Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT

U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18-cv-03359-LB

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al., Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act

Date Filed: 06/07/2018 Date Terminated: 08/10/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto

represented by Lisa Nicole Weissman Ward Immigrants' Rights Clinic Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 (650) 724-7396 Fax: (650) 723-4426 Email: lweissmanward@law.stanford.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jayashri Srikantiah Immigrants' Rights Clinic Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbot Way Stanford, CA 94305-8610 (650) 724-2442 Fax: (650) 723-4426 Email: jsrikantiah@law.stanford.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lori Stark DISABILITY RIGHTS

Plaintiff National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild
V. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security

CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 267-1200 Fax: (510) 267-1201 Email: jennifer.stark@disabilityrightsca.org TERMINATED: 07/11/2019
represented by Lisa Nicole Weissman Ward (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jayashri Srikantiah (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Lori Stark (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/11/2019
represented by Kenneth Warren Brakebill U.S. Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 95102 415-436-7167 Email: kenneth.brakebill@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Falk U.S. Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue 11th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102 415-436-7022 Fax: 415-436-6748 TERMINATED: 07/19/2019

Defendant
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Savith Iyengar United States Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue Ninth Floor, Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 436-7018 Fax: (415) 436-6748 Email: savith.iyengar@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 09/16/2019
represented by Kenneth Warren Brakebill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rebecca Ann Falk (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2019
Savith Iyengar (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2019

Date Filed

# Docket Text

06/07/201 1 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

8

UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552;

against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-12415195.).

Filed byCommunity Legal Services in East Palo Alto, National Immigration

Project of the National Lawyers Guild. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil

Cover Sheet)(Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/7/2018) Modified on 6/8/2018

(aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/201 2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. 8
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 6/21/2018. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/201 3 Proposed Summons. (Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered:

8

06/07/2018)

06/07/201 4 Certificate of Interested Entities by Community Legal Services in East Palo

8

Alto, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (Stark,

Jennifer) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/07/2018)

06/07/201 8

Electronic filing error. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 1 Complaint, filed by National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guil d, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto Defendant Parties Entered Incorrectly (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/07/201 5 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case

8

Management Statement due by 8/30/2018. Initial Case Management

Conference set for 9/6/2018 11:00 AM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel

Beeler on 6/7/18. (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered:

06/08/2018)

06/08/201 6 Summons Issued as to United States Department of Homeland Security,

8

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (aaaS, COURT

STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2018) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/08/201 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Community Legal Services in East Palo

8

Alto, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (Stark,

Jennifer) (Filed on 6/8/2018) (Entered: 06/08/2018)

06/25/201 8 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Plaintiffs shall file a

8

consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any

party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge

without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at:

http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 7/9/2018.

(ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/25/2018) (Entered: 06/25/2018)

06/27/201 9 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by

8

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, National Immigration Project

of the National Lawyers Guild.. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of

Service)(Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 6/27/2018) (Entered: 06/27/2018)

07/11/201 10 Defendants' ANSWER to Complaint byUnited States Department of

8

Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(Falk, Rebecca) (Filed on 7/11/2018) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/11/201 11 CLERK'S NOTICE Re: Consent or Declination: Defendants shall file a

8

consent or declination to proceed before a magistrate judge. Note that any

party is free to withhold consent to proceed before a magistrate judge

without adverse substantive consequences. The forms are available at:

http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. Consent/Declination due by 7/25/2018.

(ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2018) (Entered: 07/11/2018)

07/18/201 12 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by

8

United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration

and Customs Enforcement.. (Falk, Rebecca) (Filed on 7/18/2018) (Entered:

07/18/2018)

08/13/201 13 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Stark,

8

Jennifer) (Filed on 8/13/2018) (Entered: 08/13/2018)

08/15/201 14 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Falk,

8

Rebecca) (Filed on 8/15/2018) (Entered: 08/15/2018)

08/27/201 8

Set/Reset Hearing Initial Case Management Conference set for 9/27/2018 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom C, 15th Floor.

The court has a scheduling conflict with the 9/6/2018 initial CMC and resets it to 9/27/2018 at 11:00 a.m. The parties must file their initial CMC statement at least seven days before the conference.

(Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

09/18/201 15 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re Set/Reset Hearings, filed by

8

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, National Immigration Project

of the National Lawyers Guild. (Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 9/18/2018)

(Entered: 09/18/2018)

09/18/201 16 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 15 Stipulation to

8

Continue Case Management Conference.

Initial Case Management Conference previously set for 9/27/2018 is reset to 12/13/2018 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 12/6/2018. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2018) (Entered: 09/18/2018)

11/19/201 17 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

8

CONFERENCE: The court has a calendar conflict and thus moves the

12/13/2018 calendar to 12/14/2018. This does not alter the due date for any case filings.

Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/14/2018 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2018) (Entered: 11/19/2018)

12/04/201 18 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO CONTINUE CASE

8

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE filed by United States Department of

Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(Falk, Rebecca) (Filed on 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

12/05/201 19 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

8

TIME: Initial Case Management Conference set for 12/14/2018 at 11:00 AM

is reset to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2018) (Entered:

12/05/2018)

12/05/201 20 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 18 Stipulation to

8

Continue Case Management Conference.

Initial Case Management Conference, previously set for 12/14/2018, is reset to 2/14/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 2/7/2019. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2018) (Entered: 12/05/2018)

02/06/201 21 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9

TIME: The court advances the start time of the CMC set for 2/14/2019 from

11:00 to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-

only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this

entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2019) (Entered: 02/06/2019)

02/07/201 22 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Community Legal

9

Services in East Palo Alto, National Immigration Project of the National

Lawyers Guild. (Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 2/7/2019) (Entered: 02/07/2019)

02/14/201 23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Laurel

9

Beeler: Initial Case Management Conference held on 2/14/2019.

Further Case Management Conference set for 4/18/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 4/11/2019.

Total Time in Court: 2 minutes. Not Reported.

