Filed Date: July 14, 1971
Closed Date: 1974
Clearinghouse coding complete
Currently, only two opinions regarding the discovery in this case are available electronically; the docket sheet and other documents are not.
On March 8 and 9, 1971, a burglary took place at the Offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) in Media, Pennsylvania. Several government documents were stolen during the burglary and later disseminated to media. According to Ivan Greenberg, The Dangers of Dissent, disclosure of the materials helped lead to the end of Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO). After the burglary, the F.B.I. conducted an investigation which included the surveillance of the plaintiffs (although in the end nobody was charged). The F.B.I. claimed that the investigation served valid law enforcement purposes; the plaintiffs in this case alleged that the investigation constituted illegal harassment.
The anti-war groups subsequently filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against then-Attorney General of the United States Mitchell and then-F.B.I. director Hoover in 1971. Represented by private counsel, they sought declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief, accusing the defendants of illegal and unconstitutional surveillance, harassment and intimidation due to the groups' political ideology.
During the discovery, the plaintiffs submitted interrogatories to the defendants, who refused to answer by asserting investigatory, informer, and executive privilege. The defendants claimed that the plaintiffs were subject of a valid ongoing criminal investigation for law enforcement purposes. The plaintiffs moved to compel.
On August 3, 1972, the District Court (Judge Donald W. Van Artsdalen) ordered the defendants to produce the relevant investigation documents that supported their claim to the Court for an in camera inspection. Philadelphia Resistance v. Mitchell, 63 F.R.D. 125 (E.D. Pa. 1972). Upon inspection, the Judge Van Artsdalen concluded that the plaintiffs were subjects of a valid ongoing investigation for law enforcement purposes and that the defendants could properly assert their privilege.
On December 27, 1972, Judge Van Artsdalen examined individually the interrogatories to determine the applicability of the defendants' privilege. Philadelphia Resistance v. Mitchell, 58 F.R.D. 139 (E.D. Pa. 1972). He ordered the defendants to answer the interrogatories that were closely related to the surveillance at issue but not those that were highly sensitive and vital to public security.
The discovery proceedings in this case revealed crucial information about the F.B.I.'s unlawful searches and wiretapping, which led to two other closely related cases: Forsyth v. Kleindienst and Burkhart v. Saxbe.
We have only two discovery-related opinions in this matter, but according to a published newsletter ("First Principles: National Security and Civil Liberties,"), the parties settled the case in 1974 through a consent decree. The defendants agreed to pay the litigation costs and not to conduct any surveillance or harassment of the plaintiffs in the future. This ended the case.
Summary Authors
Emma Bao (7/9/2013)
VanArtsdalen, Donald West (Pennsylvania)
Rudovsky, David (Pennsylvania)
Burt, C. Oliver III (District of Columbia)
Straub, Peter T. (District of Columbia)
VanArtsdalen, Donald West (Pennsylvania)
Last updated March 11, 2024, 3:07 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 14, 1971
Closing Date: 1974
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Anti-Vietnam war groups in Philadelphia subjected to the F.B.I.'s surveillance and harassment following the burglary of the F.B.I. office in Media, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg, LLP
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
United States Department of Justice, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 1974 - None
Issues
Policing: