Case 1:14-cv-09763-VM Document 44 Filed 08/28/15 Page 2 of 35
56")'
seeking
requirement
that
an
imposed by a
order
to
National
lift
a
non-disclosure
Security Letter
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the "FBI")
Nos.
16,
17.)
The
Government
opposes
Merrill's
( "NSL")
(Dkt.
summary
judgment motion, and also moves to dismiss the Complaint or
for summary judgment.
(Dkt. Nos. 24, 25.)
I.
In 2004,
of
BACKGROUND'
Nicholas Merril 1 was the owner and operator
Calyx Internet Access
("Calyx" l ,
a
now-defunct
company
that provided a number of internet services to its clients,
including an interface for maintaining their own websites,
2
The tactual uurnmary presented herein derives from the following
documents: Complaint, tiled Dec. 11, 2011, Dkt. No. l; Plaintiff's
Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, dated
Mar.
10,
2015,
Dkt. No.
16
("Pl. Mem."l;
PlaintiH'e Rule 56.:
Statement, dated Mar. 10, 2015, Dl<t, No. 16; the Declaration of
Nicholas Merrill in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment,
dated Mar. 10, 2015, Dkt. No. l.9 {"Merrill Deel.•); the Declaration o!
Jonathan Manes i.n Support of Plaintiff• s Motion for Summary Judgrr.ent,
dated Mar.
10.
2015,
Dkt.
No.
20
("'1'1.nee Deel.'');
Government's
Memorandum of Law in Support of the Goverfl1Tl<!nt • s Motion to Dismiss or
for suminary Judgment, and in Oppooition to Plaintiff• u Motion for
Summary Judgment, dated Apr, 24, 2015, Dkt. No. 25 ("Gev't Mem.•); the
Declaration of Gary Perdue in Support of the Government Motion, dated
Apr. 23, 2015, Dkt. No. 30 ("Perdue Deel.•); the Government's Rule 56.l
counter-Statement, dated Apr. 24, 2015, Ox.it. No. 26; Rep:!.y Memorandum
of Law in l"Urther Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Su!Mlllry Judgment
and in Opposition to Government Motion to DismiaH or for Summary
Judgment,
dated June ll,
2015,
Okt.
No.
36
(•P:.
Reply Mem."J;
Plaintitt's Rule S6.l Counter-Statement, dated June 11, 2015, Dkt. No.
37; the second Declaration of Jonathan Man,11 in Support of Pla.intiff' s
Motion for Summary Judgment and in Oppoait;ion to Government Motion to
Dismiso or for summary Judgment, dated June 11, 201~, Okt. No. lB
(•second Manes Deel.") ; Reply Memorandum ot l.aw in Further Support of
the Governtnent' B Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment, and in
Opposition to Plaintiff' II Motion for Su1nm4ry Judgment, dated July 31,
2015,
Dkt. No. 42 ("Gov•t Reply /'lem."), Except where specifically
referenced, no further citation to these so~rcea will be made.
- 2 -