<t:.JS 44 (Rev. 11/04)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace norsupplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in.September 1974, is requIred for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the purpose of mitiating
the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
UNIDAD LATINA EN Accr6N and JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC.

DEFENDANTS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff _N_ew_H_a_v_e_ll_ _ _ _ __
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLy)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNAnON CASES, USE THE LOCAnON OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorney's (Finn Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (lfKnown)

The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 (203) 432-4800

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

o I U.S. Government
Plaintiff

o 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTtES(Place an;;g(" in One ft'~l!lr Plaintiff

(For Diversity Cases Only)

'.

and ~J3ox for Defelt&t)

PTF DEF

. 'Cd .'

pfli"""'" DEF

Citizen ofThis State

0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal PIaee

Cif"'"'li"" 0 4

of Business In This State D

U

I!!I 2 U.S. Goverument
Defendant

o 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III)

IV NATURE OF SUIT (place an "X" in One Box Only)

'CON'l'RA€IV

'FORl'S',

o 110 Insurance o 120 Marine o 130 Miller Act o 140 Negotiable Instrument o 150 Recovery ofOverpayment

PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product
Liability 0 320 Assault, Libel &

PERSONAL INJURY 0 362 Personal Injnry -
Med. Malpractice 0 365 Personal Injnry -
Product Liability

o & Enforcement ofJudgment

Slander

0 368 Asbestos Personal

151 Medicare Act

0 330 Federal Employers'

Injnry Product

0'152 Recovery of Defanlted

Liability

Liability

Student Loans

0 340 Marine

PERSONAL PROPERTY

o (Exc!. Vetcrans)

0 345 Marine Product

153 Recovery ofOverpayment

Liability

0 370 Other Fraud 0 371 Truth in Lending

ofVeteran's Benefits

0 350 Motor Vehicle

o 160 Stockholders' Suits o 190 Other Contract o 195 Contract Product Liability

0 0

355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability
360 Other Personal

o 196 Franchise

Injnry

0 380 Other Personal Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage Product Liability

oIn lREAI'.II'ROI'ER'FY ' / ' .

210 Land Condemnation

0

o 220 'Foreclosure

0

o 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0

o 240 Torts to Land o 245 Tort Product Liability

0

o 290 All Other Real Property

0

,·,.'ClVlt;dUGIIl'S

I'RlSOiN'ERI'El'l'FIONS

441 Voting

0 510 Motions to Vacate

442 Employment

Sentence

443 Housing!

Habeas Corpus:

Accommodations

0 530 General

444 Welfare

0 535 Death Penalty

445 Arner. wlDisabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other

Employment

0 550 Civil Rights

0 446 Arner. wlDisabilities - 0 555 Prison Condition

Other

0 440 Other Civil Rights

Citizen of Another State

02

0 2 Incorporated and Principar;~ce of Business ,In Another"S'tate

0 5

Citizen or Subject of a Forei Coun

03 0 3 Foreign Nati~'

...?.

~~,>

0 6

·FORFEI'111RElPENAL'FV····
0 610 Agriculture 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 625 Drug Related Seizure
ofProperty 21 USC 881 0 630 Liquor Laws 0 640 R.R. & Truck 0 650 Airline Regs. 0 660 Occupational
Safety/Health 0 690 Other
LABOR 0 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 730 LaborlMgmt.Reporting
& Disclosure Act 0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 791 Emp!. Ret. Inc.
Security Act

. """"BANKRtlP1'CY,",
o 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
o""',"'PROPERTYRIGHTS 820 Copyrights
o0830 Patent 840 Trademark

o 861 IDA (1395ft)

o 862 Black Lung (923)

o 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g»

o ssm 864

Title XVI

o 865 RSI (405(g»

FEDERAIZi'A}{,sUIl'S
o 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff

or Defendant)
o 8711Rs-ThirdParty

26 USC 7609

O'FIIER'Sl'Al'D'I'ES ."1
0 400 State Reapportionment 0 410 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banldng 0 450 Commerce 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations 0 480 Consumer Credit 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 810 Selective Service 0 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange 0 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 3410 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 894 Energy Allocation Act
I!!I 895 Freedom ofinformation
Act 0 900Appeal of Fee Deterutination
Under Equal Access to Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN
01 Original
Proceedin

(place an ''X'' in One Box Only)

O 2

0 3

Removed from

Remanded from

State Court

A ellate Court

0 4

0 5 Transferredfrom 06 .

Reinstated or

another district

. Multidistrict

Reo ened

s eci

Liti ation

o 7

Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Jud ment

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes nnless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION ~5~U~,S~,C~'§L5~52?~~)(~~~$~)________________________- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN

Defendant failed to disclose and release, and to affinnatively disclose, reponsive records.

o CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND $

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

COMPLAINT:

UNDER F.RC.P. 23

JURy DEMAND:

0 Yes 0 No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY

(See instmctions):

JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

DATE
08110/2007

k:e... 1vfi.A-,-~C~ (

I 1')'
WI S

SIGNATURE OF ATTO
e,J1...

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # -------- AMOUNT ------------ APPLYING IFP ---..,;..------ JUDGE ---------- MAG. JUDGE ---------------

FILEl) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

)

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCION and

)

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

August 10, 2007

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. for declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld from Plaintiffs by Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and its component Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").
2. Plaintiffs seek to compel the release of records on a matter ofpublic concern, namely, ICE's immigration enforcement policies,practices, and acti~ities in and around New Haven, Connecticut. In particular, Plaintiffs seek to compel the release of records regarding an investigation, arrest, and detention of twenty-nine individuals in arid around New Haven, Connecticut on June 6, 2007. The planning of the June 6 immigration raids closely followed the proposal of a municipal identification card program in New Haven and the arrests came on the heels of the approval of the program by New Haven's Board of Alderman. The temporal

proximity of these two initiatives has caused much speculation in the community about a possible retaliatory nature to the immigration raids. The disclosure of the requested records will help inform public debate about these issues.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B), and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1361. 4. Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(e) and l402(a)(1), as all of the complainants reside in the District of Connecticut.
PARTIES 5. PlaintiffUnidad Latina en Acci6n ("ULA") is an unincorporated association fighting for immigrant rights in New Haven, Connecticut. The office and principal place of business ofULA is in New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Plaintiff Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. ("JUNTA") is a Latino, community-based non-profit in New Haven, Connecticut. It provides free financial services, educational programs and advocacy in order to improve the social, political, and economic conditions of the Latino community in the New Haven area. The office and principal place of business of JUNTA is in New Haven, Connecticut. 7. Defendant United States Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is the; federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws. ICE is the division ofDHS responsible for enforcing immigration laws. DHS is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.c. § 552(f).
2

STATEMENT OF FACTS The Municipal Identification Card Program in New Haven, Connecticut
8. In October 2005, Plaintiffs JUNTA and ULAjointlypresented New Haven's City Hall with a proposal entitled "A City" to Model." In order to enhance public safety and improve the relationship between immigrant communities and the rest of New Haven, the plan outlined six initiatives, including the creation of a municipal identification card for New Haven residents.
9. Not long thereafter, the Mayor of New Haven, John DeStefano, Jr., announced his intention to issue municipal identification cards. At the time, Mayor DeStefano was a candidate for goverrior of Connecticut, and his announcement received substantial attention in the local and national media.
10. As the City of New Haven moved forward with its plan to issue the identification card in early 2007, the proposed program continued to receive local and national media attention, including favorable coverage in a March 5,2007 story in The New York Times and an April 10, 2007 story on the front page of The Washington Post.
11. On April 15, 2007, the Sunday edition of The New York Times published an op-ed praising the City ofNew Haven for its plan to issue municipal identification cards, as well as for other local policies to integrate non-citizens into the fabric of civic life.
12. According to Julie L. Myers, Assistant Secretary, DHS, on April 20, 2007 (several days after the favorable New York Times op-ed) an ICE Fugitive Operations Team ("FOT") based in Hartford, Connecticut submitted a plan for a ''New Haven enforcement initiative" to ICE Headquarters Detention and Removal Office ("DRO"). This plan was approved by Headquarters DRO on May 4, 2007.
3

13. On June 4,2007, by a vote of twenty-five to one, the Board of Aldennan, New Haven's municipal legislative body, approved the acceptance of private funds to begin implementation of a municipal identification program. The Arrest of Twenty-Nine Individuals on June 6, 2007
14. Two days after the approval ofthe municipal identification program, on June 6, 2007, the Hartford FOT led an ICE operation that resulted in the arrest of twenty-nine men and women in and around New Haven, Connecticut.
15. Infonnation regarding the ICE operation on June 6, 2007 is of public concern. Plaintiffs seek to detennine whether this operation was carried out in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations. Plaintiffs' FOIA Requests to ICE
16. By letter to ICE dated June 26, 2007, Plaintiffs submitted a FOIA request ("first request") for various records relating to the arrests that took place on June 6, 2007, as well as records relating to communications between ICE and local agencies. A copy of that letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit A. By letter to ICE dated June 26,2007, Plaintiffs submitted a separate FOIA request ("second request") for various records related to the proposal and implementation of the New Haven municipal identification card program. A copy of the second letter is attached as Exhibit B.
17. Plaintiffs sent the two FOIA requests by FedEx "Priority Overnight" on Tuesday, June 26, 2007. A copy of the FedEx receipt is attached as Exhibit C. Defendant ICE received and signed for the request on Wednesday, June 27, 2007. A copy of the Proof of Signature is attached as ExhibitD.
4

