(thereby ) Tj
(�preclud[ing] any opportunity for the plaintiffs) Tj
(� to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(establish their case ) Tj
(�by subsequent proof) Tj
(�\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also Bell Atl.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.22 Tw
(Corp. v. Twombly) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 550 U.S. 544, 556 \(2007\) \() Tj
(�[A] well-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.15 Tw
(pleaded complaint may proceed even if it appears `that a) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.5 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The majority cites ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri v. United States) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d 296, 308-13) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
.5 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 2007\), as a comparable case wherein the court found further liti-) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
2.45 Tw
(gation risked disclosure of state secrets and threatened grave harm to) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.33 Tw
(American national security. [Maj. Op. at 13548, citing ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 479 F.3d) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
.58 Tw
(at 312]) Tj
(. However, noting that the Fourth Circuit appears to have ) Tj
(�merged) Tj
0 -11.4 Td
1.09 Tw
(the concept of `subject matter' with the notion of proof of a prima facie) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.76 Tw
(case,) Tj
(� this court in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Al-Haramain) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( expressly rejected ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
('s logic. 507) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.13 Tw
(F.3d at 1201. In the Ninth Circuit, ) Tj
(�the `subject matter' of a lawsuit [is not) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.3 Tw
(necessarily] one and the same [as] the facts necessary to litigate the case.) Tj
(�) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
.65 Tw
(Id) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. Accordingly, ) Tj
(�[b]ecause the Fourth Circuit has accorded an expansive) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.06 Tw
(meaning to the `subject matter' of an action, one that we have not adopted,) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -11.3 Td
1.69 Tw
(El-Masri) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( does not support dismissal based on the subject matter of the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(suit.� ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -341.55 m 300 -341.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13569) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
173 0 obj
4690
endobj
171 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 172 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 53 53            
175 0 obj
<<
/Length 176 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.85 Tw
0 Tc
(recovery is very remote and unlikely.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.85 Tw
(� \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Scheuer) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(416 U.S. at 236\)\).) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1.18 Tw
(This limited inquiry�a long-standing feature of the Rules) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.38 Tw
(of Civil Procedure�serves a sensible judicial purpose. We) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.24 Tw
(simply cannot resolve whether the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( evidentiary privi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
0 Tw
(lege applies without \(1\) an actual request for discovery of spe-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.3 Tw
(cific evidence, \(2\) an explanation from Plaintiffs of their need) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.9 Tw
(for the evidence, and \(3\) a formal invocation of the privilege) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.62 Tw
(by the government with respect to that evidence, explaining) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.4 Tw
(why it must remain confidential. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 345 U.S. at 8-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.44 Tw
(9 \() Tj
(�the principles which control the application of the privi-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.26 Tw
(lege� require a ) Tj
(�formal claim of privilege) Tj
(� by the government) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.66 Tw
(with respect to the challenged evidence\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(id. ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(at 10-11 \(the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.33 Tw
(court must consider the litigants' ) Tj
(�showing of necessity) Tj
(� for) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(the requested evidence in determining whether ) Tj
(�the occasion) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(for invoking the privilege is appropriate) Tj
(�\). Nor can we deter-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(mine whether the parties will be able to establish their cases) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.07 Tw
(without use of privileged evidence without also knowing what) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.28 Tw
(non-privileged evidence they will marshal. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Crater Corp.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.95 Tw
(v. Lucent Techs., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 423 F.3d 1260, 1267-68 \(Fed. Cir.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.83 Tw
(2005\) \() Tj
(�deciding the impact of the government's assertion of) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.17 Tw
(the state secrets privilege) Tj
(� before the record is ) Tj
(�adequately) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.52 Tw
(developed� puts ) Tj
(�the cart before the horse) Tj
(�\). Thus neither the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.66 Tw
(Federal Rules nor ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( would permit us to dismiss this) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.33 Tw
(case for ) Tj
(�failure to state a claim upon which relief can be) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.54 Tw
(granted,� Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12\(b\)\(6\), on the basis of an evi-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.81 Tw
(dentiary privilege relevant, not to the sufficiency of the com-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.58 Tw
