Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`THOMAS R. BURKE – 141930
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800
`San Francisco, California 94111-6533
`Telephone:
`(415) 276-6500
`Facsimile:
`(415) 276-6599
`Email:
`thomasburke@dwt.com
`
`DAVID M. GOSSETT – Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1301 K Street N.W., Suite 500 East
`Washington, D.C. 20005-3366
`Telephone:
`(202) 973-4216
`Facsimile:
`(202) 973-4499
`Email:
`davidgossett@dwt.com
`
`JOHN M. BROWNING – Pro Hac Vice
` forthcoming
`DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
`1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
`New York, New York 10020-1104
`Telephone:
`(212) 603-6410
`Facsimile:
`(212) 483-8340
`Email:
`jackbrowning@dwt.com
`
`
`
`
`MICHAEL W. BIEN – 096891
`ERNEST GALVAN – 196065
`VAN SWEARINGEN – 259809
`BENJAMIN BIEN-KAHN – 267933
`ALEXANDER GOURSE – 321631
`AMY XU – 330707
`ROSEN BIEN
`GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
`101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
`San Francisco, California 94105-1738
`Telephone:
`(415) 433-6830
`Facsimile:
`(415) 433-7104
`Email:
`mbien@rbgg.com
`
`egalvan@rbgg.com
`
`vswearingen@rbgg.com
`
`bbien-kahn@rbgg.com
`
`agourse@rbgg.com
`
`axu@rbgg.com
`
`KELIANG (CLAY) ZHU – 305509
`DEHENG LAW OFFICES PC
`7901 Stoneridge Drive #208
`Pleasanton, California 94588
`Telephone:
`(925) 399-5856
`Facsimile:
`(925) 397-1976
`Email:
`czhu@dehengsv.com
`
`ANGUS F. NI – Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`AFN LAW PLLC
`502 Second Avenue, Suite 1400
`Seattle, Washington 98104
`Telephone:
`(773) 543-3223
`Email:
`angus@afnlegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`U.S. WECHAT USERS ALLIANCE,
`CHIHUO INC., BRENT COULTER,
`FANGYI DUAN, JINNENG BAO, ELAINE
`PENG, and XIAO ZHANG,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
`as President of the United States, and
`WILBUR ROSS, in his official capacity as
`Secretary of Commerce,
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY
`PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`Date: October 15, 2020
`Time: 9:30 a.m.
`Crtrm.: Remote
`
`Judge: Hon. Laurel Beeler
`Trial Date:
`None Set
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`5
`
`I.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE DOES NOT
`JUSTIFY GRANTING A STAY ............................................................................... 3
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`II.
`
`DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT MET THE STANDARD FOR A STAY ................... 6
`
`A.
`
`Defendants Have Not Made a Strong Showing of Likelihood of
`Success on the Merits ...................................................................................... 6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The WeChat Ban Is A Prior Restraint and Is Not Content
`Neutral .................................................................................................. 7
`
`The WeChat Ban Implicates the First Amendment ............................. 8
`
`The WeChat Ban Cannot Survive Intermediate Scrutiny .................. 10
`
`Plaintiffs’ Ultra Vires Claims Warrant Relief.................................... 13
`
`B.
