|
|
|
|
|
Specifically, Movants request the unsealing of: (1) all orders and document filed in this matter before the Court's issuance of the December 14, 2010 Order requiring Twitter to provide information concerning Movants (the 'Twitter Order'; )2_ all orders and documents filed in this matter after issuance of the Twitter Order; (3) all similar judicial orders requiring entities other than Twitter to provide information concerning Movants' electronic communications and publications; and (4) all documents filed in connection with such other orders or requests for such orders (collectively, the 'sealed documents')
[...]
Because the motions pertain to an unsealed Court Order brought under U.S.C 2703(d) are not grand jury documents, and contain nay non-confidential, public information, previously known to Parties, Parties did not seek to place the January 26 motions under seal. Nevertheless, the Court Clerk placed the motions under seal, apparently due to the fact that the December 14 Order has a grand jury docket number associated with it.
[...]
Having used a form of request for information about Parties that is outside of grand jury processes, the government cannot now require the secrecy reserved to those processes. [Footnote 3] Although Parties asked the government to consent to the relief sought here, the government refused to do so. |
| |
Title: |
Lawyer for Jacob Appelbaum, Lawyer Rop Gonggrijp, Lawyer Birgitta Jonsdottir |
|
Concerning: |
Twitter 2703(d), 2703(d) Orders, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
Footnote 1: The Subscribers challenged the Order with respect to the three Twitter accounts with which they are identified. But with respect to the fourth Twitter account, WikiLeaks, no party raised objections as to Twitter's production of records related to it. No person appeared on behalf of Wikileaks in the proceedings before the magistrate judge, who dismissed as moot Twitter's motion for clarification related to production of records from the WikiLeaks account. Twitter did not object to the dismissal. Thus, both the owner of the Wikileaks Twitter account and Twitter itself have waived any right to appeal the Order's directive to produce records relating to the account. See Wells v. Shriners Hospital, 109 F.3d 198, 199 (4 th Cir. 1997) ('the consequence of failing to file objections is waiver of the right to appeal'). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Andrew Peterson |
| |
Title: |
Assistant United States Attorney |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Justice, National Security Division, NSD |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
MOTION for Unsealing of Sealed Court Records by Jacob Appelbaum, Rop Gonggrijp, Birgitta Jonsdottir. (jlan) (jcor, ). (Entered: 01/28/2011) |
|
Title: |
Lawyer for Jacob Appelbaum |
|
Concerning: |
"Twitter 2703(d), 2703(d) Orders, Grand Jury |
|
|
Title: |
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #- 1-11dm00003TCBLO All Defendants.pdf |
|
Concerning: |
"Twitter 2703(d), 2703(d) Orders, Grand Jury |
|
|