18. In addition, Plaintiffs caused the first.and second request to b. e emailed to the address designated by ICE for receipt ofFOIA requests, ice-foia@dhs.gov, at 12:59 pm on June 26,2007.
19. On July 29,2007, ICE issued a letter acknowledging receipt of the first request and assigning the request an identification number, 2007FOIA52604. A copy ofthe acknowledgment letter is attached as Exhibit E.
20. On July 30,2007, Annette Demory, from the ICE FOIA office, left a telephone message with Plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Wishnie. When Mr. Wishnie returned Ms. Demory's call on July 31,2007, Ms. Demory informed him that she had received the FOIA request related to the June 6, 2007 arrests and had just begun to process it. When Mr. Wishnie inquired about the status of the second request, Ms. Demory said that she was unaware of Plaintiffs' other FOIA request.
21. To date, Plaintiffs have received no other correspondence from ICE regarding their FOIA requests.
22. To date, ICE has not provided the records requested by Plaintiffs in their FOIA requests, notwithstanding the FOIA's requirement of an agency response within twenty (20) working days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
23. Due to ICE's inadequate response to the FOIA requests, Plaintiffs have automatically exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to their FOIA requests to ICE. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i).
24. ICE has wrongfullywithheld the requested records from Plaintiffs.
5

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Defendant DHS Failed to Disclose and Release Records
Responsive to Plaintiff's First and Second Requests 25. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 24 as if repeated and reincorporated herein. 26. ICE, a component ofDHS, has violated Plaintiffs' rights to DRS records under 5 U.S.C. § 552.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Defendant DHS Failed to Mfirmatively Disclose Records
Responsive to Plaintiff's First and Second Requests 27. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 - 24 as if repeated and reincorporated herein. 28. Defendant's failure to make its records available to the public violates 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1 )-(2).
Requested Relief WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:
1) Assume jurisdiction over this matter; 2) Order Defendant to disclose the requested records in their entireties and to make copies
available to Plaintiffs; 3) Provide for expeditious proceedings in this action; 4) Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorneys' fees in this action as provided by 5
U.S.c. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
6

5) .Grant any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Dated August 10, 2007 New Haven, Connecticut

R~spectful1y submitted,

aL; ~vL1 tlsL" L ~NL

I~ ~ C_._____-

(L

. 9 Michael Wishnie, Esq.

Christopher N. Lasch, Esq. .Hop¥tcalf, Esq.

Federal Bar No. ct27221

Federal Bar No. ct27139

Federal Bar No. ct27184

Jerome N. Frank Legal

Jerome N. Frank Legal

Jerome N Frank Legal

Services Organization

Services Organization

Services Organization

p.O. Box 209090

P.O. Box 209090

P.O. Box 209090

New Haven, CT 06520-9090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090

Telephone: (203) 432-4800 . Telephone: (203) 432-4800 Telephone: (203) 432-4800

Facsimile: (203) 432-1426

Facsimile: (203) 432-1426

Facsimile: (203) 432-1426

michael.wishnie@yale.edu christopher.1asch@yale.edu • hope.metcalf@yale.edu

Counselfor Plaintiffs

Counselfor Plaintiffs

Counselfor Plaintiffs

On the Complaint: Zoe Klugman Law Student Intern

7

EXHIBIT A

The Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization
YALE LAW SCHOOL
By email, facsimile, and overnight mail
June 26, 2007
FOIA Office U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 800 North Capitol St., NW 5th Floor, Suite 585 Washington, DC 20536
RE: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Sir or Madam:
This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), on behalf of JUNTA for Progressive Action, Inc., UnidadLatina en Accion; and the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (collectively referred to as "Requestors").
Requestors seek disclosure of all records l created from January 1, 2006 to the present relating to the following:
• The investigation, arrest and detention of approximately 29 individuals in or near New Haven, Connecticut on June 6, 2007, including but not limited to all G-123A Complaint forms, all G-166C Memorandums of Investigation, all Press Releases, and all Post-Investigation Reports;
• Any communication relating to the June 6, 2007 enforcement action in New Haven Connecticut, before or after the action occurred, among or between: (1) the Boston Field Office of the u.S. Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of Detention and Removal Operations (DRO); (2) DRO's Hartford Sub-Office; (3) DRO's main office at ICE headquarters; (4) ICE's National Fugitive Operations Program; and (5) any other component ofICE, including but not limited to:
1 The tenn "records" as used herein includes all records or communications preserved in electronic or written fonn, including but not limited to correspondence, documents, data, videotapes, audio tapes, emails, faxes, files, guidance, guidelines, evaluations, instructions, analyses, memoranda, agreements, notes, orders, policies, procedures, protocols, reports, rules, technical manuals, technical specifications, training manuals, or studies.
P.O. BOX 209090, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06520-9090 . TELEPHONE 203432-4800 . FACSIMILE 203432-1426 COURIER ADDRESS 127 WALL STREET, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06511

Freedom of Information Act Request June 26, 2007 Page 2 of3
-- any requests from DRO's Boston Field Office or Hartford Sub-Office for approval to undertake the action, made on or about April 2007 or at any other time; and
-- any response by DRO, NFOP, or any other ICE component to any such request, made on or about May 2007 or at any other time.
• Any and all records of communications with the New Haven Police Department from January 1,2007 to the present, by DRO's Hartford Sub-Office or any other ICE component, including but not limited to communications in April and May 2007 regarding the Fugitive Operation Team action that resulted in the arrest of approximately 29 persons in New Haven on June 6, 2007.
Requestors request that any records that exist in electronic form by provided in electronic format on a compact disc. If any of the requested records or information are not kept in a succinct format, we request the opportunity to view the documents in your offices.
We agree to pay search, duplication, and review fees of up to $100.00. If the fees will amount to more than $100.00, we request a fee waiver pursuant t05 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ("Documents shall be furnished without any charge ... if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."). Disclosure in this case meets the statutory criteria, and a fee waiver would fulfill Congress's legislative intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be 'liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters. "') (citation omitted).
The disclosure of the records requested is in the public interest because it will inform Requestors and Requestors' community about the operations and activities of the agency in the City ofNew Haven. The government's policies towards and the treatment of immigrants and suspected undocumented aliens are of immense public concern at present, and the disclosure of the requested records will help inform public debate about these issues. The records requested are not sought for commercial use, and Requestors plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this FOIA request to the public at no cost.
Finally, pursuant to the applicable regulations and statute, Requestors expect the determination of this request for documents within 20 days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). If this request is denied in whole or in part, we ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions to FOIA. Requestors expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. Requestors reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.

Please furnish all applicable records to:

Freedom of Information Act Request June 26, 2007 Page 3 of3

Michael Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 NewHaven, CT 06520

Thank you for your assistance and prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
"741~
Michael Wishnie Chris Lasch Hope Metcalf Supervising Attorneys

71.0. {.-h~ 6"(.
Justin Cox 'a--.
Law Student Intern

EXHIBITB

The Jerome N.Frank Legal Services Organization
YALE LAW SCHOOL

By email, facsimile, and overnight mail

June 26, 2007

FOIA Office U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 800 North CapitoISt., NW 5th Floor, Suite 585 Washington, DC 20536

RE: Freedom of Information Act Request

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ("FOIA"), on behalf ofJUNTA for Progressive Action, Inc~; Unidad Latina en Acci6n; and the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization (collectively referred to as "Requestors").

Requestors seek disclosure of all recordsl created from January 1,2005 to the present relating to the following:

• All materials mentioning the New Haven municipal identification card and the "Elm City Resident Card," including but not limited to mention of the debate before the New Haven Board of Aldermen or the program's approval by the Board on June 4, 2007;
• All materials related to a report presented in October 2005 to the New Haven City Hall entitled "A City to Model."
• All materials mentioning the New Haven Police Departinent General Order 0602;
• All materials mentioning the creation, existence or possibility of a "sanctuary" or policy of non-cooperation ofNew Haven police officers with federal immigration officials;

Requestors request that any records that exist in electronic form by provided in electronic format on a compact disc. If any of the requested records or information are not kept in a succinct format, we request the opportunity to view the documents in your offices.