`
`Defendants Have Not Shown Irreparable Harm Caused by the
`Preliminary Injunction, Which Merely Preserves the Status Quo ................ 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Court Did Not Err in Stating the Standard or Balancing the
`Equities ............................................................................................... 13
`
`The Court Properly Evaluated the Strength or Absence of
`Evidence Supporting Defendants’ Assertions of National
`Security and Foreign Policy Justifications ......................................... 15
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Will Not Be Irreparably Injured Absent a Stay .............. 17
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Defendants’ Evidence of Surveillance Is Speculative ............ 17
`
`The Claimed National Security Risks Are Neither
`Immediate Nor Irreparable ...................................................... 19
`
`Defendants’ Fail to Show How Censorship Is an
`Irreparable Injury to National Security ................................... 21
`
`(d) Defendants Cannot Suffer Harm From an Injunction
`That Merely Ends an Unlawful Practice ................................. 21
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`A Stay Would Irreparably Harm Plaintiffs.................................................... 22
`
`The Court Correctly Concluded That the Public Interest Warrants a
`Preliminary Injunction ................................................................................... 23
`
`III. NO PARTIAL STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED, NOR SHOULD THE
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BE MODIFIED ................................................... 24
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`i
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`
`
`IV. DEFENDANTS OFFER NO RATIONALE TO NOW STAY THE
`ORDER’S NATIONWIDE EFFECT ....................................................................... 25
`
`V.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR BOND SHOULD BE DENIED ....................... 25
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`ii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.,
`284 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................. 24
`
`Al Haramain Islamic Found, Inc. v. United States Dep’t of the Treasury,
`686 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 6, 16
`
`Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno,
`70 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1995) .................................................................................... 17
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 11-cv-01846, 2012 WL 2527044 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012) ................................. 1
`
`Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc.,
`478 U.S. 697 (1986) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart,
`807 F.3d 229 (7th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................... 9
`
`Bullfrog Films v. Wick,
`646 F. Supp. 492, 502 (C.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d 847 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1988) .......... 12
`
`Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick,
`847 F.2d 502 (9th Cir. 1988) .................................................................................... 12
`
`City of Ladue v. Gilleo,
`512 U.S. 43 (1994) ................................................................................................. 7, 8
`
`City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper,
`254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................... 24
`
`Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills,
`321 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................... 25
`
`CTIA - The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley,
`928 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................... 22
`
`Currier v. Potter,
`379 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................... 8
`
`Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State,
`838 F.3d 451 (5th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 14
`
`Doe v. Harris,
`772 F.3d 563 (2014) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`Drummond Co., Inc. v. Collingsworth,
`2013 WL 6074157 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) ......................................................... 12
`
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`iii
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr,
`934 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................. 24
`
`Elrod v. Burns,
`427 U.S. 347 (1976) ................................................................................................. 24
`
`G.K. Ltd. Travel v. City of Lake Oswego,
`436 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Hilton v. Braunskill,
`481 U.S. 770 (1987) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP),
`561 U.S. 1 (2010) ............................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Lamont v. Postmaster Gen. of the United States,
`381 U.S. 301 (1965) ............................................................................................. 8, 12
`
`Language Line Servs., Inc. v. Language Servs. Assocs., Inc.,
`500 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................. 24
`
`Mayweathers v. Newland,
`258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................... 1
`
`Near v. Minnesota,
`283 U.S. 697 (1931) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`Ramos v. Wolf,
`No. 18-16981, 2020 WL 5509753 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2020) .................................... 14
`
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz.,
`576 U.S. 155 (2015) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Rodriguez v. Robbins,
`715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad,
`420 U.S. 546 (1975) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Smith v. California,
`361 U.S. 147 (1959) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Stagg P.C. v. U.S. Department of State,
`158 F. Supp. 3d 203 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ...................................................................... 15
`
`TikTok, Inc. v. Trump,
`No. 1:20-CV-02658, 2020 WL 5763634, (D.D.C. Sept. 27, 2020) .................. passim
`
`Trump v. Hawaii,
`138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018).............................................................................................. 16
`
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`iv
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`United States v. Albertini,
`472 U.S. 675 (1985) ................................................................................................. 11
`
`United States v. New York Times Co.,
`328 F. Supp. 324 (S.D.N.Y. 1971), aff’d sub nom. New York Times Co. v.
`United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) .................................................................. 6, 7, 17
`
`Washington v. Trump,
`847 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`555 U.S. 7 (2008) ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States,
`948 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020) .................................................................................... 8
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`STATUTES
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1702 .................................................................................................................. 13
`
`50 U.S.C. § 1705 .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 ................................................................................................................. 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 7 ................................................................................................................... 24
`
`N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7-2 ....................................................................................................... 24
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`85 Fed. Reg. 48,641 (published Aug. 11, 2020) .............................................................. 7, 10
`
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`v
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Defendants cannot satisfy their extraordinary burden of demonstrating that a stay of
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`this Court’s Preliminary Injunction should be granted pending appeal, which would, as this
`
`4
`
`Court has previously found, immediately result in irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs and all
`
`5
`
`WeChat users in the United States. It remains undisputed—and the new evidence provides
`
`6
`
`additional proof—that the Secretary’s September 18, 2020 Identification is a ban on
`
`7
`
`WeChat in the United States, directly and indirectly interfering with First Amendment
`
`8
`
`protected activities of millions of WeChat users during a global pandemic in which their
`
`9
`
`app-based communications are essential to maintaining contact with one another. None of
`
`10
`
`Defendants’ new evidence demonstrates an imminent and irreparable threat or harm to
`
`11
`
`national security interests specific to WeChat that would satisfy their burden here.
`
`12
`
`“A stay is an ‘intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial
`
`13
`
`review,’ and accordingly ‘is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might
`
`14
`
`otherwise result ….’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (internal citations
`
`15
`
`omitted). Defendants misstate the applicable legal standard, downplaying the heavy
`
`16
`
`burden they must meet for this Court to issue such an extraordinary remedy. To issue a
`
`17
`
`stay, the Court must consider “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing
`
`18
`
`that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably
`
`19
`
`injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other
`
`20
`
`parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.” Hilton v.
`
`21
`
`Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987) (emphasis added)).1 Defendants have not
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`1 The two other cases Defendants cite for the legal standard each militate against a stay.
`See ECF No. 68 at 10. In Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2001), the
`Ninth Circuit held the district court had jurisdiction to grant a second preliminary
`injunction while an interlocutory appeal of the first preliminary injunction was pending, on
`the ground that “[t]he district court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of an appeal to
`act to preserve the status quo.” Id. at 935 (internal citation and quotation omitted). Here,
`by contrast, Defendants are asking this Court to alter the status quo by staying its
`preliminary injunction pending their (potential) appeal. And in Apple, Inc. v. Samsung
`Elecs. Co., No. 11-cv-01846, 2012 WL 2527044 at *8 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2012), Judge Koh
`applied the stay factors to deny the defendants’ motion for a stay pending an appeal of the
`preliminary injunction order.
`[3620853.13]
`
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`1
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`persuasively argued that they have made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the
`
`2
`
`merits, and their new evidence fails to establish irreparable harm. Those first two factors
`
`3
`
`are the “most critical,” and Defendants’ failure to satisfy them supports denial of the
`
`4
`
`motion to stay, even without consideration of the remaining factors. See Nken, 556 U.S. at
`
`5
`
`434-35; see also Washington v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1164 (9th Cir. 2017) (denying
`
`6
`
`motion to stay preliminary injunction pending appeal because “the Government has failed
`
`7
`
`to clear each of the first two critical steps” and also finding “the final two factors do not
`
`8
`
`militate in favor of a stay”). In granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, this Court
`
`9
`
`already found that each of the stay factors favor Plaintiffs. See Order Granting Preliminary
`
`10
`
`Injunction (“Order”), ECF No. 59 at 3, 16, 21; see also Nken, 556 U.S. at 434 (noting
`
`11
`
`“substantial overlap” between stay and preliminary injunction factors).
`
`12
`
`Defendants’ far-fetched argument that “First Amendment scrutiny is …
`
`13
`
`inappropriate,” or “simply inapplicable to the Government’s challenged actions,” falls far
`
`14
`
`short of the mark, as does their effort to suggest in the alternative that the First
`
`15
`
`Amendment might have only “some bearing here” under intermediate scrutiny.
`
`16
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Stay Injunction Pending Appeal (“Mot.”), ECF No. 68 at 17-18.
