Doe(s) v. Bonta - Seeking Restraining Order Against AB-173: Dismissed 1-16-23

[Robotron2k84]

Didn’t see this posted, but NRA-ILA supported filing suit to enjoin AB-173, last week.

Last week, NRA-ILA filed a lawsuit challenging AB-173, a newly enacted California law that directs the California Department of Justice (“Cal DoJ”) to turn over the personal information that it has on gun owners, including their name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own, to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis. AB-173 further allows the Cal DoJ and UC Davis to turn that information over to any other “bona fide research institute.” Now NRA-ILA has asked the court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order, enjoining the Cal DoJ from releasing any of that personal information until the case can be heard.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022...owners-privacy


Case ID: 3:22-cv-00010-LAB-DEB

Original Complaint:

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedi...-complaint.pdf

Amended Complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.28.0.pdf


I did see mention that they tried to have the case heard by RT Benitez, but the motion was denied for the change of venue:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.15.0.pdf


Full case history:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...7/doe-v-bonta/


Update, post 6:

TRO denied, trial continues.


Update, post 20:

Motions for PI and dismissal filed.


Update, post 21:

Amended complaint filed.


Update, post 24:

First motion for dismissal found moot, and new hearing set for 4/5 on dismissal for amended complaint.


Update, post 26:

Plaintiff has submitted notice of supplementary authority, re: Jones v. Bonta, arguing for strict scrutiny, and Bonta has replied.


Update, post 40:

Plaintiffs are citing the leak to ask the court to reconsider the TRO.


Update, post 42:

Plaintiffs and CADOJ both submit briefs arguing for / against TRO and scope of supplemental authority from NYSRPA, respectively.

.

[C.G.]

Thanks for posting this, it was under my radar. I am glad that they are fighting this ridiculous bill.

[pacrat]

CRPA analysis I received today.


https://crpa.org/wp-content/uploads/...eid=440a84423e


https://crpa.org/news/blogs/ab-173-w...eid=440a84423e

[SkyHawk]

CRPA analysis was a little disappointing especially in the conclusion regarding damages. I am hardly worried about identity theft being the damage from this new law. Identity theft is practically a given anymore, having already been leaked from hundreds of sources.

The real damage will come from gun owners addresses and details of their collection being leaked on the dark or even not-dark web.

[Foothills]

The worst damage will be domestic violence victims who purchased firearms having their addresses leaked. THAT should be a core harm presented to the Court.

[Robotron2k84]

Update:

ORDER Denying 9, Application for Temporary Restraining Order; Conditionally granting 11 Motion to Proceed Pseudonymously; Setting Briefing Schedule for Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and Setting Briefing Schedule for Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 1/20/2022. (jms) (Entered: 01/20/2022)

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.22.0.pdf

[Robotron2k84]

We also find out in the denial of the TRO that the information has already been distributed last year after the bill’s passage, and signature. They didn’t even wait until 1/1/2022. Therefore, the court determined that there is no emergency in issuing a TRO.

Lovely

[ProfChaos]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

We also find out in the denial of the TRO that the information has already been distributed last year after the bill’s passage, and signature. They didn’t even wait until 1/1/2022. Therefore, the court determined that there is no emergency in issuing a TRO.

Lovely

Wait, they denied it because they already distributed that information before the law was supposed to go into effect?

[Robotron2k84]

Uh, yup.

I’m sure they knew their actions would be challenged after the new year and went ahead to try and moot any attempt.

It was a trailer-bill, wasn’t it? Even if not, the law is doing exactly as intended: chilling the courts and covering for past releases.

“What does it really matter at this point?”

[OlderThanDirt]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

CRPA analysis was a little disappointing especially in the conclusion regarding damages. I am hardly worried about identity theft being the damage from this new law. Identity theft is practically a given anymore, having already been leaked from hundreds of sources.

The real damage will come from gun owners addresses and details of their collection being leaked on the dark or even not-dark web.

^ This. I have no doubt that this information will be widely disseminated, both willfully and accidentally. I can see a plethora of adverse consequences ranging from home invasion robberies to gun control groups targeting individuals for false allegations and red flag restraining orders. People with large and scary collections will be more vulnerable given the potential for sensationalized news headlines.

[everyday_hero]

^ leading to sorts of news stories similar to Roger Stone’s no knock raid at 3am with CNN outside rolling the cameras.