1 The term "records" as used herein includes all records or communications preserved in electronic or written form, including but not limited to correspondence, documents, data, videotapes, audio tapes, emails, faxes, files, guidance, guidelines, evaluations, instructions, analyses, memoranda, agreements, notes, orders, policies, procedures, protocols, reports, rules, technical manuals, technical specifications, training manuals, or studies.
P.O. BOX 2.09090, NBW HAVBN, CONNBCTICUT 0652.0-9090 • TBLBPHONE 2.03432.-48-00 • FACSIMILB 2.03432.-142.6-
_ COURIER ADDRBSS 12.7 WALL STRBBT, NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06511

Freedom ofInformation Act Request June 26, 2007 Page 2 of2
We agree to pay search, duplication, and review fees of up to $100.00. If the fees will amount to more than $100.00, we request a fee waiver pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §552(a)(4)(A)(iii) ("Documents shall be furnished without any charge ... if disclosure of the information is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester."). Disclosure in this case meets the statutory criteria, and a fee waiver would fulfill Congress's legislative intent in amending FOIA. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 326 F.3d l309, l312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ("Congress amended FOIA to ensure that it be 'liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters. ''') (citation omitted).
The disclosure of the records requested is in the public interest because it will inform Requestors and Requestors' community about the operations and activities of the agency in the City ofNew Haven. The government's policies towards and the treatment of immigrants and suspected undocumented aliens are of immense public concern at present, and the disclosure of the requested records will help inform public debate about these issues. The records requested are not sought for commercial use, and Requestors plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this FOIA request to the public at no cost.
Finally, pursuant to the applicable regulations and statute, Requestors expect the determination of this request for documents within 20 days. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i). If this request is denied ill whole or in part, we ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions to ForA. Requestors expect the release of all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. Requestors reserve the right to appeal a decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.
Please furnish all applicable records to:
Michael Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520
Thank you for your assistance and prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
'J'1-?JZd-
Michael Wishnie Chris Lasch Hope Metcalf Supervising Attorneys

/~ ~ux Justin Cox Law Student Intern

EXHIBITC
l
i.

FROM: PHONE: 203-432-4803 MAUREEN FURTAK YALE UNIVERSITY YALE SCHOOL OF LAW 127 WALL STREET NEW HAVEN, CT 06511

Fed Ex

TO:

PHONE: 203-432-4800

FOIAOFFICE

U.S. IMMIGRATION &

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

800 NORTH CAROLINA

ST.NW

5TH FLOOR, SUITE 585

WASHINGTON DC 20536

.REF: MW-FairHaven
1111~m~ ~~ ~ 1111111111111 III 1IIIIIm11111111

SHIP DATE: 26 JUN 07 SYSTEM # 1726111 ACTUAL WGT: 0.5LBS

PRIORITY OVERNIGHT

WED
AA

TRK# 790278752393 FORM 0201

lAD

Deliver by:
27JUN07

20536-DC-USA

ZMNHKA

EXHIBITD

FedEx Express Customer Support Trace 3875 Airways Boulevard Module H, 4th Floor Memphis, TN 38116

u.S. Mail: PO Box 727 Memphis, TN 38194-4643
Telephone: 901-369-3600

July 30,2007 Dear Customer: .The following is the proof of delivery you requested with the tracking number 790278752393.

Delivery Information: Status:
Signed for by: Service type:

Delivered
B.MELNICK Priority Envelope

Delivery location: Delivery date:

Washington-, DC Jun 27, 2007 10:01

Shipping Information: Tracking number:

790278752393

Recipient: Washington, DC US
Reference
Thank you for choosing FedEx Express. FedEx Worldwide Customer Service 1.800.GoFedEx 1.800.463.3339

Ship date: Weight:
Shipper: New Haven, CT US
MW-Fair Haven

Jun 26, 2007 0.5Ibs.

EXHIBIT E

June 29, 2007
MICHAEL WISHNIE JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 209090 NEW HAVEN, CT 06520

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 425 I Street NW Washington, DC 20536
u.s. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement

Dear Requester:
This is to inform you that on JUlie 29, 2007, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Freedom ofInformation Act (FOIA) Office received yourFOIA request dated June 26, 2007. Your request has been given identification number 2007FOIA52604. Please cite this number in any further inquiry about this request.
I must advise you that depending upon the category of requesters you fall in, fees may be charged for searching for records sought at the respective clerical, professional, and/or managerial rates of $4.00/$7.00/$10.25 per quarter hour, and for duplication of copies at the rate of $.1 0 per copy. In accordance with 6 C.F.R. §5.3(c), ifyoll make a FOIA request, it shall be a firm commitment by you to pay all applicable fees charged under § 5.11 up to $25.00. The combined charges for search and duplication must exceed $14.00 before you will be charged any fees. Many requests do not require fees; however, iffees exceed $25.00, we will notify you beforehand.
ICE uses a multi-track system to process requests on a first in, first out basis. Simple requests are able to be answered more quickly and will be placed on the fast track of our multi-track processing. More complex requests generally require significant processing time. Although ICE's goal is to respond within 20 business days of receipt of your request; the FOIA does permit a lO-day extension of this tillle period. If your request involves a voluminous amount of records, . requires that we collectrecords from separate offices, or requires that We consult with another . agency, ICE is invoking the 10-day extension for your request.
ICE currently has a FOIA backlog; however, we are working expeditiously to eliminate this backlog. Due to the multi-track processing, your case will not fall within this backlog;
If you have any questions pertaining to your FOIA request, please contact the FOIA office at(202) 732-0300.
Sincerely,

For Catrina M. Pavlik-Keenan, Director ..
Immigration and CustomsEnforcement Freedom of Information Act Office

www.ice.gov

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCION and

:

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC., :

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

:

SECURITY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

Civil No. 3:07cv1224 (MRK) September 13, 2007

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER

Defendant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), United States

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits

the following answer to the Complaint filed by Unidad Latina En Accion and Junta for

Progressive Action, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”).

1. This paragraph is a statement of Plaintiffs’ case to which no answer is required.

To the extent an answer is required, Defendant denies.

2. This paragraph contains a statement of Plaintiffs’ case as well as characterization

of the governments’ activities since 2001, to which no answer is required. Moreover, the

characterizations in this paragraph are materially irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ request for information

under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. To the extent an answer

is required, Defendant ICE denies.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This paragraph contains a statement of jurisdiction to which no answer is

required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 3.

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 8
4. This paragraph contains a statement of venue, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 4.
PARTIES 5. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 5. 6. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 6. 7. This paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of DHS and of ICE, to which no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 7.
STATEMENT OF FACTS The Municipal Identification Card Program in New Haven, Connecticut
8. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
9. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 10. To the extent a response is required, Defendant respectfully refers this Court to the text of the referenced articles for a complete statement of the content of those articles.
11. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11. To the extent a response is required, Defendants
2

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 3 of 8
respectfully refers this Court to the text of the referenced articles for a complete statement of the contents of those articles.
12. This paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of the government’s activities to which no answer is required. Moreover, the characterization in this paragraph is materially irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ request for information under the FOIA. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the representations contained in Paragraph 12, but avers that ICE Headquarters Detention and Removal Office (“DRO”) did approve the operation plan submitted by the ICE Fugitive Operations Team based in Hartford, Connecticut.
13. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge and information to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 13. The Arrest of Twenty-Nine Individuals on June 6, 2007
14. Defendant admits the factual allegation in this paragraph. However, to the extent Plaintiffs imply that there was a nexus between the stated event on June 6, 2007, and the arrest two days later by ICE of twenty-nine (29) individuals in and around New Haven, Connecticut, Defendant denies.
15. This paragraph contains Plaintiffs’ characterization of government activities, as well as statement of their case, to which no answer is required. Moreover, the characterizations in this paragraph are materially irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ request for information under the FOIA. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies. Plaintiffs’ FOIA Requests to ICE
16. Admit. However, Defendant respectfully refers the Court to the documents referenced in Exhibits A and B of Plaintiffs’ Complaint for the accuracy of Plaintiffs’
3

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 4 of 8
characterizations. 17. Admit. 18. Admit. 19. Admit. 20. Defendant admits that on July 30, 2007, Annette Demory, an employee of the ICE
FOIA office, telephoned the office of Mr. Wishnie, counsel to Plaintiffs, and left a voice message for him regarding Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A. Defendant admits that Mr. Wishnie returned Ms. Demory’s call on July 31, 2007. During the July 31, 2007, telephone conversation between Ms. Demory and Mr. Wishnie, Ms. Demory informed Mr. Wishnie that he needed to provide affirmation statements from the twenty-nine (29) individuals in order to release their information. Mr. Wishnie stated that he would provide the affirmation statements the following day. However, no affirmation statements were submitted. On August 10, 2007, the ICE FOIA office sent Mr. Wishnie a letter informing him once again, that on or before August 20, 2007, he needed to provide consent from the twenty-nine (29) individuals before any personal information would be released.1 A copy of the August 10, 2007, letter is attached hereto as Defendant’s Exhibit A.
On August 22, 2007, ICE FOIA mailed Mr. Wishnie a letter informing him that the portion of the FOIA request relating to the twenty-nine (29) individuals would be closed. In the same letter, ICE FOIA also informed Mr. Wishnie that once he received the consent forms from
1 On August 17, 2007, undersigned counsel for Defendant informed Mr. Wishnie that he needed to provide the ICE FOIA with the release forms, or, if additional time was necessary to obtain such forms from the twenty-nine (29) individuals, that he should contact ICE FOIA and request an extension of time before ICE administratively closed the portion of Plaintiffs’ FOIA request FOIA pertaining to the twenty-nine (29) individuals. Mr. Wishnie did not provide the release forms, nor did he contact ICE FOIA for an extension.
4