Plaintiffs' Attorney: Jennifer Stark. Defendants' Attorney: Rebecca Falk. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/14/2019) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

03/26/201 24 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 4/18/2019 at 11:00 AM

is reset to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2019) (Entered:

03/26/2019)

04/02/201 25 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

9

CONFERENCE: The court has a scheduling conflict and resets the further

CMC from 4/18/2019 to 4/25/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco,

Courtroom B, 15th Floor. The parties' joint CMC statement remains due on

4/11/2019.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document

associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/2/2019)

(Entered: 04/02/2019)

04/03/201 26 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 4/25/2019 at 11:00 AM

is reset to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2019) (Entered:

04/03/2019)

04/11/201 27 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Community Legal Services

9

in East Palo Alto, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers

Guild. (Stark, Jennifer) (Filed on 4/11/2019) (Entered: 04/11/2019)

04/11/201 28 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

9

CONFERENCE: Further Case Management Conference previously set for

4/25/2019 is reset to 6/27/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom

B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 6/20/2019. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2019) (Entered:

04/11/2019)

04/15/201 29 CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING CASE MANAGEMENT

9

CONFERENCE DATE: Further Case Management Conference previously

set for 6/27/2019 is advanced to 6/20/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco,

Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 6/13/2019. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2019) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

06/12/201 30 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by United States Department

9

of Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs

Enforcement. (Falk, Rebecca) (Filed on 6/12/2019) (Entered: 06/12/2019)

06/13/201 31 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

9

CONFERENCE: Further Case Management Conference previously set for

6/20/2019 is reset to 8/22/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom

B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 8/15/2019. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2019) (Entered:

06/13/2019)

07/11/201 32 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Lisa Nicole Weissman

9

Ward (Weissman Ward, Lisa) (Filed on 7/11/2019) (Entered: 07/11/2019)

07/19/201 33 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Savith Iyengar (Iyengar, Savith)

9

(Filed on 7/19/2019) (Entered: 07/19/2019)

08/08/201 34 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Continuing Further Case

9

Management Conference filed by United States Department of Homeland

Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Savith Iyengar)(Iyengar, Savith) (Filed on

8/8/2019) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

08/08/201 35 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 34 Stipulation

9

Continuing Further Case Management Conference.

Further Case Management Conference previously set for 8/22/2019 is reset to 10/17/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 10/10/2019. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2019) (Entered: 08/08/2019)

09/16/201 36 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kenneth Warren

9

Brakebill (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed on 9/16/2019) (Entered: 09/16/2019)

10/09/201 37 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 10/17/2019 at 11:00

AM is reset to 11:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This

is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated

with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2019) (Entered:

10/09/2019)

10/09/201 38 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management

9

Statement filed by United States Department of Homeland Security, United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed

on 10/9/2019) (Entered: 10/09/2019)

10/10/201 39 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT

9

CONFERENCE: Further Case Management Conference previously set for

10/17/2019 is reset to 11/14/2019 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom

B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 11/7/2019. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/10/2019) (Entered:

10/10/2019)

10/15/201 40 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 11/14/2019 at 11:00

AM is reset to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is

a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated

with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/15/2019) (Entered:

10/15/2019)

11/07/201 41 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management

9

Statement filed by United States Department of Homeland Security, United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed

on 11/7/2019) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

11/07/201 42 CLERK'S NOTICE. Per the parties' joint request, ECF No. 41 , the court

9

vacates the 11/14/2019 case-management conference and directs the parties

to submit a further update by 12/12/2019. As a calendaring device, the court

also sets a further case-management conference for 12/19/2019 at 11:00

a.m. (If the conference turns out to be unnecessary, the parties can submit a

stipulation to continue or vacate it.) (This is a text-only entry generated by

the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (lblc1S, COURT

STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2019) (Entered: 11/07/2019)

12/12/201 43 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Managment

9

Statement filed by United States Department of Homeland Security, United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed

on 12/12/2019) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/12/201 44 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 43 Case Management

9

Statement Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Case Management

Hearing filed by United States Department of Homeland Security, United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed

on 12/12/2019) (Entered: 12/12/2019)

12/13/201 45 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 44 Stipulation

9

Regarding Case Management Hearing.

The case management conference previously set for 12/19/2019 is vacated. To avoid losing track of the case, the court sets a Status Conference for 2/20/2020 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler. Status update due by 2/13/2020. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2019) (Entered: 12/13/2019)

02/03/202 46 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

0

TIME: Status Conference set for 2/20/2020 at 11:00 AM is reset to 9:30

AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a text-only entry

generated by the court. There is no document associated with this

entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2020) (Entered: 02/03/2020)

02/13/202 47 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 46 Clerk's Notice, filed by

0

United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration

and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed on 2/13/2020)

(Entered: 02/13/2020)

02/14/202 48 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 47 Stipulation

0

Regarding Case Management Hearing.

The case management conference previously set for 2/20/2020 is vacated. To avoid losing track of the case, the court sets a Case Management Conference for 4/23/2020 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor and directs the filing of a stipulated dismissal or a short update by 2/13/2020. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/14/2020) (Entered: 02/14/2020)

03/18/202 49 CLERK'S NOTICE RE: CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE /

0

MOTION HEARING: Through at least May 1, 2020, the court (under the

new General Orders 72 and 73, available

at https://cand.uscourts.gov/notices/information-regarding-covid-19) will

not have any in-person civil case-management conferences or civil-motions

hearings and instead will have telephonic appearances or decide the matters

on the papers. For now, the court is converting all appearances to telephone

appearances but may on a case-by-case basis take things off calendar. For

motions hearings, the court is open to hearings by Skype for Business or

Google Hangouts (and may be able to use Zoom eventually). Telephonic

appearances generally are by CourtCall, but the court also circulates the

following conference number, which can accommodate up to 200 people and

allow the equivalent of a public hearing by telephone:

Dial In: 877-336-1839 Access Code: 8191201# Security Code: 200423#

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2020) (Entered: 03/18/2020)

03/19/202 50 CLERK'S NOTICE RE: UPDATED CALL-IN INFORMATION FOR

0

CMC/MOTION HEARING: The court circulates the following conference

number to allow the equivalent of a public hearing by telephone:

Dial In: 877-336-1839 Access Code: 8191201#

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2020) (Entered: 03/19/2020)

04/03/202 51 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

0

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 4/23/2020 at 11:00 AM

is reset to 9:30 AM.

Dial In: 877-336-1839 Access Code: 8191201#

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2020) (Entered: 04/03/2020)

04/10/202 52 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 51 Clerk's

0

Notice, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING

EXTENSION filed by United States Department of Homeland Security,

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth)

(Filed on 4/10/2020) (Entered: 04/10/2020)

04/13/202 53 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 52 Stipulation

0

Regarding Extension.

Further Case Management Conference previously set for 4/23/2020 is

reset to 6/4/2020 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th

Floor and directs the filing of a stipulated dismissal or a short update by

5/28/2020. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2020) (Entered:

04/13/2020)

05/11/202 54 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT

0

CONFERENCE TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for

6/4/2020 at 11:00 AM is reset to 9:30 AM. (This is a text-only entry

generated by the court. There is no document associated with this

entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2020) (Entered: 05/11/2020)

05/26/202 55 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING FOR CASE

0

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET FOR 6/4/2020 at 9:30 AM.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar.

Pre-registration by counsel with the clerk in advance of the hearing must be done by sending a list of names of participating counsel to lbcrd@cand.uscourts.gov no later than noon on Wednesday, June 3, 2020.