[WingDings]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Update:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.22.0.pdf

District Court Judge Burns (Bush Appointee)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Alan_Burns

On December 20, 2012, Burns wrote an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times calling for a reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban. In the article, Burns described himself as an ardent conservative and gun owner who nonetheless felt there was no "social utility" for high-capacity clips. Besides the 31-round magazine Loughner used in his Glock, Burns cited as examples the 100-round drum magazine used by James Holmes in the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shooting and the 30-round magazine used by Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Burns called for Congress to reinstate the ban without the grandfather clause of the original ban, which allowed those who already owned a weapon on the banned list to keep it. "If we can't find a way to draw sensible lines with guns that balance individual rights and the public interest," Burns wrote, "we may as well call the experiment with American democracy a failure."

[P5Ret]

Isn't it strange that DOJ is requiring all LE agencies to begin scrambling their radio coms, to prevent anyone with a scanner from getting any personal info on people, at the same time is freely releasing the same info, and more to college students? Who exactly is vetting the people getting the info? Oh I know no one.

[Robotron2k84]

Originally Posted by P5Ret

Isn't it strange that DOJ is requiring all LE agencies to begin scrambling their radio coms, to prevent anyone with a scanner from getting any personal info on people, at the same time is freely releasing the same info, and more to college students? Who exactly is vetting the people getting the info? Oh I know no one.

It's not strange at all. War on guns / middle-class / Constitution / patriotic Americans. Just more marxist, communist BS class warfare.

[BeAuMaN]

Originally Posted by P5Ret

Isn't it strange that DOJ is requiring all LE agencies to begin scrambling their radio coms, to prevent anyone with a scanner from getting any personal info on people, at the same time is freely releasing the same info, and more to college students? Who exactly is vetting the people getting the info? Oh I know no one.

There's two parts to that.

One, as for them "at the same time freely releasing the same info"... you have to understand the legislative history of the budget trailer for the research in AB-173. This was originally bill AB-1237, as introduced by Phil Ting. Why did Phil Ting introduce this bill? Because CA DoJ was refusing to turn over data when requested by the UC Davis California Firearm Violence Research Center. You can read the article to see how the CA DoJ has been denying them since 2017 apparently.

Secondly, as for oversight, there are controls in AB-173:

11106.(d) All information collected pursuant to this section shall be maintained by the department and shall be available to researchers affiliated with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis for academic and policy research purposes upon proper request and following approval by the center’s governing institutional review board when required. At the department’s discretion, and subject to Section 14240, information collected pursuant to this section may be provided to any other nonprofit bona fide research institution accredited by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation for the study of the prevention of violence and following approval by the institution’s governing institutional review board or human subjects committee when required. Material identifying individuals shall only be provided for research or statistical activities and shall not be transferred, revealed, or used for purposes other than research or statistical activities, and reports or publications derived therefrom shall not identify specific individuals. Reasonable costs to the department associated with the department’s processing of such data may be billed to the researcher. If a request for data or letter of support for research using the data is denied, the department shall provide a written statement of the specific reasons for the denial.

14240. (a) The Department of Justice shall establish procedures to implement subdivision (t) of Section 1798.24 of the Civil Code to provide materials relating to individuals for research related to firearm violence. These procedures shall include, but not be limited to, requests for data and timely review of requests. At the department’s discretion, the information may be provided to any nonprofit bona fide research institution accredited by the United States Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation for the purpose of studying the prevention of violence, following approval by the institution’s governing institutional review board or human subjects committee, when required.

(b) Material identifying individuals shall only be provided for research or statistical activities and shall not be revealed or used for purposes other than research or statistical activities. Reports or publications derived therefrom shall not identify specific individuals. Reasonable costs to the department associated with the department’s processing of the data may be billed to the researcher. If a request for data or letter of support for research using the data is denied, the department shall provide a written statement of the specific reasons for the denial.

The question is: Are those controls enough?

The complaint filed though seems to ask if this data, that was given only exclusively for use by law enforcement, should even shared without consent in the first place (especially given as a condition for exercising a right), and also asks whether these universities have proper data safety policies, or that they're prevented from sharing data with organizations that might endow one of these accredited institutions.

Hopefully that'll be enough to win.

[randomBytes]

Absolutely disgusting that such a bill is even contemplated

[pacrat]

BeAuMaN asked;

The question is: Are those controls enough?

