Opinion
No. C 03-4350 MHP.
March 2, 2005
ORDER
The parties in the present action are currently engaged in a discovery dispute regarding a document titled "Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma Relocation Preliminary Operational Requirements," dated February 15, 2001. Defendants introduced the document to this litigation in their answer to plaintiffs' first amended complaint, though defendants subsequently amended their pleading to omit any references to it. The document supercedes an earlier version of the report, the 1997 Preliminary Operational Requirements, which was submitted into evidence by plaintiffs in opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants have asked this court to reject disclosure of the more current version, should plaintiffs formally request the document during discovery.
On August 4, 2004, this court instructed defendants to submit a declaration explaining why the updated document should not be disclosed. Defendants submitted two such attestations and subsequently supplemented the record with the outcome of a parallel, internal classification process at the Department of Defense. That process designated the document as "secret." Defendants' filings have not, however, explained to this court why the security classification of the 2001 document changed so precipitously from that of the earlier version. This court can understand the grounds for confidentiality and mutual consent attendant to minutes, papers, negotiations, and other bilateral undertakings of the Joint Committee. However, it is not readily apparent why the updated Preliminary Requirements document, prepared exclusively by agencies of the United States, would be similarly protected, particularly where the earlier version has been released. Defendants are also instructed to submit to the court an explanation of the classification process undertaken within the Department of Defense, citing to the statutory and or/other authorization for such classification and whether the procedures provided by those authorizations have been followed. Finally, defendants should explain to this court the timing of the security review of the 2001 Preliminary Requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED.