By Vanguard Staff
NEW YORK – The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has denied a sweeping discovery request that targeted a human rights organization, ruling that the effort would have violated constitutional protections and threatened the ability of civil society to continue its work.
The court rejected an application by Isaac Levi Pilant, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen sanctioned by the U.S. government for violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Pilant sought broad discovery from Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and its executive director Sarah Leah Whitson under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows foreign litigants to seek evidence in the United States for use in foreign proceedings.
Pilant’s request aimed to obtain internal records relating to DAWN’s advocacy that had led the U.S. government to impose sanctions on him. He indicated he wanted to use the material in a possible defamation case in Israel against the human rights organization Yesh Din.
In its ruling, the court adopted arguments advanced by DAWN and supported by an amicus brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights First. The court concluded that the requested discovery implicated information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter’s privilege, and that Pilant had failed to demonstrate any compelling interest to justify disclosure.
“The court’s decision affirms DAWN’s right to engage in research, reporting, and advocacy without coercive interference by people who disagree with its speech,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “NGOs [Non-Governmental Organizations] should never be forced to comply with this kind of abusive request, and this decision will allow human rights organizations’ work to continue providing accountability for human rights abuses.”
“This ruling confirms that foreign litigants cannot exploit our courts to silence NGOs that report on human rights abuses and advocate for accountability,” said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the NYCLU. “The Constitution protects organizations like DAWN from being forced to reveal confidential aspects of their work. The discovery process cannot sidestep the First Amendment — and we’re glad the court agrees.”
The court found that Pilant’s sweeping request would have violated “legally applicable privilege” under Section 1782 and emphasized that the First Amendment privilege “applies where disclosure implicates the exercise of fundamental speech, association, and petitioning rights.” It also pointed to the reporter’s privilege, noting that it “protects information relating to investigative reporting and newsgathering activities, including those conducted by human rights organizations like DAWN.”
The amicus brief filed by the ACLU, NYCLU, and Human Rights First warned that granting Pilant’s request would have “far-reaching consequences limiting how the U.S. government implements targeted human rights and corruption sanctions.” The organizations argued that disclosure “would severely undermine a crucial, statute-based feature of the U.S. government’s implementation of its human rights and corruption sanctions programs and put civil society actors at risk of serious, irreparable harm.”
The brief further argued that “forcing NGOs to disclose information related to their reporting to the U.S. government would chill this vital process and may put the organization, its employees, or others at undue risk.” It stressed that “granting requests of the sort Petitioner now makes would put civil society actors in jeopardy by forcing NGOs to disclose, for no legitimate reason, highly sensitive and confidential information about their investigations and advocacy.”
DAWN’s own public statements had identified Pilant as contributing to violence and instability in the West Bank. In response, the U.S. State Department sanctioned him for his participation in “an act of violence or threat of violence targeting civilians, affecting the West Bank.”
The court also noted that Pilant had failed to establish a rational connection between his claims of defamation and DAWN’s role. It found he “has not articulated a rational connection between Yesh Din, DAWN, and the U.S. government’s imposition of sanctions.”
The ruling emphasized that allowing such discovery would have undermined U.S. law and policy, which rely on NGOs to provide information to the government confidentially to help target sanctions. “Here, Petitioner’s request contravenes protective measures embedded in the U.S. government’s sanctions framework designed to encourage and facilitate NGO information-sharing with the Treasury and State Departments for the purposes of imposing targeted human rights and corruption sanctions,” the court stated.
By rejecting the application, the court reinforced the importance of shielding NGOs from coercive discovery efforts designed to intimidate or silence them. The decision affirms that U.S. courts cannot be used as tools for harassment by those seeking to retaliate against groups that document human rights abuses.