Short answer ................ OH HELL NO!

following approval by the institution’s governing institutional review board or human subjects committee, when required.

The legislature giving UC Davis itself, supposed control. Over what US Davis wants from Gov. databases. Is nothing short of giving the fox the proverbial keys to the hen house.

Just like in NY under their FOIL. When the New York Journal News published every gun owners info in their paper for several counties.

[Dave Hill]

Originally Posted by P5Ret

Isn't it strange that DOJ is requiring all LE agencies to begin scrambling their radio coms, to prevent anyone with a scanner from getting any personal info on people, at the same time is freely releasing the same info, and more to college students? Who exactly is vetting the people getting the info? Oh I know no one.

Our politicians, government employees and the military are proving themselves the only enemy of the people in the U.S.A.

[Supersapper]

I'm trying to understand how the people who propose this type of bill possibly can be good under any circumstance.

When you pass garbage like this, how do people not see that the passage of just one of these makes it easy to pass others that could actually go against them at a later date in a different area.

I can only hope that the midterms will allow us more control over this silliness. I hold out hope for that because I recently saw an article where a bunch of teachers did a sick out because the local school board had 4 out of 7 seats up for grabs. And 4 conservative folks got them. A clean sweep. And they are rolling back some of the stupidity.

There's a ray of hope...

[Robotron2k84]

Update:

Preliminary injunction motion has been submitted. Response for dismissal also submitted by Bonta. Trial continues.

I don't have Pacer access for the motion for dismissal, so I can only link the PI motion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.26.0.pdf

.

[Robotron2k84]

Update:

Amended complaint filed.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.28.0.pdf

[skedguldo]

Originally Posted by P5Ret

Isn't it strange that DOJ is requiring all LE agencies to begin scrambling their radio coms, to prevent anyone with a scanner from getting any personal info on people

That's the cover story. The real reason is that government always seeks to minimize public scrutiny of itself while increasing their scrutiny of the public.

Now that technology makes it possible for police and fire departments to shield their communications from public scrutiny (and particularly from the press) they are taking advantage of that opportunity. It's as simple as that.

As is the case in any adversarial relationship or warfare, the perpetrator moves to prohibit the victim from exercising the same powers that the perpetrator exercises for themselves.

[Foothills]

Even the California Bar has data breaches.


https://www.latimes.com/california/s...blished-online

[Robotron2k84]

Update:

First motion to dismiss was rendered moot, due to the amended complaint filed. The trial judge has set April 5, 2022 at 10:00am as the hearing date for the dismissal against the amended complaint.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.35.0.pdf

[MajorSideburns]

Everybody knows the "research team" of activist students and professors will end up leaking the database as a form of cancel culture warfare on "the right" which will be used by woke employers and activists to harass and discriminate against political dissidents

[Robotron2k84]

On May 12th plaintiff's attorney filed a notice of supplementary authority concerning the recent decision in the 9th CA, re: Jones v. Bonta, arguing for strict scrutiny in this case, and Bonta replied on May 17th.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.44.0.pdf


Bonta’s response (no soup for you):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.46.0.pdf

[Robotron2k84]

Now that Bruen is out, movement again:

ORDER Directing Supplemental Briefing. Briefing from both Plaintiffs and Defendant is due by July 25, 2022. Briefs shall not exceed 20 pages. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/23/2022

[Robotron2k84]

Bumping for the numerous threads about CALDOJ doxing gun owners with their info portal.

[FourT6and2]

Yeah, it's kind of moot now that DOJ released all the info...

[Robotron2k84]

An amended complaint could seek to deny Bonta QI for his actions and go after him for releasing the data in a way that is conspiracy to violate civil rights.

[FourT6and2]

Yeah... especially if anybody can show damages from this. Like being fired from a job, being swatted, doxed, red flagged, etc.

[truthseeker]

If they are fine with leaking everyone else's info, then they should release their own info too!

Yeah because who cares if driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number is released?

No one can do anything with that, right?

[Robotron2k84]

NRA-ILA has a statement up about the leak and pertaining to this case.

Originally Posted by NRA-ILA

On Monday June 27, California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the launch of the California Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Firearms Dashboard Portal. The data tool was designed to give granular firearm transaction and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit holder data to anyone visiting the DOJ’s website. However, astute users quickly realized that the dashboard could be used to access the personally identifying information of California CCW holders - including date of birth, full name, and address.

