|
|
|
|
|
Plaintiffs state that they intend to submit an email exchange between employees of a private firm as evidence in support of their brief opposing summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs' counsel indicates that he obtained this email from the Wikileaks website. Because the email was allegedly sent between 'two defense contractors with access to classified information,' Mot. at 1, counsel believes the information in the email may be classified. Further, according to plaintiffs' counsel, if he were to submit this email as evidence and 'someone in the government does believe it is classified, it would have severe repercussions on [plaintiffs' counsel's] ability to obtain and hold a security clearance in the future.'
[...]
The Government does not conduct a classification review of whatever information private individuals without non-disclosure agreements happen to obtain from somewhere in the public domain, solely because those individuals express their belief that such information may be classified. [Footnote] 3 There are additional reasons that defendants cannot confirm the classification of the particular email at issue. As the undersigned advised plaintiffs' counsel, the U.S. Government as a policy matter does not confirm or deny the authenticity (or, by extension, the classification) of documents posted on Wikileaks. That is particularly the case where, as counsel recognizes here, the email is not a government document.
[...]
[Footnote 3] Otherwise, private litigants could presumably require the Government to conduct a classification review of a New York Times article or a blog post that they intended to offer in litigation, simply because such document purported to reveal classified information obtained from individuals with access to that information. Such a requirement would impose an enormous burden on the Government and, more importantly, intrude on the Executive's exclusive authority to determine how best to manage and protect classified information.
[...]
Finally, under the circumstances presented here--where the Government cannot confirm or deny the authenticity or classification of a document obtained from Wikileaks... |
| |
Name(s:) |
Stuart Delery, Ronald Machen, Elizabeth Shapiro, Judson Littleton |
| |
Title: |
Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Attorney, Deputy Branch Director, Trial Attorney |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch |
|
Concerning: |
Mobley versus CIA FOIA, Global Intelligence Files, Stratfor, GI Files |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Re: Insight- Sharif Mobley |
|
Author: |
Scott Stewart, Aaron Colvin, Fred Burton |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Stratfor |
|
Concerning: |
"Mobley versus CIA FOIA, Global Intelligence Files, GI Files, Stratfor |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