`
`17
`
`Defendants’ new arguments provide no basis to change this Court’s well-supported
`
`18
`
`findings that “plaintiffs have shown serious questions going to the merits of their First
`
`19
`
`Amendment claim that the Secretary’s prohibited transactions effectively eliminate the
`
`20
`
`plaintiffs’ key platform for communication, slow or eliminate discourse, and are the
`
`21
`
`equivalent of censorship of speech or a prior restraint on it.” Order at 16. There simply
`
`22
`
`are no viable substitutes for WeChat for the Chinese-American and Chinese speaking
`
`23
`
`community, and Defendants’ argument to the contrary remains unsupported and is even
`
`24
`
`contradicted by their new evidence. See ECF No. 76-1, Ex. A (“Decision Memo”) at 10
`
`25
`
`(conceding “WeChat is one of the limited options available to those who want to
`
`26
`
`communicate with Chinese citizens”). Nor does Defendants’ new evidence support any
`
`27
`
`change to the Court’s findings that “there are obvious alternatives to a complete ban,”
`
`28
`
`
`
`Order at 18, and that “the prohibited transactions burden substantially more speech than is
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`2
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`necessary to serve the Government’s significant interest in national security, especially
`
`2
`
`given the lack of substitute channels for communication.” Id.
`
`3
`
`At bottom, Defendants are asking this Court to reconsider the same arguments that
`
`4
`
`it has already considered and rejected, applying a substantially similar legal standard
`
`5
`
`(except one with a heavy burden on Defendants), and to reverse itself. Defendants have
`
`6
`
`provided no basis for doing so, and their stay motion should be denied.
`
`7
`
`8
`
`I.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`DEFENDANTS’ NEWLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE DOES NOT
`JUSTIFY GRANTING A STAY
`
`
`In seeking an expedited stay allowing Defendants to implement an unprecedented
`
`11
`
`ban of an entire medium of communication, Defendants hang their hats on three pieces of
`
`12
`
`newly submitted evidence, including classified information denied to Plaintiffs’ counsel.2
`
`13
`
`The Decision Memo, drafted after the President’s WeChat executive order was
`
`14
`
`issued, is mostly a repackaging of old evidence and similarly fails to provide support for
`
`15
`
`the claim that WeChat poses a national security threat of the kind that would pose an
`
`16
`
`“irreparable harm” sufficient to stay the preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 28 at 14-16
`
`17
`
`(rebutting earlier evidence presented by Defendants); Order at 20 (“specific evidence about
`
`18
`
`WeChat is modest”). Most of the Decision Memo refers to general concerns about
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`2 Defendants argue that the compressed briefing schedule after issuance of the
`Identification did not allow for enough time for them “to submit the materials to the Court
`in the 36-hour period occurring after [Defendant Ross’s] decision.” Mot. at 8 n.1. But
`they ignore the fact that the rushed schedule was entirely their own choice. They chose
`when to issue the Identification, and given its issuance so soon before the effective date,
`both Plaintiffs and the Court offered them more time to oppose the preliminary injunction
`should they be willing to adjust their self-imposed deadline of implementing the WeChat
`ban on September 20, 2020. See 9/18 Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 66 at 9:14-25; 24:13-
`23; see also 9/17 Hearing Transcript, ECF No. 41 at 5:1-8:14. Additionally, Defendants
`fail to explain why they moved to have their motion resolved by October 1. See Mot. at 9;
`ECF No. 69. To expedite resolution, Defendants may waive Reply. On October 1,
`Defendants informed Plaintiffs’ counsel that they intend to file a notice of appeal from this
`Court’s preliminary injunction on October 2, but do not yet have the Solicitor General’s
`authorization. If so authorized, they “would also file in the Ninth Circuit an emergency
`motion to stay the preliminary injunction” on October 2, despite their present Motion still
`pending before this Court for hearing on shortened time. Plaintiffs oppose. Bien Decl. ¶
`12 & Ex. K.
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`3
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`Chinese surveillance of Americans, which it then couples with speculation about the ways
`
`2
`
`in which Tencent might support such efforts—without any evidence or examples involving
`
`3
`
`Americans’ use of WeChat in support.3 The Decision Memo also discloses, for the first
`
`4
`
`time, that Tencent “has presented the Department of Commerce with a proposal to mitigate
`
`5
`
`the concerns identified in EO 13943.” Decision Memo at 14. Specifically, it offered to
`
`6
`
`“create a new U.S. version of the app, deploy specific security measures to protect the new
`
`7
`
`app’s source code, partner with a U.S. cloud provider for user data storage, and manage the
`
`8
`
`new app through a U.S.-based entity with USG approved governance structure.” Id. The
`
`9
`
`Commerce Department also “considered additional mitigations to include escrow and
`
`10
`
`review of WeChat’s source code, regular compliance audits and notifications, and stringent
`
`11
`
`approvals over management and personnel with access to user data.” Id.4 In rejecting
`
`12
`
`these—and any other possible measure designed to address its concerns short of “a
`
`13
`
`complete divestiture” of WeChat by Tencent—Defendants make conclusory claims about a
`
`14
`
`lack of “trust” in Tencent as a Chinese-owned company and general evidence the Court
`
`15
`
`has already considered about the plans and goals of the CCP for data gathering and
`
`16
`
`surveillance. Id. The Decision Memo fails to offer up any examples in which WeChat
`
`17
`
`was used to surveil Americans—let alone in a manner that poses a national security threat.
`
`18
`
`Indeed, most amazingly, one of the primary attachments to the Decision Memo—
`
`19
`
`The Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s
`
`20
`
`Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Note (“CISA Note”) (ECF No. 68-1 at 23,
`
`21
`
`Ex. B), which was “produced … in response to a request for assistance from the
`
`22
`
`Department of Commerce in implementing the [EO]” (Id. at 24)—recommends not a ban
`
`23
`
`of WeChat but a far more narrow, tailored remedy to address the “threat” posed by
`
`24
`
`WeChat: “CISA recommends the TikTok and WeChat applications not be permitted on
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`3 Appendix F to the Decision Memo, filed today at ECF No. 77, comprises reports of
`human rights violations in China and monitoring, surveillance and censorship in China.
`4 Defendants provided Tencent’s mitigation proposal to Plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’
`eyes’ only review at 6:43 p.m. on September 30. It will be filed under seal with the Court
`for its consideration upon entry of a protective order.
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`4
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`the devices of State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) partners and critical
`
`2
`
`infrastructure operators as they may provide malicious actors with access to mobile
`
`3
`
`devices and sensitive data.” CISA Note at 27. As this Court noted, this is the kind of
`
`4
`
`“obvious alternative[] to a complete ban” that can avoid sweeping implications for free
`
`5
`
`speech. Order at 18. If the Government sees fit to present this material—which is so
`
`6
`
`inconsistent with its argument—to the Court, we can only speculate as to what else is in
`
`7
`
`the evidentiary record. See ECF No. 68-1 at 2 (Costello Decl. ¶ 5) (“These materials are
`
`8
`
`not a complete set of all materials considered by the Secretary.”). It is clear from the face
`
`9
`
`of the Decision Memo, for example, that Defendants withheld at least some of the
`
`10
`
`appendices to that document, including Tencent’s mitigation proposal. See id. at 18, n.85;
`
`11
`
`see also n. 3, 4, supra (discussing recent filing and planned filing of two appendices).
`
`12
`
`To the extent the Court will consider this late evidence in this proceeding, Plaintiffs
`
`13
`
`file herewith the Declaration of Joe Hildebrand, an expert in data security who explains
`
`14
`
`best practices in mitigating data security risk and the targeted measures that were (and are)
`
`15
`
`available to Defendants to address those issues as to Tencent and WeChat. The Court can
`
`16
`
`compare Mr. Hildebrand’s suggestions to those contained in Tencent’s proposal (which
`
`17
`
`Mr. Hildebrand has not seen). As disclosed in the Decision Memo at page 18, these
`
`18
`
`suggestions are the very measures that Tencent offered, but Defendants rejected in favor of
`
`19
`
`a total ban—apparently because Tencent would not agree to a “complete divestiture.”
