Précédent 35 / 35 Next

Case 1:14-cv-09763-VM Document 44 Filed 08/28/15 Page 35 of 35 _______________________,----------··---··---· The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion for summary dismiss or judgment (Dkt. No. and the motion to for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 24), and to close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: 16) New York, New York 28 August 2015 - 35 -

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Merrill v. Lynch

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 28 août 2015

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Granted

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Freedom of Expression
National Security
Privacy

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Case Number: 14-CV-9763 (VM)

Case Summary: Nicholas Merrill, the owner of then-existing Calyx Internet Access, brought an injunctive lawsuit in the Southern District of Court of New York against the U.S. Attorney General and the Director of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in their official capacity, seeking to lift a non-disclosure requirement imposed by a National Security Letter (NSL). The NSL at issue prohibited Merrill from disclosing the redacted portions of the attachment to letter, which mainly included certain types of information that the FBI was seeking to collect from him, such as records of the subscriber's name and address, his or her activity for any connections, and telephone records. But the information did not specifically identify a person of interest and publicly-available government documents provided substantially similar information to those redacted portions of the NSL. Pursuant to the amended Section 2709 of federal law, the government may serve a non-disclosure requirement along with an NSL, but it is subject to judicial review. Under Section 3511, a district court must uphold a non-disclosure requirement, if it determines that "there is reason to believe that disclosure of the information … may result in: (A) a danger to the national security of the United States; (B) interference with a criminal, counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation; (C) interference with diplomatic relations; or (D) danger to the life or physical safety of any person." The Southern District of Court of New York held that the government did not meet its burden of demonstrating a substantial link between the disclosure of the redacted information in NSL served on Merrill and enumerated risk of harm under Section 3511, in part because publicly-available government documents disclosed by other agencies provide substantially similar information and since the closure of the underlying investigation, the government had permitted Merrill to disclose his identity as the recipient, as well as the identity of the investigation's target. Accordingly, the court granted Merrill's motion for summary judgment. It ordered to stay the enforcement of the judgment in lifting the non-disclosure requirement pending an appeal within 90 days from the date of the judgment.

Case Significance: The decision does not establish a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 10 mai 2024

Documents principaux

Merrill v Lynch.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Merrill v. Lynch

Documents principaux

Notifications