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 5 of 8
the twenty-nine (29) individuals, he could then submit another FOIA request regarding the twenty-nine (29) individuals. A copy of the August 22, 2007, letter is attached hereto as Defendant’s Exhibit B. On or about August 29, 2007, Mr. Wishnie submitted to ICE FOIA a request for the A-files of eighteen (18) individuals, along with their consents/affirmation statements. A copy of the August 29, 2007, letter is attached hereto as Defendant’s Exhibit C. On or about September 5, 2007, ICE FOIA acknowledged receipt of Mr. Wishnie’s August 29, 2007, request regarding the eighteen (18) individuals. A copy of the September 5, 2007, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Defendant also admits that Ms. Demory was unaware of the second FOIA request. See Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B. However, in a letter dated August 21, 2007, the ICE FOIA office informed Mr. Wishnie that it would treat Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B as having been received on the same date as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A. A copy of the August 21, 2007 letter is attached hereto as Defendant’s Exhibit E.
21. Defendant denies the representations contained in Paragraph 21, but avers that at the time of acknowledgment, there were 834 requests ahead of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit A and 835 requests ahead of Plaintiff’s Exhibit B. Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests are being processed consistent with the ICE FOIA policy of processing the requests in the order the requests are received by ICE FOIA. In addition, Defendant repeats and reaffirms its response in Paragraph 20.
22. Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, but avers that Defendant is currently processing Plaintiffs’ FOIA requests. In addition, Defendant repeats and reaffirms its response in Paragraph 20.
23. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion, and not averment of facts, to which no
5

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 6 of 8
answer is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 23.
24. This paragraph contains a legal conclusion, and not averments of facts, to which no answer is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 24.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 25. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference each of the answers in Paragraphs 124, above. 26. This paragraph contains a legal argument to which an answer is not required. To the extent that an answer is required, Defendant denies that the legal argument presented supports Plaintiffs’ claim for relief.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 27. Defendant hereby incorporates by reference each of the answers in Paragraphs 126, above. 28. This paragraph contains a legal argument to which an answer is not required. To the extent that an answer is required, Defendant denies that the legal argument presented supports Plaintiffs’ claim for relief.
REQUESTED RELIEF This section constitutes Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief, to which no response is required.
6

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 7 of 8 Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O’CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ Victoria S. Shin VICTORIA S. SHIN Assistant United States Attorney Federal Bar No. ct26806 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone No.: (203) 821-3799 Facsimile No.: (203) 773-5373
7

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 6 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that the foregoing Defendant’s Answer was sent via first-class mail on this the 13th of September, 2007, to the following counsel of record:
Michael Wishnie, Esq. Christopher N. Lasch, Esq. Hope Metcalf, Esq. Jerome N. Frank Legal
Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090
/s/ Victoria S. Shin Victoria S. Shin Assistant United States Attorney
8

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCIÓN and

:

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE

:

ACTION, INC.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF :

HOMELAND SECURITY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

Civ. No. 3:07cv1224 (MRK)

RULING ON DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN CAMERA Plaintiffs, two community groups based in New Haven, filed this action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., to obtain documents from the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"), an investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"), following a federal immigration enforcement action (named "Operation Return to Sender") that resulted in the arrest of approximately 30 men and women in New Haven on June 6, 2007. According to Plaintiffs, they sought documents from DHS concerning the Government's implementation and execution of Operation Return to Sender in New Haven because they were concerned that the Government may have undertaken the immigration enforcement action in retaliation for New Haven's adoption of a municipal ID program. See generally Jennifer Medina, "Arrests of 31 in U.S. Sweep Bring Fear in New Haven," N.Y. Times, June 8, 2007. At oral argument on DHS's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 19], the Court suggested that DHS submit to the Court for its in camera inspection certain of the documents listed on the

Government's Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6],1 in the hope that the Court's rulings regarding those documents could facilitate resolution of the pending motion. The Court suggested that Plaintiffs select a discrete number of documents to be submitted to the Court. The parties agreed to the Court's suggestion, and the Government submitted the designated unredacted documents to the Court for its in camera inspection. On August 15, 2008, the Court held a telephonic, on-therecord conference (the "Conference") with counsel to discuss the designated documents and to clarify the parties' positions.
I. FOIA was adopted by Congress "to pierce the veil of administrative secrecy and to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny." Dep't of Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 361 (1976). As the Second Circuit has explained, FOIA "adopts as its most basic premise a policy strongly favoring public disclosure of information in the possession of federal agencies." Halpern v. FBI, 181 F.3d 279, 286 (2d Cir. 1999). Congress also recognized that disclosure of certain information might harm legitimate governmental or private interests and therefore enacted a series of exemptions from disclosure. Nevertheless, because FOIA's fundamental mandate remains one of "full agency disclosure," Rose, 425 U.S. at 360, courts must "construe FOIA exemptions narrowly, resolving all doubts in favor of disclosure." Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2005); see ACLU v. Dep't of Defense, No. 06-
1 See generally Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973). DHS's Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] provides a brief description of any documents withheld by the agency, along with its date and Bates number, the subject of the document, a brief description of the document and a statement of the FOIA exemption under which the document was withheld. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (describing the functions of a Vaughn Index).
2

3140-cv, 2008 WL 4287823, at *3 (2d Cir. Sept. 22, 2008) ("The Act is broadly conceived to reflect a general philosophy of full agency disclosure, and its exemptions are exclusive, and must be narrowly construed.") (citation and quotation marks omitted). Moreover, the Government bears the burden of establishing that any claimed exemption applies. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B); U.S. Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 755 (1989); Nat'l Council of La Raza v. Dep't of Justice, 411 F.3d 350, 356 (2d Cir. 2005); Ctr. for Nat'l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 925 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
A brief description of the exemptions at issue follows. In many cases, DHS relies on several exemptions to support its refusal to produce documents.
Exemption (b)(2) frees from disclosure materials that are "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(2). Under this exemption, the agency may withhold trivial internal administrative information of no genuine public interest – referred to as "(b)(2) Low" – or information of public interest where the government demonstrates that "disclosure of the material would risk circumvention of lawful agency regulations" – called "(b)(2) High." See Massey v. FBI, 3 F.3d 620, 622 (2d Cir. 1993) (indicating that Exemption (b)(2) can apply to information concerning non-employee informants); Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1112 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (the record should be used for "predominantly internal" purposes). For Exemption b(2) High classification, the withheld information must be predominantly internal and its disclosure must significantly risk circumvention of agency regulations or statutes. See Crooker v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 670 F.2d 1051, 1074 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (en banc). "Predominantly internal" information includes information that is "designed to establish rules and practices for agency personnel, i.e., law enforcement investigatory techniques," "involves no
3

'secret law' of the agency," and "would risk circumvention of agency regulations" if disclosed. Id. at 1073. In Crooker, the D.C. Circuit held that portions of a BATF manual were properly withheld under Exemption (b)(2) High because the documents referred to "investigative techniques, in the form of prescribed rules and practices for agency personnel." Id. In Caplan v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms, 587 F.2d 544, 547 (2d Cir. 1978), the Second Circuit described Exemption (b)(2) High documents as those that would "increase the risk of physical harm to those engaged in law enforcement and significantly assist those engaged in criminal activity by acquainting them with the intimate details of the strategies employed in its detection." There, the Second Circuit held that an internal BATF manual on how to conduct searches and seizures was subject to Exemption (b)(2) High. Id. at 547.
Exemption (b)(5) excepts from disclosure "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). To qualify under this exemption, "a document must . . . satisfy two conditions: its source must be a Government agency, and it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial standards that would govern litigation against the agency that holds it." Dep't of Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n, 532 U.S. 1, 8 (2001). Courts have recognized at least the following privileges as falling within Exemption (b)(5): work-product doctrine privilege; executive or deliberative process privilege; and attorney-client privilege. See La Raza, 411 F.3d at 356.
The deliberative process privilege, which is at issue in this case, encompasses "documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated." Id. (quotation marks omitted). To
4

qualify under the deliberative process privilege, a document must be:
(1) "pre-decisional" – that is, "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision," Grand Central P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999), or put differently, it cannot be "made after the decision and designed to explain it." N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 152 (1975). As Sears recognizes, the line between pre-decisional and post-decisional documents can be difficult to draw. See id. at 152 n.19;2 and
(2) "deliberative" – that is, "actually . . . related to the process by which policies are formulated." La Raza, 411 F.3d at 356. To be "deliberative," the record "must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." Grand Central P'ship, 166 F.3d at 482.
The privilege does not cover purely factual material. See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73, 91 (1973); In
re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 737 (D.C. Cir. 1997). The D.C. Circuit has explained that "[t]o test
whether disclosure of a document is likely to adversely affect the purposes of the privilege, courts
ask themselves whether the document is so candid or personal in nature that public disclosure is
likely in the future to stifle honest and frank communication within the agency. 'Human experience
teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with
a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking
process.'" Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Dep't of Energy, 617 F.2d 854, 866 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (quoting
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974)).
Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C) are designed to protect privacy interests. Exemption (b)(6)
refers to "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a
2 See, e.g., Arthur Andersen & Co. v. I.R.S., 679 F.2d 254, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("'[P]redecisional documents are thought generally to reflect the agency "give-and-take" leading up to a decision that is characteristic of the deliberative process; whereas post-decisional documents often represent the agency's position on an issue, or explain such a position, and thus may constitute the "working law" of an agency' which Congress intended by FOIA to make accessible to the public.").
5

clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). The D.C. Circuit has read Exemption (b)(6) to extend not only to files, but also to "bits of personal information, such as names and addresses, the release of which would 'create a palpable threat to privacy.'" Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The exemption is "intended to 'protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that can result from the unnecessary disclosure of personal information.'" Wood, 432 F.3d at 86. As the Second Circuit has explained, "[f]actors that may give rise to a heightened privacy interest include the presence of sensitive personal information, dignity of crime victims, and the risk of harm to reputation. . . . [S]uch a privacy right attaches when information that is sensitive may be linked to certain individuals, not when the individuals involved are unknown." ACLU, No. 06-3140-cv, 2008 WL 4287823, at *21. "Once a more than de minimis privacy interest is implicated the competing interests at stake must be balanced in order to decide whether disclosure is permitted under FOIA. An invasion of more than a de minimis privacy interest protected by Exemption 6 must be shown to be 'clearly unwarranted' in order to prevail over the public interest in disclosure." Fed. Labor Relations Auth. v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 958 F.2d 503, 509 (2d Cir. 1992).
Exemption (b)(7)(C) frees from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(C). This exemption provides somewhat broader protection for privacy interests than Exemption (b)(6). See Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 166 (2004) ("Exemption 7(C)'s comparative breadth is no mere accident in drafting. We know Congress gave special consideration to the language of Exemption 7(C) because it was the result of
6

specific amendment to an existing statute."); Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 756; ACLU, No. 063140-cv, 2008 WL 4287823, at *18. Once a legitimate privacy interest is shown, courts must apply a balancing test to determine whether the document should be disclosed:
First, the citizen must show that the public interest sought to be advanced is a significant one, an interest more specific than having the information for its own sake. Second, the citizen must show the information is likely to advance that interest. Otherwise, the invasion is unwarranted. Favish, 541 U.S. at 172; see Halpern, 181 F.3d at 297. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[W]here there is a privacy interest protected by Exemption 7(C) and the public interest being asserted is to show that responsible officials acted negligently or otherwise improperly in the performance of their duties, the requester must establish more than a bare suspicion in order to obtain disclosure. Rather, the requester must produce evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged Government impropriety might have occurred." Favish, 541 U.S. at 174. Exemption (b)(7)(E) frees from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information . . . would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(E). Under Exemption (b)(7)(E), an agency can decline to disclose internal agency materials that relate to "guidelines, techniques, sources, and procedures for law enforcement investigations and prosecutions." Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). The exemption protects "investigatory techniques and procedures not generally known to the public," Doherty v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 775 F.2d 49, 52 n.4 (2d Cir. 1985), and is similar to Exemption
7

(b)(2) in that it requires the agency to establish that disclosure would risk circumvention of the law. See PHE, Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 983 F.2d 248, 249-50 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Hidalgo v. FBI, 541 F. Supp. 2d 250, 254 (D.D.C. 2008) ("Exemptions 2 and 7(E) allow information about law enforcement techniques to be withheld when publication would allow perpetrators to avoid them . . . ."). For Exemption (b)(7)(E) to apply, this Court must find that the information DHS seeks to withhold was compiled for law enforcement purposes and, if disclosed, could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. See Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059, 1065 (2d Cir. 1992) (setting forth a two-part inquiry for judicial review of exemptions claimed under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)).
II. The parties are in basic agreement about the foregoing legal principles governing this action. Where the parties disagree is in applying these general principles to the particular documents at issue. Having reviewed the withheld unredacted documents in camera and consulted with both parties on the record regarding their positions, the Court sets forth below its rulings on the exemptions asserted. The Court recognizes that "[e]ven when FOIA exemptions apply, '[a]ny reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt.'" Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1116 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)). Thus, in each of its rulings, the Court identifies which portion of the documents, if any, is reasonably segregable and should therefore be released by DHS despite the applicability of any claimed exemption.
A. Fugitive Case Management System Weekly Arrest Report (2.42-53311 to 2.43-5311)
According to the Consolidated Vaughn Index, DHS withheld these two documents in full on
8

the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E).3 The Fugitive Case Management System Weekly Arrest Reports (the "Arrest Reports") consist of database printouts that contain specific biographical information about the individuals arrested; the information is particular to each arrested individual and includes their A-file numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, and the identity of arresting officers, among other information. See Declaration of Catrina Pavlik-Keenan in Support of DHS's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 19-2] at 10, ¶ 33 ("[T]he [Fugitive Case Management System] is a narrowly focused system used by the Fugitive Operations Teams as a central repository recording arrests made by the Fugitive Operations Team. The database only contains biographic information."). Contrary to what Plaintiffs may have supposed, these documents do not compile generic information on multiple individuals.
During the Conference, counsel for DHS represented that they would provide the Arrest Reports for each individual for whom Plaintiffs had provided a consent to disclosure, redacted to remove any computer coding or web site information. Plaintiffs do not seek personal information regarding individuals who have not provided consent. Any computer coding or web site information on these documents is covered by both Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E), since the information is internal to DHS and would disclose information that might significantly risk circumvention of the law. See Declaration [doc. # 19-2] at 18, ¶ 63 ("the disclosure of these codes . . . could assist unauthorized parties to decipher the meaning of the codes"). Other courts have similarly allowed withholding under Exemptions (b)(2) and (b)(7)(E) where disclosure risks exposure of an internal
3 On the face of these documents provided to the Court, DHS indicated only the following exemptions: "(b)(2) High, (b)(7)(E)." In the telephonic conference, however, DHS's counsel also made it clear that they were relying on the privacy interest of those to whom the documents refer.
9

operation or technique and could result in circumvention of the law. See generally Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d at 1129 ("It is self-evident that information revealing security clearance procedures could render those procedures vulnerable and weaken their effectiveness at uncovering background information on potential candidates."); Miller v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 562 F. Supp. 2d 82 (D.D.C. 2008) (withholding psychological profiling form under Exemptions (b)(2) and (b)(7)(E) where release of the form could allow investigatory subjects to circumvent the FBI's ability to use the technique and thus avoid detection); Piper v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 294 F. Supp. 2d 16, 30 (D.D.C. 2003) (withholding polygraph information under Exemption (b)(7)(E) because it could enable future subjects to "extrapolate a pattern or method to the FBI's questioning technique" and thwart FBI strategy). Because its in camera review makes apparent to the Court that the withheld documents were predominantly internal and compiled for law enforcement purposes, and that their disclosure could significantly risk circumvention of the law, they were properly withheld under Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E).
As to the issue of whether any portion of the documents is reasonably segregable from the exempted information, Plaintiffs seek generic country of birth information, which the forms contain for each individual listed. At the Court's request, DHS provided Plaintiffs with generic country of birth information for both those arrested and those targeted in the operation. During the Conference, Plaintiffs requested other generic information which is set forth on the Arrest Reports. The Court recognizes, as DHS argues, that as more generic information is provided, the greater is the likelihood that individuals who did not provide consent could be personally identified. That said, if Plaintiffs desire, for example, generic gender information regarding those arrested and those targeted (as they stated during the Conference) and that information is contained within the documents withheld (it
10

certainly is for those arrested), DHS should provide Plaintiffs with generic gender information regarding those arrested and those targeted – e.g., 10 males and 10 females were targeted in the operation and 5 males and 5 females were arrested. The Court doubts that the combination of generic country of birth information and generic gender information would allow for identification of particular individuals.
Plaintiffs also seek the name of the arresting officer for each individual arrested. Many of the withheld records contain identifying information regarding the law enforcement officers who took part in the operation. DHS objects to providing that information, and the Court has informed the parties that it will issue a separate opinion addressing this issue for all withheld documents.
B. Operation Return To Sender/New Haven (3.3-52604 to 3.5-52604) According to the Consolidated Vaughn Index, DHS withheld these three documents in full on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). These documents are typewritten and set forth personally identifiable information about many specific individuals, including A-numbers, dates of birth, citizenship and the like. DHS agreed to release to those individuals for whom Plaintiffs had provided a consent form, the portion of the document that concerns that particular individual. Without a consent form, however, DHS correctly withheld disclosure of this highly personal information under Exemption (b)(7)(C). Exemption (b)(7)(C) "recognizes that the stigma of being associated with any law enforcement investigation affords broad privacy rights to those who are connected in any way with such an investigation unless a significant public interest exists for disclosure." Miller, 562 F. Supp. 2d at 121 (citing Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 773-75); see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of
11

Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146, 180 (D.D.C. 2004) ("Exemption 7(C) protects the identities of suspects and others of investigatory interest who are identified in agency records in connection with law enforcement investigations.") (citing Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 780). In balancing the personal privacy interests of the named individuals and the public interest in disclosure, "[n]ames of private individuals are . . . generally exempt from disclosure except, for example, where they are required to confirm or refute allegations of improper government activity." Sussman, 494 F.3d at 1115. The Court finds that no such significant public interest exists in disclosing this personally identifiable information where DHS has made available those portions of the documents that concern any individuals for whom Plaintiffs have provided a consent form and has further made the generic information that Plaintiffs requested available to Plaintiffs. Here, disclosure of the remaining information would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the additionally-named individuals' personal privacy. See Halpern, 181 F.3d at 297. Thus, DHS properly invoked Exemption (b)(7)(C) to otherwise withhold these three documents.
C. Target Apprehension Charts (3.6-52604 to 3.11-52604) DHS withheld these six documents on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). These documents comprise a handwritten "target apprehension chart" that contains columns of personally identifiable information regarding numerous specific individuals. See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 10. The document also contains the names of law enforcement personnel assigned to apprehend particular individuals, along with specific information about those individuals, including license plate numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, and other information. DHS represents in its Consolidated Vaughn Index that these documents were prepared
12

internally before execution of the operation, and it is apparent from their face that these are internal operational documents. See id. at 10-26.
The Court will rule separately regarding the names of law enforcement personnel. Otherwise, the Court is satisfied that DHS properly withheld these documents under Exemption (b)(7)(E). The documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes and contain operational and internal planning information that reveal law enforcement techniques for such investigations and law enforcement operations and therefore could, if disclosed, reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. See Declaration [doc. # 19-2] at 19, ¶ 64 ("the release of this information would allow existing and potential subjects of investigation to alter their behavior and avoid detection by law enforcement officials"); PHE, Inc., 983 F.2d at 249-50; Hidalgo, 541 F. Supp. 2d at 254.
While Plaintiffs contend that much is already known about the conduct of the operation, the Court's in camera review reveals that the documents in question are internal planning documents that show how the agency specifically planned and staffed the operation. Plaintiffs argue that DHS improperly withheld these documents under Exemption (b)(7)(E) because information describing Fugitive Operations Team procedures is already available to the public. In support of their argument, Plaintiffs cite a publicly available report that the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") issued in March 2007 entitled An Assessment of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Fugitive Operations Teams, available at http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/ OIG_07-34_Mar07.pdf. Plaintiffs are correct that the OIG Report includes information about the structure of the Fugitive Operations Teams, id. at 6-7, as well as the information-receiving and coordinative role of the Fugitive Case Management Unit in Laguna Niguel, California and the
13

Fugitive Operations Support Center in Burlingon, Vermont, see id. at 41-42. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertions, however, this general report on the overall structure of Fugitive Operations Teams and information gathering, receipt, and processing does not reveal the highly-specific information contained in the withheld documents that, if disclosed, would reveal not only the precise investigative or surveillance techniques immediately preceding the operation but also operationspecific information that could allow unapprehended targets to evade law enforcement personnel in the future. See NYC Apparel FZE v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 484 F. Supp. 2d 77, 93 (D.D.C. 2007) (withholding documents under Exemption (b)(2)'s more stringent standard because "disclosure of the processing, accounting and storage techniques [used by Customs] may benefit those attempting to violate the law and avoid detection by Customs, [and] the disclosure could risk circumvention of Customs regulations or statutes"); Jaffe v. CIA, 573 F. Supp. 377, 387 (D.D.C. 1983) ("The theory underlying this exemption is that disclosure of such information could complicate the task of investigative agencies because potential violators of the law could familiarize themselves with the policies which govern law enforcement methods and frustrate investigations. . . . The exemption does not encompass, however, ordinary manuals or procedures unless they include confidential details of law enforcement programs.") (citations omitted).
The Court’s in camera review of these documents also convinces the Court that Plaintiffs’ reliance on Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 57 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 1995), is misplaced. In Rosenfeld, which dealt with a request for FBI records pertaining to the investigation of the Free Speech Movement, its leadership, and suspected affiliated individuals, the Government appealed the district court’s denial of its request to withhold a portion of a document under Exemption (b)(7)(E). Id. The district court held that documents revealing the investigative technique the Government
14

sought to protect–namely, the use of pretext phone calls–were not properly withheld because Exemption (b)(7)(E) applies to investigative techniques not generally known to the public. Id. at 815. The Ninth Circuit found no error in the district court’s application of a "routine-technique exception to Exemption 7(E)" and in its "finding that a pretext phone call constitutes an investigative technique generally known to the public." Id.
In affirming the district court’s holding, the Ninth Circuit stated it "would not serve the purposes of FOIA to allow the government to withhold information to keep secret an investigative technique that is routine and generally known." Id. The court was unpersuaded by the Government’s assertion that the investigative "technique at issue is more precise, namely, the use of the identity of a particular individual, Mario Savio, as the pretext." Id. The court believed that allowing such a broad reading of the exemption would allow the Government to withhold documents "under any circumstances, no matter how obvious the investigative practice at issue, simply by saying that the 'investigative technique' at issue is not the practice but the application of the practice to the particular facts underlying that FOIA request." Id.
Here, the Court’s in camera review of these particular documents leads it to a different conclusion. While the public generally knows that the Government uses surveillance techniques to aid in its investigations, the details, scope, and timing of those techniques are not necessarily wellknown to the public. Unlike the information that the Government sought to withhold in Rosenfeld, the Court is satisfied by its in camera review that this is not an instance in which the Government is attempting to define an otherwise obvious investigatory technique so narrowly that it will fall under Exemption (b)(7)(E). In addition, although Exemption (b)(7)(E) is "generally limited to techniques or procedures that are not well-known to the public, even commonly known procedures
15

may be protected from disclosure if the disclosure could reduce or nullify their effectiveness." Judicial Watch, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d at 181. Thus, district courts have applied Exemption (b)(7)(E) even in circumstances where use of a law enforcement technique is generally known to the public but disclosure of the technique's details could risk circumvention of the law. See, e.g., Boyd v. BATFE, No. 05-1096, 2008 WL 3540126, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 15, 2008) (applying Exemption (b)(7)(E) to the use of confidential informants because disclosure of records would reveal "which indices were employed" and "when, where or how the check was made"); Cozen O'Connor v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury, No. 05-4332, 2008 WL 3271154, at *23 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2008) (applying Exemption (b)(7)(E) because "[t]errorist organizations and hostile nations could avoid or misdirect . . . investigations and implementation if they knew what databases and what government sources were being used to gather information about them"); Maguire v. Mawn, No. 02 Civ. 2164, 2004 WL 1124673, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 19, 2004) ("Although the public may know that banks often employ bait money, the public does not know whether and how a specific bank employs bait money.").
Plaintiffs further argue that DHS improperly withheld these particular documents because detailed information concerning the June 6, 2007 operation is already in the public domain by way of immigration proceedings concerning certain individuals apprehended as a result of the operation. Even though it is the Government's burden to show that withheld information is subject to nondisclosure pursuant to a FOIA exemption, where a party asserts that withheld material is publicly available, that party "carries the burden of production on that issue." Inner City Press v. Bd., Fed. Res. System, 463 F.3d 239, 245 (2d Cir. 2006) (emphasis in original). Although Inner City Press dealt with a challenge to the Government's withholding of documents pursuant to Exemption (b)(4), the Second Circuit's discussion of the public domain exception applies to other exemptions. See 463
16

F.3d at 244 (citing cases addressing Exemptions (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(7)). The Second Circuit explained the underlying rationale of the public domain doctrine as follows: "if identical information is truly public, then enforcement of an exemption cannot fulfill its purposes." Id. (citing to Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. U.S. Dept' of Energy, 169 F.3d 16, 19 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). "[T]he public domain exception [is limited] to information that is 'freely available,'" id. (citing Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 764), and the party requesting disclosure satisfies its burden of production only when it points to "specific information in the public domain that appears to duplicate that being withheld." Id. at 249; see also Davis v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (rejecting a challenge to withholding under Exemption (b)(7) because the "public domain cases . . . require the requester to point to 'specific' information identical to that being withheld"). As the D.C. Circuit recently stated, "'[p]rior disclosure of similar information does not suffice; instead, the specific information sought by the plaintiff must already be in the public domain by official disclosure." Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d 370, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, "prior agency disclosures do not necessarily result in an agency's waiver to subsequent claims of exemption." Bowen v. U.S. FDA, 925 F.2d 1225, 1228 (9th Cir. 1991) (allowing withholding under Exemption (b)(7)(E) in a criminal case even though "a small portion of the requested materials [had] been made public because of . . . [an expert's] testimony in [the requester's] state court criminal trial").
In Inner City Press, the public domain dispute related to information contained in a bank merger application that discussed the banks' relationships with subprime lenders. 463 F.3d at 242. The plaintiff argued that the information was in the public domain since publicly available SEC forms appeared to require the same information that the agency sought to withhold from the plaintiff. Id. at 248. Although the Second Circuit concluded that the information required by the SEC forms
17