(plaint, but only to the sufficiency of evidence available to) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(later substantiate the complaint.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.23 Tw
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(While the government styled its motion below as a ) Tj
(�Motion to Dis-) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
.55 Tw
(miss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment,) Tj
(� the district court did) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.69 Tw
(not grant summary judgment, but rather dismissal�and it could not have) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.17 Tw
(done otherwise. A party is entitled to summary judgment only if ) Tj
(�the) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affida-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.01 Tw
(vits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.) Tj
(� Fed. R.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.93 Tw
(Civ. Pro. 56\(c\). Here, because Jeppesen has not even answered the com-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -409.75 m 300 -409.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13570) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
176 0 obj
4354
endobj
174 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 29 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 175 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 54 54            
178 0 obj
<<
/Length 179 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.92 Tw
0 Tc
(A decision to remand would have the additional benefit of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(conforming with ) Tj
(�the general rule . . . that a federal appellate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.77 Tw
(court does not consider an issue not passed on below,) Tj
(� and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.86 Tw
(will allow the district court to apply ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds ) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in the first) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(instance. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See Singleton v. Wulff) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 428 U.S. 106, 120 \(1976\);) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(see also Johnson v. California) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 543 U.S. 499, 515 \(2005\) \(cit-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.51 Tw
(ing) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Consol. Rail Corp. v. Gottshall) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 512 U.S. 532, 557-58) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(\(1994\) \(reversing and remanding for the lower court to apply) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the correct legal standard in the first instance\)\).) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
4.85 Tw
(The majority's analysis here is premature. This court) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.26 Tw
(should not determine that there is no feasible way to litigate) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(Jeppesen's liability without disclosing state secrets; such a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(determination is the district court's to make once a responsive) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.67 Tw
(pleading has been filed, or discovery requests made. We) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(should remand for the government to assert the privilege with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.17 Tw
(respect to secret evidence, and for the district court to deter-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(mine what evidence is privileged and whether any such evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(dence is indispensable either to Plaintiffs' prima facie case or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.3 Tw
(to a valid defense otherwise available to Jeppesen. Only if) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.41 Tw
(privileged evidence is indispensable to either party should it) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(dismiss the complaint. ) Tj
/F6 12 Tf 100 Tz
121.656 -26.1 Td
(Conclusion) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-109.656 -26.1 Td
.61 Tw
(The majority concludes its opinion with a recommendation) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.46 Tw
(of alternative remedies. Not only are these remedies insuffi-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -25.9 Td
1.53 Tw
(plaint, it is uncertain which allegations are in dispute, much less which) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(disputes might raise genuine issues of material fact. ) Tj
10 -16.2 Td
.22 Tw
(The procedural posture of this case thus differs fundamentally from that) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
2.27 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Kasza) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, which involved a grant of summary judgment. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See Frost v.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.64 Tw
(Perry) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 191 F. Supp. 1459, 1465-67 \(D. Nev. 1996\), ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(aff'd sub nom Kasza) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2 Tw
(133 F.3d 1159 \(granting summary judgment because ) Tj
(�the privilege, as) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.91 Tw
(invoked, covered various items of discovery requested by Plaintiffs,) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.5 Tw
(including ) Tj
(�various photographic exhibits) Tj
(� and ) Tj
(�under seal . . . affidavits,) Tj
(�) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.6 Tw
(and therefore ) Tj
(�Plaintiffs have failed to establish a genuine issue as to any) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.73 Tw
(material fact without running afoul of the military and state secrets privi-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(lege�\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -360.75 m 300 -360.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
428.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13571) Tj
-195.1803 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
179 0 obj
4054
endobj
177 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 164 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F6 49 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 178 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 55 55            
181 0 obj
<<
/Length 182 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.58 Tw