All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83372151690?pwd=SUR5OUtVbGpTdVdQNGk 4ZHJVaW1xQT09

Meeting ID: 833 7215 1690 Password: 469885

Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 215 8782 US +1 301 715 8592 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

For important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associate d with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2020) (Entered: 05/26/2020)

05/27/202 56 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Extension filed by

0

United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Immigration

and Customs Enforcement. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed on 5/27/2020) (Entered: 05/27/2020)

05/28/202 57 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 56 Stipulation

0

Regarding Extension.

Further Case Management Conference previously set for 6/4/2020 is reset to 7/16/2020 at 11:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 7/9/2020. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2020) (Entered: 05/28/2020)

05/28/202 58 CLERK'S NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

0

TIME: Further Case Management Conference set for 7/16/2020 at 11:00 AM

is reset to 9:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom B, 15th Floor. (This is a

text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with

this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/28/2020) (Entered:

05/28/2020)

07/07/202 59 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Further Case

0

Management Conference set for 7/16/2020 at 9:30 AM.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar.

PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.

Case participants may also receive an email invitation from the court with different information which should be followed.

All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar:

https://canduscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1614698626?pwd=eXlQRThFajBjT0tieVBaYWpj MjFodz09

Meeting ID: 161 469 8626 Password: 546984

Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)

+1 253 215 8782 US +1 301 715 8592 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

For important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.

(Related documents(s) 58 ) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associate d with this entry.) (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2020) (Entered: 07/07/2020)

07/08/202 60 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING AND RESETTING

0

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Further Case Management

Conference previously set for 7/16/2020 is rest to 7/30/2020 at 9:30 AM.

Case Management Statement due by 7/23/2020.

For Zoom connection, see: https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/telhrg/

This proceeding will be a Zoom video conferencing webinar.

PLEASE NOTE: Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited. See General Order 58 at Paragraph III.

Case participants may also receive an email invitation from the court with different information which should be followed.

All counsel, members of the public and press please click the link or use the information below to join the webinar:

https://canduscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1614698626?pwd=eXlQRThFajBjT0tieVBaYWpj MjFodz09

Meeting ID: 161 469 8626 Password: 546984

Dial by your location +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 215 8782 US +1 301 715 8592 US

+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo
For important information and guidance on technical preparation, please see https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.
(ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2020) (Entered: 07/08/2020)

07/23/202 61 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Resolution of Fees

0

Issue and Stipulated Dismissal filed by United States Department of

Homeland Security, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed on 7/23/2020) (Entered: 07/23/2020)

07/24/202 62 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting as

0

modified 61 Stipulation Regarding Resolution of Fees Issue and

Stipulated Dismissal. Further Case Management Conference set for

8/27/2020 at 9:30 a.m. by video conference before Magistrate Judge

Laurel Beeler.(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2020) (Entered:

07/24/2020)

08/07/202 63 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by United States

0

Department of Homeland Security. (Brakebill, Kenneth) (Filed on 8/7/2020)

(Entered: 08/07/2020)

08/10/202 64 Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granting 63 Stipulation of

0

Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice. (ejkS, COURT STAFF) (Filed

on 8/10/2020) (Entered: 08/10/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

04/18/2021 17:34:48

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

9

Cost:

Simeck
3:18-cv03359-LB
0.90

 
 Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 1 of 18

JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH (CA Bar No. 189556) JENNIFER STARK (CA Bar No. 267062) IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS CLINIC Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, California 94305-8610 Telephone: (650) 724-2442 Facsimile: (650) 723-4426 jsrikantiah@ law.stanford.edu j stark@law.stanford.edu
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Community Legal Services in ast Palo Alto and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

(San Francisco Division)

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN EAST PALO ALTO and NATIONAL IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 2 of 18

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), the agency

3 within the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") that is charged with the investigation and

4 enforcement ofthe immigration laws (collectively, "Defendants"), is improperly withholding

5 records pertaining to the Trump administration's immigration prosecutorial discretion policies

6 and practices. Plaintiffs Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto ("CLSEPA") and the

7 National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild ("NIPNLG") (collectively,

8 "Plaintiffs"), bring this action under the Freedom oflnformation Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., as

9 amended ("FOIA"). Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring Defendants to respond to a FOIA

10 request that Plaintiffs sent on March 2, 2017 (the "Request"), and to search for and disclose the

11 requested records, as well as other appropriate relief.

12

2. Prosecutorial discretion-the authority of an agency or an officer to decide to

13 what degree to enforce a law against a particular individual-has long been a key component of

14 Defendants' immigration enforcement strategy. Since January 20, 2017, however, immigration

15 attorneys and the public have received information suggesting a change in Defendants'

16 prosecutorial discretion policies. In practice, Defendants appear to have abolished virtually all

17 use of prosecutorial discretion. Even though these changes potentially affect hundreds of

18 thousands of people, Defendants have been unwilling to disclose publicly their current

19 prosecutorial policies and procedures. Defendants' lack of transparency around this issue has

20 caused profound fear, anxiety, and hardship throughout immigrant communities across the

21 country.

22

3. Plaintiffs sent Defendants the Request on March 2, 2017, to address the lack of

23 public knowledge and growing public concern about Defendants' prosecutorial discretion

24 procedures. The Request sought records dated on or after January 20, 2017, pertaining to

25 Defendants' prosecutorial discretion policies and practices. A true and correct copy of the

26 Request is attached as Exhibit A.

27

28

1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 3 of 18

1

4. More than a year has passed since Plaintiffs' Request. Defendants have failed to

2 respond to Plaintiffs' FOIA request in a timely manner, failed to conduct a reasonable search for

3 the requested records, and failed to produce any records responsive to Plaintiffs' Request.

4 Because there is a compelling and urgent need to inform the public about Defendants'

5 prosecutorial discretion policies and practices, Plaintiffs are compelled to file suit.

6

JURISDICTION, VENUE & INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal

8 jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B). This Court also has subject

9 matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 5 U.S.C. § 701-706.

10

6. Venue is proper in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), because CLSEPA

11 has its principal place of business in this district. Venue is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e),

12 because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this

13 district.

14

7. Assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper pursuant to Civil Local Rule

15 3-2(c) and (d), because a substantial portion ofthe events giving rise to this action occurred in

16 San Mateo County, where PlaintiffCLSEPA is headquartered.

17

PARTIES

18

8.

CLSEPA is a non-profit organization that provides legal assistance to low-income

19 immigrants in and around East Palo Alto, where two-thirds of the population is Latino or Pacific

20 Islander. The immigration team provides consultations to and represents local residents in many

21 aspects of immigration law. In an effort to teach local immigrants their rights and

22 responsibilities, CLSEPA gives presentations at a number of venues in the area. Also, its recently

23 established Immigrants' Project was created to protect the civil rights of immigrant community

24 members through policy advocacy and litigation, when necessary.

