## Facts

- A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition sued federal officials responsible for inaugural security and permitting, challenging restrictions on expressive activity along the presidential inaugural parade route.
- In discovery, A.N.S.W.E.R. sought the Secret Service Presidential Advance Manual, a document describing security operations for the presidential motorcade and inaugural parade.
- The Secret Service produced the manual with redactions, asserting the qualified law-enforcement privilege and related security concerns.
- Withheld material included operational details such as agent identities and assignments, security procedures and vulnerabilities, and command-post location and operation.
- A magistrate judge denied A.N.S.W.E.R.’s motion to compel production of the redacted portions.
- A.N.S.W.E.R. objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and the district judge reviewed the dispute de novo.

## Issues

1. Whether the Secret Service properly invoked the qualified law-enforcement privilege to withhold redacted portions of the Presidential Advance Manual.
2. Whether, despite the privilege, the court should order disclosure (including under a protective order) because A.N.S.W.E.R.’s need outweighed the government’s confidentiality and security interests.

## Decision

- The district court affirmed the magistrate judge’s discovery order and denied A.N.S.W.E.R.’s objections.
- The court held the Secret Service adequately established that the redacted information fell within the law-enforcement privilege.
- The court concluded the government’s interest in protecting sensitive presidential-protection information outweighed A.N.S.W.E.R.’s need for the operational details.
- The court rejected disclosure under a protective order, finding that limited dissemination would still create unacceptable security risks.

## Legal Principles

- The law-enforcement privilege is qualified and may protect law-enforcement and protective-service materials from civil discovery when disclosure would risk harm, including revealing techniques and procedures, exposing vulnerabilities, or endangering individuals and future operations.
- A valid invocation generally requires a formal assertion by an appropriate senior official after personal consideration, supported by specific explanations of anticipated harm from disclosure.
- Once properly invoked, courts balance the government’s confidentiality and security interests against the requesting party’s need, including the material’s relevance and whether the information is essential to proving claims.
- A protective order does not necessarily cure the risk; where disclosure itself materially increases the likelihood of dissemination of sensitive operational details, courts may deny production.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Secret Service’s redactions of a presidential-protection operations manual, finding the privilege properly invoked and the government’s security interests decisively outweighed the plaintiff’s marginal need for tactical details, even with proposed protective-order limits.


A.N.S.W.E.R. Coal. v. Jewell, 292 F.R.D. 44 (D.D.C. 2013)