Initial reports of the leak appeared on social media and on firearm enthusiast internet forums. According to several social media users, individuals were able to download all of the leaked personal information from the DOJ website – meaning this information is likely now in the public in perpetuity.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the California DOJ had removed the Firearms Dashboard Portal from its website.

However, on Tuesday an attorney for a firm that works with the NRA California state affiliate, California Rifle & Pistol Association, made clear that he had been provided with video evidence of the breach.

Likewise, firearm news outlet The Reload reported Tuesday that “[a] video reviewed by The Reload shows the databases with detailed information were initially available for download via a button on the website’s mapping feature.” Explaining some of the extent of the breach, The Reload item explained,

The Reload reviewed a copy of the Los Angeles County database and found 244 judge permits listed in the database. The files included the home addresses, full names, and dates of birth for all of them. The same was true for seven custodial officers, 63 people with a place of employment permit, and 420 reserve officers.

2,891 people in Los Angeles County with standard licenses also had their information compromised by the leak, though the database appears to include some duplicate entries as well.

NRA was independently contacted by a concerned California resident who provided the organization with an image containing some of the leaked information, including gun owners’ full names and dates of birth.

This breach of gun owner data comes as NRA is in litigation with California over gun owner privacy.

In September 2021, California enacted AB 173. This law allows for the disclosure of highly sensitive information, including a gun owner’s name, address, place of birth, phone number, occupation, driver’s license or ID number, race, sex, height, weight, hair color, eye color, and even their social security number and types of firearms that they own to universities and any “bona fide research institute.” In January, NRA filed suit in Doe v. Bonta to stop this attack on gun owner privacy.

During an April 5 hearing in the Doe v. Bonta case, the California DOJ acknowledged that there are civil remedies for the leak of the sensitive gun owner data at issue, and even the potential for criminal prosecution. The representative for the DOJ stated,

We acknowledge that the information is confidential. AB 173, I think, is quite clear that the information can’t be shared publicly. It’s our position that, if there is a disclosure, that those whose information is disclosed would have various remedies including – there might be criminal implications for someone who disclosed the information knowingly. There is civil remedies under various state laws. And so the information is confidential…

The court then asked about the DOJ’s understanding regarding the standard of proof necessary for obtaining a civil remedy for a state agency’s breach of confidential information. Both the court and the DOJ appeared to acknowledge that mere negligence in disclosing confidential information would give rise to a civil remedy.

NRA is monitoring the unfolding situation in California and will keep gun owners apprised of any further developments.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2022...permit-holders

I wonder how Judge Burns feels about his name and information being leaked, as he presides over this case?

[FourT6and2]

I would like to see the information that was leaked to know if my data was part of it. I would absolutely pursue civil/criminal action against any government party responsible.

[LBgunguy]

Originally Posted by FourT6and2

I would like to see the information that was leaked to know if my data was part of it. I would absolutely pursue civil/criminal action against any government party responsible.

agreed. I'm a gunowner in Los Angeles County although not a CCW holder. How can we find out if our information was leaked? this puts myself and my family at risk for sure

[gobler]

I can see it if every CalGun member joined in the lawsuit. CalGuns & people v Bonta

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[randomBytes]

Heads should literally roll over this, but we all know there will be no consequences for anyone on the left.

[El Toro]

Originally Posted by gobler

I can see it if every CalGun member joined in the lawsuit. CalGuns & people v Bonta

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

HELL YES!!!

[The Gleam]

Originally Posted by SkyHawk

CRPA analysis was a little disappointing especially in the conclusion regarding damages. I am hardly worried about identity theft being the damage from this new law. Identity theft is practically a given anymore, having already been leaked from hundreds of sources.

The real damage will come from gun owners addresses and details of their collection being leaked on the dark or even not-dark web.

Your post, from January, predicting the inevitable.

And here we are.

Apparently no dark web was needed. All that was required was a State AG with disdain and animosity for the 2nd Amendment and bias against law-abiding gun owners.

---

[Robotron2k84]

Plaintiffs are citing the leak to ask the court to reconsider the TRO or otherwise add to the record that the DOJ and Bonta at a minimum misled the court or outright lied under oath that plaintiff’s PII would be kept secure.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...24382.49.0.pdf