0 Tc
(cient, but their suggestion understates the severity of the con-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.03 Tw
(sequences to Plaintiffs from the denial of judicial relief.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.9 Tw
(Suggesting, for example, that the Executive could ) Tj
(�honor[) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.9 Tw
(]) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
7.21 Tw
(the fundamental principles of justice) Tj
(� by determining) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.62 Tw
(�whether plaintiffs' claims have merit,) Tj
(� [) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Maj. Op. at) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.05 Tw
(13554]) Tj
( disregards the concept of checks and balances. Permit-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(ting the executive to police its own errors and determine the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.92 Tw
(remedy dispensed would not only deprive the judiciary of its) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(role, but also deprive Plaintiffs of a fair assessment of their) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.66 Tw
(claims by a neutral arbiter. The majority's suggestion of pay-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(ment of reparations to the victims of extraordinary rendition,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.67 Tw
(such as those paid to Japanese Latin Americans for the injus-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.46 Tw
(tices suffered under Internment during World War II, over) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.11 Tw
(fifty years after those injustices were suffered [Maj. Op. at) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.16 Tw
(13554]) Tj
(, elevates the impractical to the point of absurdity.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.47 Tw
(Similarly, a congressional investigation, private bill, or enact-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(ing of ) Tj
(�remedial legislation,) Tj
(� [Maj. Op. at 13556], ) Tj
(leaves to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.55 Tw
(the legislative branch claims which the federal courts are bet-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(ter equipped to handle.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
( See Kosak v. United States) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 465 U.S.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(848, 867 \(1984\) \(Stevens, J., dissenting\). ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.21 Tw
(Arbitrary imprisonment and torture under any circumstance) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.02 Tw
(is a ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.02 Tw
(`gross and notorious . . . act of despotism.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.02 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Hamdi v.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.28 Tw
(Rumsfeld) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 542 U.S. 507, 556 \(2004\) \(Scalia, J., dissenting\)) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.33 Tw
(\(quoting 1 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Blackstone) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 131-33 \(1765\)\). But ) Tj
(�) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.33 Tw
(`confinement) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.66 Tw
([and abuse] of the person, by secretly hurrying him to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.18 Tw
([prison], where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten; is a) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.11 Tw
(less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(engine of arbitrary government.') Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.47 Tw
(� ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Id) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. \(Scalia, J., dissenting\)) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(\(quoting 1 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Blackstone) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 131-33 \(1765\)\) \(emphasis added\). ) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(I would remand to the district court to determine whether) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
4.08 Tw
(Plaintiffs can establish the prima facie elements of their) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(claims or whether Jeppesen could defend against those claims) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(without resort to state secrets evidence.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13572) Tj
77.3197 0 Td
(M) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OHAMED) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. J) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(EPPESEN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( D) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATAPLAN) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
182 0 obj
3856
endobj
180 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 183 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 181 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
184 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
185 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 184 0 R
/FontDescriptor 185 0 R
>>
endobj
186 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
187 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 186 0 R
/FontDescriptor 187 0 R
>>
endobj
188 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
189 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 188 0 R
/FontDescriptor 189 0 R
>>
endobj
190 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
191 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 190 0 R
/FontDescriptor 191 0 R
>>
endobj
192 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
193 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
29 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 192 0 R
/FontDescriptor 193 0 R
>>
endobj
194 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
 31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
 254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
 131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
 228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
 209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
 214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
 221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
 25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
 252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
 144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
 141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
