Search Full Text

… Finding that disclosure of FISA materials to defendant was “not ‘necessary’ to assess the legality of the searches or surveillance.” 868 F.3d at 955. Defendant’s “confrontation rights were not violated [] simply because …

… Held agencies did not waive right to assert Glomar responses, adequately substantiated cognizable harm under FOIA exemption, conducted adequate search, and properly redacted/withheld information and determining in camera …

… Denying defendant’s “motion to suppress” and for “disclosure of orders, applications, and related materials under [FISA];” also denying “motion for notice of and discovery about the use of surveillance pursuant to the FISA …

… The Court, following its own precent in Ott, 827 F.2d 473, stated the government met the requirement that the “purpose of the surveillance must be to secure foreign intelligence surveillance.” 841 F.2d at 964. The Court …