25

9. NIPNLG is a national non-profit membership organization of immigration

26 attorneys, legal workers, grassroots advocates, and others working to defend immigrants' rights.

27 NIPNLG provides technical and litigation assistance, participates in impact litigation, advocates

28 2
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 4 of 18

1 for fair and just policies and legislation, and provides legal training to the bar and the bench. One

2 ofNIPNLG's primary activities is disseminating information to the public. NIPNLG regularly

3 publishes practice advisories and community resources on immigration topics that it

4 disseminates to its members and a large public audience through its website.

5

10. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security is a federal agency

6 within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f), and is tasked with, among other things, administering

7 and enforcing the federal immigration laws. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement is

8 an agency within DHS that has long had prosecutorial discretion and the ability to exercise it in

9 the ordinary course of enforcement. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that DHS and ICE have

10 the requested records in their possession, custody, or control.

11 FACTS
12

13 I.
14

UNTIL RECENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ABIDED BY THE LONG-STANDING PRACTICE OF EMPLOYING PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION·IN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT

15

11. Prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context refers to the decision

16 Defendant DHS makes about whether to enforce the civil immigration laws against a person or a

17 group of people. Defendants' officers have the power to exercise discretion when they decide

18 whom to stop, question, and arrest; how and whether to initiate removal; whether to grant

19 voluntary departure; and whether to detain a non-citizen in custody. Defendants' attorneys

20 exercise discretion when they decide whether and how to settle or dismiss a removal proceeding,

21 or whether to appeal a decision rendered by an immigration judge. !d.

22

12. Until the Trump Administration, the federal government exercised prosecutorial

23 discretion in immigration cases regularly. During the 1960s, Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower

24 and John F. Kennedy exercised discretion when they allowed certain undocumented Cubans to

25 remain in the United States after the 1958 revolution on the island. See generally Press Release,

26 America's Voice, Trump's America: "'Open Season' on Immigrants as Discretion Fades" (Dec.

27 12, 2017), https://americasvoice.org/press_releases/under-trump-discretion-fades/. In 1990,

28 3
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 5 of 18

1 President George H.W. Bush authorized deportation deferrals for undocumented spouses and

2 children ofU.S. citizens. Id.

3

13. More recently, the Obama administration directed DHS employees to prioritize

4 for enforcement the removal of certain categories of noncitizens considered to be particularly

5 dangerous, and to exercise prosecutorial discretion for other noncitizens with positive equities.

6 See, e.g., Memorandum from John Morton, ICE Dir., on Civil Enforcement: Priorities for the

7 Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (Mar. 02, 2011) ("Morton Memo");

8 Memorandum of Jeh Johnson, DHS Sec'y, on Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and

9 Removal of Undocumented Immigrants (Nov. 20, 2014) ("2014 Johnson Memo"). These

10 positive equities included, but were not limited to: longtime residence in the United States;

11 family or community ties in the United States; service in the U.S. armed forces; involvement in

12 civil or criminal proceedings as a victim, witness, or plaintiff; length of time since a criminal

13 conviction, and other "compelling humanitarian factors," such as pregnancy, age, poor health, or

14 having a young child or seriously ill relative. See Johnson Memo at 6. The Obama administration

15 also directed DHS employees to exercise prosecutorial discretion in cases involving individuals

16 who were brought to the United States as children and did not pose a threat to national security

17 or public safety, as well as for parents of children who were U.S. citizens or lawful permanent

18 residents. See Memorandum of Janet Napolitano, DHS Sec'y, on Exercising Prosecutorial

19 Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children (Jun. 15,

20 2012); see also Memorandum of Jeh Johnson, DHS Sec'y, on Exercising Prosecutorial

21 Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with

22 Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents

23 (Nov. 20, 2014).

24

14. The Trump administration upended prior federal administrations' prosecutorial

25 discretion practices and policies quickly after President Trump took office. On January 25, 2017,

26 President Trump signed an Executive Order, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the

27

28 4
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 6 of 18

1 United States," announcing a massive expansion in interior immigration enforcement. Exec.

2 Order No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017).

3

15. On February 20, 2017, then DHS Secretary John F. Kelly issued a memorandum

4 implementing the Executive Order. See Memorandum of John Kelly, DHS Sec'y, on

5 Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Feb. 20, 2017) ("Kelly

6 Memorandum").

7

16. The Kelly Memorandum rescinds all prior prosecutorial discretion "directives,

8 memoranda, [and] field guidance" and specifically states that it will "no longer exempt classes or

9 categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement."1 Id. at 2, 4. Instead, the Kelly

10 Memorandum states that any exercise of prosecutorial discretion will be made on a case-by-case

11 basis. The memo does not specify what, if any, criteria are to be used when making such an

12 individualized determination.

13 11. 14

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO PUBLICLY RELEASE RECORDS AFTER INSTITUTING SWEEPING CHANGES TO IMMIGRATION PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION POLICIES UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION

15

16

17. More than a year has passed since the Kelly Memorandum. Defendants still have

17 not provided the public with crucial records about Defendants' new prosecutorial policies and

18 practices.

19

18. Despite the Kelly Memorandum's representation that "[t]he General Counsel

20 shall issue guidance" consistent with principles set forth in the memo concerning prosecutorial

21 discretion "to all attorneys involved in immigration proceedings," Kelly Memorandum at 4

22 (emphasis added), Defendants still have not made any such guidance available to the public.

23

24

25
26 1 The only exception to this policy change pertains to the two memos related to children who were brought to the United States as children and parents of children who are U.S. citizens or
27 lawful permanent residents.
28 5
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 7 of 18

1

19. Defendants also have not explained to the public how they will interpret the Kelly

2 memorandum's instruction that DHS personnel "shall" enforce immigration laws against "all

3 removable aliens." See id. at 2 (emphasis added).

4

20. While the Kelly Memorandum expressly anticipates that the Directors of ICE,

5 Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may need to

6 "issue further guidance" in order to "allocate appropriate resources to prioritize enforcement

7 activities" among several broad, indeterminate categories of noncitizens listed within the memo,

8 id., Defendants have yet to issue any such guidance publicly.

9

21. Without any clear guidance on prosecutorial discretion, the Kelly Memorandum

10 appears to endorse a system in which virtually all individuals appear equally likely to face

11 deportation, regardless of their age, their community ties, the length of time they have been in

12 the U.S., or the hardship likely to result to U.S. citizens- such as their children- if they are

13 removed.

14 III. 15

THE PUBLIC AND IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES HAVE AN URGENT NEED TO KNOW DEFENDANTS' CURRENT PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION POLICIES AND PRACTICES

16

17

22. Defendants' failure to publicly disclose information about the Trump

18 administration's prosecutorial discretion policies has caused profound uncertainty among

19 immigrant communities and the public.