was different from the more specific information included in the withheld bank merger application, id. at 251, the court noted that had the plaintiff met its burden of production, Reporters Committee would not bar the application's disclosure since the SEC forms containing such duplicate information would be readily accessible and easily searchable on the SEC's online, free-of-charge database and thus "freely available" for purposes of the public domain exception. Id. at 252.
The Court is convinced that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requisite burden of production with respect to the law enforcement techniques they allege are publicly available. As an initial matter, the Court notes that the additional documentation Plaintiffs submitted to the Court on August 30, 2008 is not duplicative of the specific information contained in the withheld documents. Moreover, unlike Inner City Press, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the documents upon which they rely in support of their position – namely, I-213 and I-831 Forms provided to certain apprehended individuals in connection with their removal proceedings – are readily accessible, easily searchable, or "freely available." As the D.C. Circuit has observed, this Court "must be confident that the information sought is truly public and that the requester receive no more than what is publicly available before we find a waiver." Cottone v. Reno, 193 F.3d 550, 555 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (concluding that the requesting party had "discharged his burden of production by pointing to specific tapes which, having been played in open court and received into evidence, reside in the public domain and mirror precisely the information that he has requested"). The Court has no such confidence in this case.
Furthermore, even if portions of information contained in the withheld documents were otherwise known to some, the withheld documents appear to contain much information that is otherwise unknown to the public. As such they are not appropriate to disclose given that other law
18

enforcement operations will undoubtedly occur in the future and some who were targeted in this very operation were not apprehended. See Miller, 562 F. Supp. 2d at 124 (withholding under Exemption (b)(7)(E) appropriate where release of information could allow investigatory targets to "develop countermeasures and thus avoid detection") (quotation marks omitted); Fisher v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 772 F. Supp. 7, 12 (D.D.C. 1991) (withholding under Exemption (b)(7)(E) appropriate where disclosure "would reveal investigative techniques and procedures, thereby impairing the FBI's future effectiveness" and "could alert subjects in drug investigations about techniques used to aid the FBI"). The Court also finds that the information in these six documents is not reasonably segregable and thus the documents are properly withheld in their entirety.
D. Operational Stage Location (3.14-52604) DHS withheld this document on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E). DHS claims that the document contains "sensitive information." In truth, it does not. The document is a MapQuest map of locations in New Haven. While it may be a revelation to suspects that law enforcement authorities use MapQuest on occasion to locate particular addresses, the Court doubts that circumvention of the law will occur as a result of the release of this particular map. During the Conference, DHS's attorneys agreed to release this document to Plaintiffs.
E. Operation Return to Sender Statistics (3.17-52604) DHS withheld this document on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(7)(E), (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). The document contains personal identifiable information about several individuals who were either targeted or arrested, setting forth their names, addresses, photographs, the time of
19

apprehension and the operational team (by number only) that arrested the individual or sought the individual. See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 30. As discussed during the Conference, for those individuals for whom Plaintiffs have provided a consent form, DHS will provide them with their own individual information. DHS properly withheld the information for those who have not provided consent under Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), as the information was compiled for law enforcement purposes, is highly personal, and would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy that is not outweighed by any public interest in the disclosure of this highly specific, personally-identifying information. See Declaration [doc. # 19-2] at 21, ¶ 71 ("disclosure of this information would not inform the Plaintiffs or the general public about ICE's performance of its mission . . . and/or how ICE actually conducts its internal operations and investigations"); Massey, 3 F.3d at 625 ("[D]isclosure of the identities of private persons involved or possibly implicated in criminal investigations would be [unlikely] to shed light upon the FBI's performance of its public duties.").
However, it is difficult for the Court to see how the mere number of the team to which each individual was assigned would disclose law enforcement techniques or information that could lead to circumvention of the law such that withholding under Exemption (b)(7)(E) is proper. Therefore, for those individuals who have provided consent forms, DHS should provide each of them with all of the information that relates to that particular individual, including the team number for that individual. To the extent that Plaintiffs seek such information, DHS should release the previouslywithheld team number information to Plaintiffs.
20

F. Teams 1-4 (3.20-52604 to 3.29-52604) DHS withheld these seven documents on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). These documents contain personal identifiable information regarding individuals targeted in the operation, as well as information regarding the names of specific law enforcement team members, their cellular phone numbers, the time team members went into and out of certain houses and certain information (including names) of "who gave concent [sic]." See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 36-39. DHS properly withheld the personally identifiable information under Exemptions (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C), except that if Plaintiffs have provided DHS with a consent form for any particular individual listed in these documents, DHS should release that individual's personal information to that person, including the time in and the time out information. The Court will rule in a separate decision on release of the names of law enforcement personnel involved in this operation. The cell phone numbers of law enforcement personnel were properly withheld from disclosure under Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E) because the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes, were predominantly internal to ICE and prepared in anticipation of and to assist with ICE activity, and could significantly risk circumvention of the law if disclosed. Additionally, DHS properly withheld the information under Exemption (b)(7)(C) because Plaintiffs have not asserted any discernible public interest in the disclosure of law enforcement personnel's cell phone numbers, and the privacy interest of such individuals in avoiding hostility and unwarranted harassment makes non-disclosure of this particular information especially proper under Exemption (b)(7)(C). See Doherty, 775 F.2d at 52 n.2 (holding that Exemption (b)(7)(C) "covers investigatory
21

records compiled for law enforcement purposes to the extent that they constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" and "protects the identities of investigative agents"); Miller, 562 F. Supp. 2d at 119-20 (authorizing withholding of similar FBI, BATFE, and DEA personnel information under Exemption (b)(7)(C)).
That leaves the information bearing on the issue of consent, including the names of certain individuals who are identified in the documents as having provided consent to enter premises. Apparently, many of those arrested in the operation contend that no consent was provided and they may pursue civil damage actions as a result. DHS says that if they do so and seek consent information in such an action, DHS will address those requests when they receive them. However, DHS argues that it does not have permission to release the names of individuals who provided consent, that those individuals might be in jeopardy if their names were publicly released, and that the manner in which the agency conducts its operations might harm future law enforcement operations. The Court is concerned that release of the names of specific individuals whom DHS claims provided consent could place them in jeopardy and unless they consented to release of their names, the Court does not believe that disclosure is appropriate under Exemptions (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). See Massey, 3 F.3d at 624 ("It is generally recognized that the mention of an individual's name in a law enforcement file will engender comment and speculation and carr[ies] a stigmatizing connotation.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Miller, 562 F. Supp. 2d at 12021(withholding third party identifying information on the basis of FBI Headquarter's declaration that release of identifying information could subject such individuals to harassment, embarrassment, undue public attention, and threatened personal safety).
Plaintiffs argued at the Conference that the names of individuals who provided consent are
22

already in the public domain by way of active immigration proceedings against certain individuals apprehended during the raid and that DHS therefore improperly withheld this information under the asserted FOIA exemptions. The burden is on the Plaintiffs to produce evidence demonstrating that the exact information they seek is freely available in the public domain. See supra Part II.C. As the D.C. Circuit has stated, "FOIA plaintiffs cannot simply show that similar information has been released, but must establish that a specific fact already has been placed in the public domain." Public Citizen v. Dep't of State, 11 F.3d 198, 201 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (examining a public domain challenge to information withheld under Exemption (b)(1)). Unlike the investigatory techniques that Plaintiffs unsuccessfully argued had been released into the public domain, the documentation that Plaintiffs attached to their August 30, 2008 letter to the Court raises a legitimate question as to whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of production that specific facts already exist in the public domain regarding the names of particular individuals who consented to law enforcement personnel's entry and/or search of the premises at which certain individuals were apprehended.
Plaintiffs argue that their August 30, 2008 submission to the Court, which includes reports of Immigration Customs and Enforcement officers participating in the June 6, 2007 raid, demonstrates that detailed information concerning the raid is already in the public domain. However, Plaintiffs have made no showing that the I-213 and I-831 Forms pertaining to the apprehended individuals' removal proceedings are part of an administrative record that members of the public can readily access. Current Department of Justice regulations provide that removal hearings "shall be open to the public, except that the immigration judge may, in his or her discretion, close proceedings as provided in § 1003.27 of this chapter." 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10. Removal proceedings generate an administrative record, which includes the "hearing before the immigration
23

