of U.S. Department Justice
DNL:JPWaldman DI#145-12-12386
Civil Division,Appellate Staff Ave., N.W., Rm:7232 950 Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel: (202) 514-0236 Fax: (202) 514-9405
Joshua Waldman Staff Attorney
December 14.2005 Ms. CathyCatterson Clerk, UnitedStates Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 95 Seventh Street SanFrancisco, CA 94103-1526
Re: Gilmore v. Gonz.ales. No.04-15736
FILING UNDER SEAL. ^FOR^EXPIRTE. T1T CTMERI REVIEW ONLY Dear Ms. Catterson: On December8, 2005, this Court orderedthe governmentin the above-captioned appealto "file under sealthe relevantmaterialpertainingto the identification requirement at issuein this caseso that this court can conductin camera rcview." Enclosedplease find one original and four copies of the government's under seal.ex parte and in camera filing. The filing containsonly materialsrelevantto the above-captioned appeal. Pleasedistributeone copy of this letter and one copy of the enclosedfiling to each member of the panel in this appeal(JudgesTrott, T.G. Nelson, and Paez). The governmentin this appealhaspreviouslymoved this Court for leaveto file thesesamematerialsnot just under sealfor in camerareview, but also for exparte review. (That motion was deniedby an Appellate Commissioner, and the government's motion for reconsideration pending.) The government'smotion was predicated remained on 49 U.S.C. $ t la(s)(2)(c),which states that TSA "shall prescribe regulations prohibiting the disclosureof information obtainedor developedin carrying out security" if the agency"decidesthat disclosingthe information would . . . be detrimentalto the securityof transportation." Pursuantto that authority,TSA has defined a set of informationknown as "SSI" or "sensitive securityinformation"(see49 C.F.R.$ 1520.3), and has directedthat such information shall be disclosedonly to thosewith a "need to know." 49 C.F.R.$ 1520.9(a)(1). The relevantmaterials issuein this casecontainSSI, at and TSA has determined that neitherplaintiff nor plaintiff s counselhas a "need to know."
2
Although this Court's December8 Order doesnot expresslystatethat the court's review will be exparte, the governmentunderstands December8 Order to grant the the government'spreviously filed motion. In other words, the governmentunderstands this Court's December8 Order to meanthat this Court will review the sealedmaterial both in camerl andexparte (as opposedto construingthe December8 Order as an implicit holding overriding TSA's decisionand determining that plaintiff and his counselhave a "needto know" under$ 1520.9(axl)). The government'sunderstanding consistent is with this Court's precedents repeatedlyendorsingin camera andexparle submissions appropriatecircumstances. in See,e.g.,MeridianInternat'lLogistics. Inc. v. UnitedStates,939 F.2d740,745(9th Cir. 1991)("We find that the lex parte andin cameral procedureusedby the court in the instant casewas proper; it adequately balancedthe rights of the Governmentand United States Sarkissian, F.2d 959,9G5-66 v. 841 (9th Cir. 1988) [plaintiffl."); (upholding submissionof mateial exparte andin camera for proceedings under the ClassifiedInformationProcedures Act); United States Ott,827 F.2d 473,4i6-77 (9th v. Cir. 1987)(rejectingdue processchallengeto exparte, in camerareview of materials u n d e r t h e F o re i g n l n te l l i g e n ce Sur veillanceAct) ; dv.FBI,705F.2d,1l51, 3- 54 Pollar ll5 (9th Cir. 1983)("the practiceof in camera,exparle review remainsappropriatein certain FOIA cases"). Should this Court disagree with the government'sunderstanding the Court's of December8 Order, the governmentrespectfullyrequests that it be afforded an opportunityto brief this Court on whetherexparte review is appropriate.
'4fia,) .9toshuaWaldman A
, Appellate Staff
Y'
Civil Division
Enclosures cc (coverletteronly):
Willliam Simpich JamesP. Harrison JaneH. Barrett