20

23. Despite the Kelly Memorandum's representation that prosecutorial discretion will

21 continue to be exercised in certain cases, Defendants appear to have largely abolished

22 prosecutorial discretion in practice. According to a recent report by the Transactional Records

23 Access Clearinghouse ("TRAC"), "[d]uring the first five months of the Trump Administration[,]

24 prosecutorial discretion closures precipitously dropped to fewer than 100 per month from an

25 average of around 2,400 per month during the same five month period in 2016." TRAC,

26 Immigration Court Dispositions Drop 9.3 Percent Under Trump (July 17, 2017),

27 http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/474.

28

6

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 8 of 18

1

24. Since the beginning of 2017, when the Trump administration rescinded all prior

2 guidance on prosecutorial discretion, "immigration arrests [have increased] by more than 40

3 percent ...." Vivian Yee, A Marriage Used to Prevent Deportation. Not Anymore, N.Y. Times

4 (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/us/immigration-marriage-green-

5 card.html. These arrests include many people who "ICE agents ... once allowed ... to stay in the

6 country," including individuals with prior deportation orders who are married to U.S. citizens or

7 have other means of adjusting their legal status, such as through a parent or adult child. !d.

8

25. Because there do not appear to be consistent policies among ICE's field offices,

9 even periodic "check-ins" with Defendants, which used to be an "uneventful ritual" for

10 individuals who weren't considered a priority for deportation, now appear more like a game of

11 "roulette." Liz Robbins, Once Routine, Immigration Check-Ins Are Now High Stakes, N.Y.

12 Times, (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/nyregion/ice-immigration-check-

13 in-deportation.html?mtrref=www.google.com.

14

26. For example, Jorge Garcia was recently deported to Mexico after 30 years of

15 living in the United States. Niraj Warikoo, After 30 years in US., Michigan dad deported to

16 Mexico, Detroit Free Press (Jan. 15, 2018), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/

17 michigan/wayne/2018/01/15/jorge-garcia-daca-deported-mexico-immigration/1033296001/. He

18 left behind his wife and two young children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. !d. Brought to the

19 United States at age 10, Jorge had no criminal record- not even a traffic ticket- and was

20 repeatedly granted stays of deportation during the Obama administration. Id; Niraj Warikoo, In a

21 strange land: Deportedfrom Michigan, Jorge Garcia feels lost in Mexico, Detroit Free Press

22 (Feb. 4, 20 18), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/20 18/02/04/jorge-garcias-

23 mexico/1081266001/. Suddenly, in November 2017- after nearly a decade's worth of stays of

24 removal- Defendant ICE detained Jorge at his regular check-in and then ordered him removed,

25 leaving his children to fend for themselves without their father. In the words of Mr. Garcia's

26 wife, "It's a nightmare, coming to life," Niraj Warikoo, After 30 years in US., Michigan dad

27

28

7

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 9 of 18

1 deported to Mexico, Detroit Free Press (Jan. 15, 2018), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/

2 michigan/wayne/20 18/0 1/15/jorge-garcia-daca-deported-mexico-immigration/1 03 3296001/.

3

27. Immigration attorneys also report that DHS is moving tore-calendar proceedings

4 that were previously administratively closed, sometimes for many years. Administrative closure

5 resulted from prior prosecutorial discretion decisions. See, e.g., Aaron Reichlin-Melnick,

6 Administrative Closure and Motions to Recalendar, American Immigration Council (2017), at 8,

7 https ://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/practice_advisory/practice_advis

8 ory_administrative_closure_and_motions_to_recalendar.pdf. DHS is likely to recalendar

9 additional cases that were previously administratively closed in light of the recent decision by

10 Attorney General Sessions to declare that immigration judges do not have general authority to

11 administratively close cases. See Matter ofCastro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018); see

12 generally Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Sessions Ends Administrative Closure at the Expense ofDue

13 Process in Immigration Court, American Immigration Council

14 (http://immigrationimpact.com/2018/05/18/sessions-administrative-closure-immigration-court/).

15 Approximately 350,000 cases that are currently administratively closed may soon be

16 recalendared. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, Sessions Ends Administrative Closure at the Expense of

17 Due Process in Immigration Court, American Immigration Council

18 (http:l/immigrationimpact.com/2018/05/18/sessions-administrative-closure-immigration-court/).

19 Even individuals who have not been to court in decades now live in risk that their immigration

20 cases will be re-calendared at any time.

21

28. Without clear information about Defendants' prosecutorial discretion policies,

22 attorneys and advocates for immigrants do not know how to advise clients and community

23 members. Liz Robbins, Once Routine, Immigration Check-Ins Are Now High Stakes, N.Y.
\
24 Times, (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/nyregion/ice-immigration-check-

25 in-deportation.html?mtrref=www.google.com. '"Every immigration lawyer in the U.S. has this

26 uncertainty with clients now."' !d.

27

28

8

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 10 of 18

1

29. The lack of clarity over this administration's prosecutorial discretion policies has,

2 for many non-citizens, created a "sort of ... Sophie's choice of remaining in the shadows,

3 without formal immigration status,' or hazarding arrest."' Vivian Yee, A Marriage Used to

4 Prevent Deportation. Not Anymore, N.Y. Times (Apr. 19, 2018),

5 https://www.nytimes.com/20 18/04/19/us/immigration-marriage-green-card.html. Even

6 individuals who are eligible to adjust their status legally are now too afraid to move forward with

7 their applications because the risks seem too high. !d.

8

30. In the face of Defendants' total lack of transparency regarding their prosecutorial

9 discretion policies and practices, immigrants also fear arrest and deportation in the course of the

10 routine exercise of their most basic civil and labor rights. Previously, the 2014 Johnson Memo

11 directed Defendants to consider one's "status as a victim, witness or plaintiff in civil or criminal

12 proceedings," when deciding whether to exercise prosecutorial discretion. See Johnson Memo at

13 6. Since the Kelly Memo rescinded this guidance, non-citizens who seek to protect their

14 fundamental rights now do not know whether they risk being placed in removal proceedings as

15 retaliation.

