Précédent 22 / 22 Next

Case 1:12-cv-00127-BJR Document 40 Filed 03/04/15 Page 22 of 22 judgment. An Order consistent with this opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued 4th day of March, 2015. BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice Criminal Division

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (Lié Case Law): United States

Decision Date: 4 mars 2015

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted/Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Access to Information Denied

Keywords

Access to Information
Social Media
Surveillance
Whistleblowing

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Case Number: 1:12-cv-00127-BJR

Case Summary: As part of an investigation into numerous classified documents published by WikiLeaks in 2010, the U.S. government — FBI, Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD), and its Criminal Division (CRM) — sought and obtained a court order, compelling Twitter to disclose the account information of at least five users associated with WikiLeaks, including its founder, Julian Assange and spokesperson, Jacob Appelbaum. Concerned over a much wider government surveillance of the group’s supporters and associates, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to each of the government agencies, seeking to obtain records of individuals under surveillance for their support of WikiLeaks, as well as the government communications with social media companies and Google regarding those individuals. The agencies denied the requests by invoking Exemption 7(A) of FOIA. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the government agencies’ motion for summary judgment, holding that NSD failed to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. But it sided with FBI and CRM that the records sought by EPIC were properly withheld under Exemption 7(A) because the information was obtained during their principal function of law enforcement and that the disclosure would interfere with the ongoing investigation surrounding WikiLeaks.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Related Caselaw (self)

Source Name and URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Documents principaux

EPIC-v-DOJ-Wikileaks-Opinion.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice Criminal Division

Documents principaux

Notifications