`
`20
`
`The separate assessment of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
`
`21
`
`(“ODNI”) was lodged with the Court, but Plaintiffs have not seen this secret, classified
`
`22
`
`document. See ECF No. 71. If the Court believes that the classified materials may justify
`
`23
`
`the issuance of a stay, Plaintiffs’ counsel request an opportunity to rebut the substance of
`
`24
`
`the Government’s classified evidence before any decision is rendered. When classified
`
`25
`
`information is used as evidence in a civil action, “the Constitution does require that the
`
`26
`
`government take reasonable measures to ensure basic fairness to the private party and that
`
`27
`
`the government follow procedures reasonably designated to protect against erroneous
`
`28
`
`
`
`deprivation of the private party’s interests.” Al Haramain Islamic Found. Inc. v. United
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`5
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`States Dep’t of the Treasury, 686 F.3d 965, 980 (9th Cir. 2012); see also United States v.
`
`2
`
`New York Times Co., 328 F. Supp. 324, 326 (S.D.N.Y. 1971) (holding an in camera
`
`3
`
`proceeding attended by attorneys for each side to discuss national security interests
`
`4
`
`implicated in the Pentagon Papers), aff’d sub nom. New York Times Co. v. United States,
`
`5
`
`403 U.S. 713, 714 (1971); see also Section II(B)(2), infra. While the Government may
`
`6
`
`under appropriate circumstances rely on classified evidence ex parte, it cannot shroud its
`
`7
`
`arguments with a cloak of absolute and impenetrable secrecy. Rather, due process requires
`
`8
`
`that the Government provide its adversary with “constitutionally adequate notice and a
`
`9
`
`meaningful opportunity to respond.” Al Haramain Islamic Found., Inc., 686 F.3d at 1001.
`
`10
`
`These due process rights are violated when the Government fails “to mitigate the use of
`
`11
`
`classified information by, for example, preparing and disclosing an unclassified summary.”
`
`12
`
`Id. Here, Plaintiffs’ counsel requested a non-classified summary of the classified evidence
`
`13
`
`at issue, but have not received a response and therefore cannot address this information in
`
`14
`
`its brief. See Declaration of Michael W. Bien In Support Of Opposition to Motion to Stay
`
`15
`
`(“Bien Decl.”), filed herewith, ¶ 2 & Ex. A. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request––
`
`16
`
`in the interests of fairness and consistent with their due process rights––an opportunity to
`
`17
`
`review and respond to a non-classified summary of the classified evidence if the Court is
`
`18
`
`inclined to grant the Government’s motion to a stay on the basis of that evidence.
`
`19
`
`II. DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT MET THE STANDARD FOR A STAY
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`A. Defendants Have Not Made a Strong Showing of Likelihood of
`Success on the Merits
`
`
`This Court found that Plaintiffs demonstrated serious questions about whether the
`
`23
`
`WeChat ban “effectively eliminate[s] the plaintiffs’ key platform for communication,
`
`24
`
`slow[s] or eliminate[s] discourse, and [is] the equivalent of censorship of speech or a prior
`
`25
`
`restraint on it.” Order at 16. The Court also found that Defendants introduced “scant little
`
`26
`
`evidence” that a complete ban of WeChat would address their stated national security
`
`27
`
`concerns; that the ban burdens substantially more speech than necessary; and that “there
`
`28
`
`
`
`are no viable substitute platforms or apps for the Chinese-speaking and Chinese-American
`[3620853.13]
`Case No. 3:20-cv-05910-LB
`6
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL OF ORDER
`GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-05910-LB Document 78 Filed 10/01/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`1
`
`community.” Id. at 17-18. Defendants’ new evidence does not change these findings.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`1.
`
`The WeChat Ban Is A Prior Restraint and Is Not Content
`Neutral
`
`
`Defendants’ attempt to preemptively and indiscriminately “foreclose an entire
`
`5
`
`medium of expression” raises “particular concern” under the First Amendment, City of
`
`6
`
`Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 55 (1994), and is subject to “a heavy presumption against its
`
`7
`
`constitutional validity,” Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 558 (1975).
`
`8
`
`Althou