16

31. Defendants' lack of transparency surrounding their prosecutorial discretion

17 policies causes significant emotional hardship and stress to thousands of immigrant families

18 across California and the country. As but one example, Ernesto Perez, who has lived with his

19 family in San Jose since 2003, now warns his four children that immigration agents could come

20 in the middle of the night and "take us away." Julia Prodis Sulek, Fearing ICE raids, San Jose

21 fath er tells children: 'Be prepared to be alone,' Mercury News (Jan. 27, 2018),

22 https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/27/fearing-ice-raids-san-jose-father-tells-children-be-

23 prepared-to-be-alone/. Only one of the four Perez children is a U.S. citizen, so deportation would

24 not only uproot the Perez family from their home, but also tear them apart. /d. No one in the

25 Perez family has a criminal record, Ernesto's three daughters are still in school, and both Ernesto

26 and his son work full-time. A hard-working, law-abiding family was not an enforcement priority

27 under the Obama administration, but now the youngest Perez daughter is scared even to walk

28

9

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 11 of 18

1 home from school each day. In the absence of guidance regarding Defendants' new prosecutorial

2 discretion practices, seventeen-year-old Cristina Perez has no idea whether ICE will "send [her]

3 away to where [she] came from." /d.

4

32. Non-citizens and immigration attorneys are not the only people affected by the

5 lack of transparency surrounding Defendants' prosecutorial discretion policies and practices.

6 This is an issue of public interest as it affects whole communities, U.S. citizens and non-citizens

7 alike. "The uncertain climate has [even] led to a new trend: spirited protests by advocates, clergy

8 and city officials ...." Liz Robbins, Once Routine, Immigration Check-Ins Are Now High Stakes,

9 N.Y. Times, (Apr. 11, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/nyregion/ice-immigration-

10 check-in-deportation.html?mtrref=www.google.com.

11

33. Plaintiffs' FOIA request was designed to address the public's substantial and

12 growing worry about the lack of publicly available information about Defendants' new

13 prosecutorial discretion policies and practices. Immigrant communities and the general public

14 have expressed an urgent need for knowledge about the Trump administration's immigration

15 priorities. See, e.g., id., Vivian Yee, A Marriage Used to Prevent Deportation. Not Anymore,

16 N.Y. Times (Apr. 19, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/19/us/immigration-marriage-

17 green-card.html.

18 IV.
19
20

PLAINTIFFS SUBMITTED A FOIA REQUEST TO DEFENDANTS FOR RECORDS REGARDING DEFENDANTS' PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION POLICIES BECAUSE OF THE INTENSE PUBLIC INTEREST

21

34. On March 2, 2017, pursuant to the Freedom oflnformation Act, 5 U.S.C. §552,

22 Plaintiffs sent Defendants the Request seeking records dated on or after January 20, 2017, the

23 date of President Trump's inauguration, pertaining to Defendants' prosecutorial discretion

24 policies and practices. See Ex. A.

25

35. The Request reasonably and specifically described the records Plaintiffs sought,

26 which are not otherwise publicly available. After defining the terms used, Plaintiffs requested

27 recorqs prepared, received, transmitted, collected, and/or maintained by ICE: (1) that reference

28

10

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 12 of 18

1 the term "prosecutorial discretion" or that refer to prosecutorial discretion policies and practices 2 dated on or after January 20, 2017; and (2) all correspondence dated on or after January 20, 3 2017, between ICE headquarters (including Enforcement and Removal Operations ("ERO") and 4 Office of Chief Counsel ("OCC") headquarters) and ICE field offices anywhere in the country 5 that contain the term "prosecutorial discretion" or that refer to prosecutorial discretion policies

6 and practices. Ex. A at 2.

7

36. Plaintiffs further requested all records dated on or after January 20, 2017, that

8 reference (by name or content) at least one of the following prosecutorial discretion memoranda:

9

• Memorandum from Doris Meissner, Comm'r, Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.

10

("INS"), on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion (Nov. 17, 2000);

11

• Memorandum from Bo Cooper, INS, on Motions to Reopen for Consideration of

12

Adjustment of Status (May 17, 2001);

13

• Memorandum from William J. Howard, ICE Principal Legal Advisor, on

14

Prosecutorial Discretion (Oct. 24, 2005);

15

• Memorandum from Julie L. Myers, ICE Assistant Sec'y, on Prosecutorial and

16

Custody Determination (Nov. 7, 2007);

17

• Memorandum from John Morton, ICE Dir. on Civil Immigration Enforcement, on

18

Priorities for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Aliens (Mar. 2, 2011);

19

• Memorandum from Janet Napolitano, DHS Sec'y, on Exercising Prosecutorial

20

Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as

21

Children(Jun. 15, 2012); or

22

• Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, DHS Sec'y, on Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion

23

with Respect to Individuals Who came to the United States as Children and with

24

Respect to Certain Individuals who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent

25

Residents (Nov. 20, 2014).

26

37. Plaintiffs FOIA request sought to obtain these records because of the compelling

27 and urgent need to inform the public about ICE's prosecutorial discretion policies which, as set

28

11

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 13 of 18

1 forth above, affect the apprehension, detention, and removal of hundreds of thousands of

2 noncitizens across the country. Id. at 1.

3 v.
4 5

DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MAKE A TIMELY DETERMINATION OF PLAINTIFFS' FOIA REQUEST, FAILED TO CONDUCT A REASONABLE SEARCH, AND FAILED TO PROMPTLY MAKE RECORDS AVAILABLE 38. Despite acknowledging receipt of Plaintiffs' FOIA Request on March 2, 2017,

6 Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiffs' request within the 20 days afforded under the FOIA

7 statute, 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(i), or the additional 10 days in case of"unusual circumstances,"

8 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(B), 28 C.F.R 16.5(c). See March 2, 2017 Email from ICE-FOIA re

9 Automatic Reply: FOIA request, attached as Exhibit B.

10

39. On April 7, 2017, thirty-six days after Defendants received the Request, Plaintiffs

11 requested a confirmation letter from Defendants, which was supposed to be sent 3-5 business

12 days after Defendants' receipt of the FOIA request. A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit

13 c.

14

40. In an email dated April13, 2017, Defendants confirmed receiving Plaintiffs'

15 Request, granted expedited processing, granted Plaintiffs' request for a fee waiver, stated that

16 ICE had "queried the appropriate program offices within ICE for responsive records," and

17 assigned the Request a reference number 2017-ICF0-23744. A copy of this email is attached as

18 Exhibit D.

19

41. Inexplicably, after assigning an initial case number to the Request on April13,

20 2017, Defendants then opened and closed two new case matters in relation to this Request. First,

21 on April28, 2017, Defendants sent an email assigning a different case number to the Request,

22 ICE Case No. 2017-ICF0-25916, and claiming that the request was too broad. A true and correct

23 copy of this email is attached as Exhibit E. In response, Plaintiffs appealed Defendants' April

24 28, 2017 determination that the request was "too broad," and submitted a narrowed FOIA

25 request. A copy of Plaintiffs' letter is attached as Exhibit F.

26

27

28

12

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 14 of 18

1

42. On May 8, 2017, Defendants issued another new case number for the Request,

2 ICE Case No. 2017-ICF0-27104, and again said that the request was too broad. A true and

3 correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit G.