 ]
>>
endobj
195 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-BoldItalic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -200 -218 996 921 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 121.00
/StemH 60.50
/ItalicAngle -15.00
/CapHeight 669
/XHeight 462
/Ascent 699
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F6
/BaseFont /Times-BoldItalic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 606 606 300 300
250 389 555 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
832 667 667 667 722 667 667 722 778 389 500 667 611 889 722 722
611 722 667 556 611 722 667 889 667 611 611 333 278 333 570 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 333 500 556 278 278 500 278 778 556 500
500 500 389 389 278 556 444 667 500 444 389 348 220 348 570 400
667 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 667 667
667 611 500 500 500 500 556 556 444 722 722 667 667 667 667 667
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 500 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 576 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 611 444 556 611 389 747 747 1000
389 944 389 266 389 389 722 722 611 722 944 300 722 722 722 722
722 722 611 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 194 0 R
/FontDescriptor 195 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 17 0 R 20 0 R 23 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [26 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 51 0 R 54 0 R 57 0 R 60 0 R 63 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Kids [66 0 R 70 0 R 73 0 R 76 0 R 79 0 R 82 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Kids [85 0 R 89 0 R 92 0 R 95 0 R 98 0 R 101 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
107 0 obj
<<
/Kids [104 0 R 108 0 R 111 0 R 114 0 R 117 0 R 120 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 196 0 R
>>
endobj
126 0 obj
<<
/Kids [123 0 R 127 0 R 130 0 R 133 0 R 136 0 R 139 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 197 0 R
>>
endobj
145 0 obj
<<
/Kids [142 0 R 146 0 R 149 0 R 152 0 R 155 0 R 158 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 197 0 R
>>
endobj
164 0 obj
<<
/Kids [161 0 R 165 0 R 168 0 R 171 0 R 174 0 R 177 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 197 0 R
>>
endobj
183 0 obj
<<
/Kids [180 0 R]
/Count 1
/Type /Pages
/Parent 197 0 R
>>
endobj
196 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 50 0 R 69 0 R 88 0 R 107 0 R]
/Count 36
/Type /Pages
/Parent 198 0 R
>>
endobj
197 0 obj
<<
/Kids [126 0 R 145 0 R 164 0 R 183 0 R]
/Count 19
/Type /Pages
/Parent 198 0 R
>>
endobj
198 0 obj
<<
/Kids [196 0 R 197 0 R]
/Count 55
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 198 0 R
>>
endobj
199 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Friday September 3, 2010 10:52:01)          
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)   
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 200
0000000000 65535 f
0000246707 00000 n
0000263093 00000 n
0000004173 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000004150 00000 n
0000248174 00000 n
0000250830 00000 n
0000252388 00000 n
0000255039 00000 n
0000261585 00000 n
0000005537 00000 n
0000004387 00000 n
0000005513 00000 n
0000008703 00000 n
0000005731 00000 n
0000008679 00000 n
0000011731 00000 n
0000008897 00000 n
0000011707 00000 n
0000015785 00000 n
0000011936 00000 n
0000015761 00000 n
0000019612 00000 n
0000015990 00000 n
0000019588 00000 n
0000023734 00000 n
0000019806 00000 n
0000023710 00000 n
0000257694 00000 n
0000261702 00000 n
0000027523 00000 n
0000023951 00000 n
0000027499 00000 n
0000031721 00000 n
0000027740 00000 n
0000031697 00000 n
0000035883 00000 n
0000031940 00000 n
0000035859 00000 n
0000039777 00000 n
0000036090 00000 n
0000039753 00000 n
0000044983 00000 n
0000039984 00000 n
0000044959 00000 n
0000049440 00000 n
0000045202 00000 n
0000049416 00000 n
0000260360 00000 n
0000261820 00000 n
0000054859 00000 n
0000049659 00000 n
0000054835 00000 n
0000060230 00000 n
0000055078 00000 n
0000060206 00000 n
0000064585 00000 n
0000060461 00000 n
0000064561 00000 n
0000068590 00000 n
0000064792 00000 n
0000068566 00000 n
0000072973 00000 n
0000068797 00000 n
0000072949 00000 n
0000077424 00000 n
0000073180 00000 n
0000077400 00000 n
0000261938 00000 n
0000081912 00000 n
0000077631 00000 n
0000081888 00000 n
0000086364 00000 n
0000082119 00000 n
0000086340 00000 n
0000091285 00000 n
0000086571 00000 n
0000091261 00000 n
0000095651 00000 n
0000091492 00000 n
0000095627 00000 n
0000100276 00000 n
0000095858 00000 n
0000100252 00000 n
0000105585 00000 n
0000100507 00000 n
0000105561 00000 n
0000262056 00000 n
0000110930 00000 n
0000105804 00000 n
0000110906 00000 n
0000115529 00000 n
0000111149 00000 n
0000115505 00000 n
0000120084 00000 n
0000115760 00000 n
0000120060 00000 n
0000124734 00000 n
0000120291 00000 n
0000124709 00000 n
0000129633 00000 n
0000124953 00000 n
0000129608 00000 n
0000135804 00000 n
0000129854 00000 n
0000135779 00000 n
0000262175 00000 n
0000140311 00000 n
0000136026 00000 n
0000140286 00000 n
0000144410 00000 n
0000140521 00000 n
0000144385 00000 n
0000148771 00000 n
0000144620 00000 n
0000148746 00000 n
0000153227 00000 n
0000148981 00000 n
0000153202 00000 n
0000157405 00000 n
0000153437 00000 n
0000157380 00000 n
0000162187 00000 n
0000157615 00000 n
0000162162 00000 n
0000262300 00000 n
0000166895 00000 n
0000162409 00000 n
0000166870 00000 n
0000171049 00000 n
0000167117 00000 n
0000171024 00000 n
0000175114 00000 n
0000171259 00000 n
0000175089 00000 n
0000178942 00000 n
0000175336 00000 n
0000178917 00000 n
0000183209 00000 n
0000179164 00000 n
0000183184 00000 n
0000188000 00000 n
0000183431 00000 n
0000187975 00000 n
0000262425 00000 n
0000192706 00000 n
0000188210 00000 n
0000192681 00000 n
0000198038 00000 n
0000192928 00000 n
0000198013 00000 n
0000203286 00000 n
0000198260 00000 n
0000203261 00000 n
0000208157 00000 n
0000203520 00000 n
0000208132 00000 n
0000213098 00000 n
0000208379 00000 n
0000213073 00000 n
0000217306 00000 n
0000213332 00000 n
0000217281 00000 n
0000262550 00000 n
0000222853 00000 n
0000217528 00000 n
0000222828 00000 n
0000228306 00000 n
0000223075 00000 n
0000228281 00000 n
0000233318 00000 n
0000228540 00000 n
0000233293 00000 n
0000237994 00000 n
0000233552 00000 n
0000237969 00000 n
0000242358 00000 n
0000238216 00000 n
0000242333 00000 n
0000246524 00000 n
0000242580 00000 n
0000246499 00000 n
0000262675 00000 n
0000246740 00000 n
0000247893 00000 n
0000249396 00000 n
0000250549 00000 n
0000252048 00000 n
0000252121 00000 n
0000253602 00000 n
0000254755 00000 n
0000256256 00000 n
0000257409 00000 n
0000258919 00000 n
0000260072 00000 n
0000262760 00000 n
0000262881 00000 n
0000262991 00000 n
0000263150 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 200
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 199 0 R
>>
startxref
263288
%%EOF