4

43. Due to the multiple case numbers assigned to Plaintiffs' Request, Plaintiffs sought

5 assistance from the Office of Government Services in obtaining a response to the Request. A true

6 and correct copy of this email from May 9, 2017, is attached as Exhibit H.

7

44. On May 18, 2017, Defendants sent Plaintiffs an email stating that ICE "was

8 currently working on your request" for ICE FOIA Case Number 2017-ICF0-25916, and did "not

9 need any further clarification." Defendants also stated that Plaintiffs' file was "scheduled to be

10 reviewed in the near future ...." A true and correct copy of this email is attached as Exhibit I.

11

45. The following day, on May 19, 2017, Defendants acknowledged Plaintiffs' appeal

12 request ofiCE Case Number 2017-ICF0-25916 and assigned it 2017-ICAP-00385. A copy of

13 this letter is attached as Exhibit J.

14

46. On May 26, 2017, Defendants represented that Plaintiffs' FOIA Request was

15 being processed under FOIA Case Number 2017-ICLI-23744 [sic] and closed the appeal, 2017-

16 ICAP-00385; 2017-ICF0-25916. Defendants informed Plaintiffs that this decision was the final

17 action they would take concerning Plaintiffs' appeal. A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit

18 K.

19

47. Finally, on June 13, 2017, Plaintiffs received a response from the Office of

20 Government Services explaining that Defendant ICE had closed 2017-ICF0-25916 and 2017-

21 ICF0-27104 because they were duplicates of Plaintiffs' original Request, 2017-ICF0-23744.

22 Defendant ICE also represented that it was "currently processing 2017-ICF0-23744." A copy of

23 this email is attached as Exhibit L.

24

48. On August 28, 2017, after waiting more than five months, Plaintiffs timely

25 appealed Defendants' refusal to timely respond to the FOIA request sent on March 2, 2017. A

26 true and correct copy of this appeal letter is attached as Exhibit M.

27

28 13
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 15 of 18

1

49. Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' FOIA Request reveal a failure to conduct a

2 search for records and to make the records available promptly. See 5 U.S.C. §§552(a)(3)(C) &

3 (6)(C)(i); see Zemansky v. US. E.P.A., 767 F.2d 569, 571 (1985) (an agency is required to

4 "conduct[] a 'search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents."') (quoting

5 Weisberg v. United States Dept. ofJustice, 745 F.2d 1476, 1485 (D.C.Cir.1984)).

6

50. Upon information and belief, a "search reasonably calculated to uncover all

7 relevant documents," id., should yield significant records. The new prosecutorial discretion

8 policies and practices impact Defendants' operations significantly, and affect the apprehension,

9 detention, and removal ofhundreds ofthousands of noncitizens across the country.

10

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Freedom of Information Act-Failure to Comply with Time Limit Provision) 11

12

1. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1

13 through 50 inclusive.

14

2. By letter dated March 2, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted the Request to Defendants

15 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

16

3. Defendants have a statutory obligation to determine whether they will comply

17 with the FOIA request and to communicate that determination to Plaintiffs. Despite

18 acknowledging receipt of Plaintiffs' FOIA request on March 2, 2017, Defendants failed to

19 respond to Plaintiffs' Request within the 20 days afforded under the FOIA statute, 5 U.S.C.

20 § 552(a)(6)(A)(i), or the additional 10 days provided for "unusual circumstances," 5 U.S.C.

21 § 552(a)(6)(B), 6 C.F.R § 5.5(c).

22

4.

Defendants' failure to notify Plaintiffs of their determination whether to comply

23 with Plaintiffs' requests violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §§552(a)(6)(A)(i) & (a)(6)(B), and 6 C.F.R

24 § 5.5(c). 25

26

27

28

14

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 16 of 18

1

5. Plaintiffs have exhausted all applicable administrative remedies with respect to

2 Defendants' failure to determine whether they will comply with Plaintiffs' request. FOIA, 5

3 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

4

6. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(6)(A)(i), 5 U.S.C.

5 § 552(a)(6)(B), and 6 C.F.R § 5.5(c), to timely notification from Defendants, and there exists no

6 basis for Defendants' denial of this right.

7

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Freedom of Information Act-Failure to

8

Search for Records Responsive to Plaintiffs' Request)

9

10

7. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

11 50 above, inclusive.

12

8. By letter dated March 2, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted a request to Defendants

13 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

14

9. When responding to a FOIA request, Defendants have a statutory obligation to

15 search for "agency records for the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a

16 request." FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(D). Defendants are also required to "make reasonable

17 efforts to search for the records in electronic form or format." 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(C).

18 Defendants have not provided Plaintiffs with any records.

19

10. Upon information and belief, Defendants have failed to undertake a search

20 reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant records that are responsive to Plaintiffs' FOIA

21 request.

22

11. Defendants' failure to undertake a search reasonably calculated to uncover all

23 relevant records sought by Plaintiffs' request violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3), and

24 corresponding agency regulations, see 6 C.P.R. § 5.4.

25

12. Plaintiffs have exhausted all required and available administrative remedies with

26 respect to this claim. FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

27

28 15
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 17 of 18

1

13. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to enforce Defendants' obligation to

2 undertake a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant records that are responsive to

3 Plaintiffs' FOIA request, and there exists no basis for Defendants' denial of this right.

4

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Freedom of Information Act-Failure to Make Records Promptly Available) 5

6

14. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the factual allegations contained in paragraphs 1

7 through 50 above, inclusive.

8

15. By letter dated March 2, 2017, Plaintiffs submitted the Request to Defendants

9 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

10

16. Defendants have a statutory obligation to make records sought by Plaintiffs'

11 request "promptly available." FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A). Defendants have produced no

12 responsive records whatsoever, despite granting Plaintiffs' request for expedited treatment nearly

13 one year ago, on April 13, 2017.

14

17. Defendants' failure to make records sought by Plaintiffs' request "promptly

15 available" violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).

16

18. Plaintiffs have exhausted all required and available administrative remedies with

17 respect to Defendants' failure to make records sought by Plaintiffs' request "promptly available."

18 FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).

19

19. Plaintiffs have a legal right under FOIA to obtain the agency records they seek,

20 and there is no legal basis f~r Defendants' denial of said right.

21

22

PRAYER FORRELIEF

23

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court award them the following relief:

24

A. Declare, pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201,

25 that Defendants violated the Freedom of Information Act;

26

27

28 16
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 1 Filed 06/07/18 Page 18 of 18

1

B. Order all Defendants to determine whether they will comply with Plaintiffs'

2 FOIA request, and to communicate that determination to Plaintiffs;

3

C. Order all Defendants to conduct a reasonable search for all responsive records;

4

D. Order all Defendants to promptly disclose the requested records in their entirety

5 and make copies available to Plaintiffs;

6

E. Order Defendants to prepare an index pursuant to Vaughn v. Rosen(/), 484 F.2d

7 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert denied, 415 U.S. 977 (1974), for any documents they seek to withhold

8 under a FOIA exemption;

9

F.

Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1657;

10

G. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorneys ' fees; and

11

H. Order such other relief that the Court deems just and appropriate.

12 13 14 DATED: June 7, 2018 15 16

Respectfully submitted,
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS CLINIC Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School
By: Is/ Jennifer Stark Jennifer Stark

17

JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH

18

IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS CLINIC MILLS LEGAL CLINIC

19

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 17
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

 
 Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 64 Filed 08/10/20 Page 1 of 4

1 DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

2 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Chief, Civil Division

3 KENNETH W. BRAKEBILL (CABN 196696)

Assistant United States Attorney

4

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

5

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7167

6

Fax: (415) 436-6748

kenneth.brakebill@usdoj.gov

7

Attorneys for Defendants

8 JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH (State Bar No. 189556)

9 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS CLINIC

Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School 10 Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way

11 Stanford, California 94305-8610 Telephone: (650) 724-2442

12 Facsimile: (650) 723-4426 Email: jsrikantiah@law.stanford.edu

13

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Community Legal Services 14 in East Palo Alto, and the National Immigration
Project of the National Lawyers Guild 15

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19

COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES IN 20 EAST PALO ALTO and the NATIONAL

) CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03359-LB )

IMMIGRATION PROJECT OF THE 21 NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD

) STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ) DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED]

22

Plaintiff,

) ORDER )

)

23 v.

)

)

24 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES )

25 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

)

ENFORCEMENT, 26

Defendants. 27

28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSALWITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03359-LB

1

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 64 Filed 08/10/20 Page 2 of 4

1

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the undersigned Plaintiffs and Defendants, by

2 and through their respective attorneys, as follows:

3

1. Defendants shall pay $16,350.10 (Sixteen thousand three hundred-fifty dollars and ten

4 cents) to Plaintiff in full and complete satisfaction of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, and

5 litigation expenses under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended, in the

6 above-captioned matter. This payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of any and all of

7 Plaintiffs claims for attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses in the above-captioned matter, and is

8 inclusive of any interest. Payment of this money will be made by electronic funds transfer as specified

9 in instructions provided to Defendants’ undersigned counsel by Plaintiffs in writing. Defendants will

10 effectuate the payment promptly after receipt of such instructions by Defendants’ counsel.

11

2. Upon the execution of this Stipulation, Plaintiffs, having received records it requested,

12 hereby releases and forever discharges Defendants, their successors, the United States of America, and

13 any department, agency, or establishment of the United States, and any officers, employees, agents,

14 successors, or assigns of such department, agency, or establishment, from any and all claims and causes

15 of action that Plaintiffs assert or could have asserted in this litigation, or which hereafter could be

16 asserted by reason of, or with respect to, or in connection with, or which arise out of, the specific FOIA

17 requests on which this action is based, including but not limited to all past, present, or future claims for

18 attorneys’ fees, costs, or litigation expenses in connection with the above-captioned litigation.

19

3. The provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 are set forth below:

20

“A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or

suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him

21

or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.”

22 Plaintiffs having been apprised of the statutory language of Civil Code Section 1542 by Plaintiffs’
23 attorney, and fully understanding the same, nevertheless elects to waive the benefits of any and all rights
24 Plaintiffs may have pursuant to the provision of that statute and any similar provision of federal law.
25 26 Plaintiffs understand that, if the facts concerning any injuries, liability for damages pertaining thereto, or

27 liability for attorneys’ fees, costs or litigation expenses are found hereafter to be other than or different

28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSALWITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03359-LB

2

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 64 Filed 08/10/20 Page 3 of 4

1 than the facts now believed by it to be true, this Stipulation shall be and remain effective

2 notwithstanding such material difference.

3

4. Execution of this Stipulation and its approval by the Court shall constitute dismissal of

4 this case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

5

5. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulation is entered into solely for the purpose of

6 settling and compromising any remaining claims in this action without further litigation, and it shall not

7 be construed as evidence or as an admission on the part of Defendants, the United States, its agents,

8 servants, or employees regarding any issue of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any

9 allegation or claim raised in this action, or as evidence or as an admission by the Defendants regarding

10 Plaintiffs’ entitlement to attorneys’ fees, costs, or other litigation expenses under FOIA. This

11 Stipulation shall also not be construed as evidence or as an admission on the part of Plaintiffs regarding

12 any issue of law or fact, or regarding the truth or validity of any allegation or claim raised in this action.

13 This Stipulation shall not be used in any manner to establish liability for fees, costs or hourly rates in

14 any other case or proceeding involving Defendants.

15

6. This Stipulation is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties hereto and their

16 respective successors and assigns.

17

7. If any provision of this Stipulation shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the

18 validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or

19 impaired thereby.

20

8. This Stipulation shall constitute the entire agreement between the parties, and it is

21 expressly understood and agreed that this Stipulation has been freely and voluntarily entered into by the

22 parties hereto. The parties further acknowledge that no warranties or representations have been made on

23 any subject other than as set forth in this Stipulation.

24

9. The persons signing this Stipulation warrant and represent that they possess full authority

25 to bind the persons on whose behalf they are signing to the terms of the Stipulation.

26

10. This Stipulation may not be altered, modified or otherwise changed in any respect except

27 in writing, duly executed by all of the parties or their authorized representatives.

28

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSALWITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03359-LB

3

Case 3:18-cv-03359-LB Document 64 Filed 08/10/20 Page 4 of 4

1

11. It is contemplated that this Stipulation may be executed in several counterparts, with a

2 separate signature page for each party. All such counterparts and signature pages, together, shall be

3 deemed to be one document.

4

5 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6

7
DATED: August 7, 2020 8

9

/s/ Jayashri Srikantiah JAYASHRI SRIKANTIAH

10 IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS CLINIC Mills Legal Clinic at Stanford Law School

11 Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way

Stanford, California 94305-8610 12 Telephone: (650) 724-2442

13

Facsimile: (650) 723-4426 Email: jsrikantiah@law.stanford.edu

14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Community Legal
15 Services in East Palo Alto, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers
16 Guild

Respectfully submitted,
DAVID L. ANDERSON United States Attorney
/s/ Kenneth W. Brakebill 1 KENNETH W. BRAKEBILL Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendants

17

18

19

20

21
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 22

23 Dated: ___A_u_g_u_s_t_1_0_,_2_0_2_0__ 24
25

____________________________________ HON. LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge

26

27 1 In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the filer of this document attests under penalty of perjury 28 that all signatories have concurred in the filing of this document.

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSALWITH PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03359-LB

4