judge, including the testimony, exhibits, applications, proffers, and requests, the immigration judge's decision, and all written orders, motions, appeals, briefs, and other papers filed in the proceedings." 8 C.F.R. § 1240.9. However, it appears to the Court that disclosure of any such record requires the submission of a FOIA request. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 16.1-16.3. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has made clear that even if material that is now claimed as exempt was previously provided to opposing counsel as discovery, that does not mean that the information entered the public domain. See Cottone, 193 F.3d at 556 ([F]or materials that "were not played in court but were simply provided to [the plaintiff's] counsel as Brady material, Exemption 3 remains inviolate. This is so because a constitutionally compelled disclosure to a single party simply does not enter the public domain.").
At this time, therefore, the Court is not satisfied that the additional documentation submitted – namely, I-213 and I-831 Forms related to the removal proceedings of certain apprehended individuals that reference the names of individuals who provided consent – is part of a permanent administrative record that is "freely available" to the public. See Cottone, 193 F.3d at 554, 556 (differentiating between "tapes played in open court and admitted into evidence," "the court reporter's transcript, the parties' briefs, and the judge's orders and opinions," and Brady material simply disclosed to opposing counsel). Plaintiffs have not shown that such information is available pursuant to a FOIA request and have thus failed to carry their burden of production that the specific names of individuals who provided consent is in the public domain. See Inner City Press, 463 F.3d at 245; Wolf v. CIA, 473 F.3d at 378. Since the Plaintiffs have not yet demonstrated that these specific facts are in the public domain, DHS properly withheld this information.
However, the Court does not discount the possibility that Plaintiffs can show that this precise information is already publicly available, and if Plaintiffs request it, the Court will provide Plaintiffs
24

with an opportunity to show the Court that the names of those who provided consent are in the public domain. Of course, the most that Plaintiffs could obtain from such an effort is the names on these documents of those who provided consent, and if those same names are already publicly available, one might question whether the effort is worth the fight. The Court will leave that issue to Plaintiffs and their counsel, however.
For particular individuals who have submitted release forms to DHS, the Government should release to those individuals the specific information contained in these forms that relates to them less any reference to an identified individual that is alleged to have given consent to law enforcement's entry and/or search of the premises. If the "consent" section of these documents indicates that law enforcement personnel spoke to an individual but that individual is not identified (as occurs on some of the forms), then DHS should also release that information since it is not protected under Exemptions (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E).
G. Personally Identifiable Information (3.31-52604 to 3.81-52604) DHS withheld these sixteen documents under Exemptions (b)(2) High, (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E). These documents contain personal identifiable information about specific individuals, including photographs, dates of birth, driver license numbers, and addresses. See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 43. During the Conference, counsel for DHS confirmed that to the extent Plaintiffs have provided a consent form for any individuals listed in these documents, DHS will provide that individual with their own personal information. As an initial matter, the withheld information is not "predominantly internal" to DHS and cannot be withheld under Exemption (b)(2) High. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (exempting materials
25

"related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency"). The Court's in camera review, however, makes clear that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes. Given the highly personal aspects of the information contained in these documents, it would not be appropriate for DHS to provide this information to anyone other than the person providing a consent form, because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Exemption (b)(7)(C) that is not outweighed by any overriding public interest in this particular information. See 5 U.S.C. § (b)(7)(C); Halpern, 181 F.3d at 297. The Court is satisfied that the nature of the information is such that withholding is also proper under Exemption (b)(6) because the individuals' privacy interest in this information prevails over any public interest in disclosure. See Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 958 F.2d at 509.
In addition, information contained in the records that does not identify individuals was properly withheld under Exemption (b)(7)(E) since the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes and if disclosed, "could adversely affect future investigations and operations by providing the public with the details and type of information the agency obtained in the course of preparing for the execution of the law enforcement operation." Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 45. The Court finds this to be especially true since there are targeted individuals who have not yet been apprehended. Finally, because the information is not reasonably segregable, DHS properly withheld these documents in their entirety under Exemptions (b)(6), (b)(7)(C) and (b)(7)(E).
H. Email re Call from Mayor DeStefano (3.88-52604) This is an internal email chain regarding information requested by New Haven's Mayor regarding Operation Return to Sender. DHS has withheld this document on the basis of Exemptions
26

(b)(5), (b)(6) and (b)(7)(C). See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 54-56. The Court will rule separately regarding the names and telephone numbers of the law enforcement personnel set forth in the email chain.
That leaves only a small portion of the email chain that refers to the Mayor's request and what information is required to answer the Mayor's inquiries. The Court is frankly bewildered at DHS's assertion that Exemption (b)(5) applies to this portion of the email. DHS does not claim attorneyclient or work product privilege with respect to this document but only the deliberative process privilege. That privilege is designed
to assure that subordinates within an agency will feel free to provide the decisionmaker with their uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism; to protect against premature disclosure of proposed policies before they have been finally formulated or adopted; and to protect against confusing the issues and misleading the public by dissemination of documents suggesting reasons and rationales for a course of action which were not in fact the ultimate reasons for the agency's action. Coastal States Gas Corp., 617 F.2d at 866. The privilege does not apply to purely factual material. See EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. at 91; Grand Central P'ship, Inc. 166 F.3d at 482; Local 3, Int'l Bhd. of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B., 845 F.2d 1177, 1180 (2d Cir. 1988); In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d at 737. Here, the portion of the email chain that has been provided to the Court merely lists the purely factual information that would be needed to respond to the Mayor's request. Putting aside for the moment whether this document is pre-decisional, it is certainly not deliberative. See Grand Central P'ship, Inc., 166 F.3d at 483-84 (finding an email between HUD employees to be deliberative because it "formed an important, if not essential, link in HUD's consultative process," "clearly reflect[ed] the personal opinions of its writer," and "had a direct bearing on the actual exercise of a policy judgment"
27

but finding Exemption (b)(5) inapplicable to another document that lacked "the slightest indication that [it] formed an 'essential link' in the agency's policy development"). The Court is unconvinced that the redacted information, which is essentially an email notification to other agency personnel that the author responded to the Mayor's inquiry, relates to either policy formulation or policy-oriented judgment. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has stated, "communications made after [a] decision [that are] designed to explain it" are not properly withheld under Exemption (b)(5). Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 421 U.S. at 151-52. This particular communication appears to do nothing more than identify what information is needed to satisfy the Mayor's request for information.
Furthermore, even the last portion of the response, which seems to be the author's aside to other agency personnel regarding how to consistently handle such inquiries, is not protected by Exemption (b)(5). The deliberative process privilege encompassed in Exemption (b)(5) "does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formation; the record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." Grand Central P'ship, Inc., 166 F.3d at 482. Moreover, the information in this email would not "expose an agency's decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions." Dudman Commc'ns v. Dep't of Airforce, 815 F.2d 1565, 1568 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Further, it lacks the "'give-and-take' leading up to a decision that is characteristic of the deliberative process." Arthur Andersen & Co., 679 F.2d at 258.
Even if the Court were to find that the document was deliberative, the Court is unpersuaded by DHS's argument that the email pertains to a decision concerning how to respond to the Mayor's request and is therefore "pre-decisional" for the purpose of Exemption (b)(5). See Def.'s Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. [doc. # 19-1] at 17 ("ICE properly asserted the deliberative process privilege to
28

withhold documents compiled and prepared for the purpose of responding to the Mayor of New Haven's questions regarding the operation. . . . All these records are predecisional since they were all prepared in order to assist ICE in arriving at a decision."). A document may be pre-decisional where it is "prepared in order to assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision" and "reflects[s] the personal opinions of the writer rather than the policy of the agency." Cuomo, 166 F.3d at 482 (quotation marks omitted). This document appears to the Court to do neither of these two things.
DHS's argument begs the question whether this particular email exchange concerns the development of agency policy that has yet to be adopted or rather the implementation or explanation of an already-adopted policy–here, the policy underlying Operation Return to Sender in New Haven. If the Court were to accept DHS's assertion of the deliberative process privilege for this email exchange, it would be enlarging the scope of Exemption (b)(5) by allowing each successive conversation that addressed an already-adopted policy to be characterized as the formulation of new agency policy. Allowing for such a liberal characterization of agency policy and decisionmaking would elide any distinction between pre-decisional and post-decisional documents, see Sears, 421 U.S. at 132 n.19, and would undermine FOIA's general presumption favoring disclosure, see Wood, 432 F.3d at 83.4
Accordingly, the Court rejects DHS's argument that the communication falls within the deliberative process privilege because the document is neither "pre-decisional" nor "deliberative." In short, DHS has not carried its burden of demonstrating that these documents were properly
4 The Court recognizes that there might be situations in which the deliberative process privilege applies to documents produced after a policy has been rendered but that are pre-decisional in their own right inasmuch as they relate to some final agency action. See Judicial Watch, Inc., 449 F.3d at 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The Court's in camera review reveals that this is not such a situation.
29

withheld under Exemption (b)(5), and DHS should therefore disclose the portion of this email withheld on the basis of that exemption.
I. ICE Email Chain re Draft Response to Mayor (3.93-52604 to 3.96-52604, 3.117-52604)
These documents contain internal emails presumably among DHS personnel seeking information and comments on drafts of a response to the Mayor's concerns regarding Operation Return to Sender. It appears from the copies provided to the Court that DHS withheld the names and telephone numbers of the DHS personnel involved in the email string. The Court will rule on those matters in a separate opinion.
As an initial matter, it appears to the Court that the queries contained in documents 3.9352604 to 3.96-52604 were withheld in full under Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E). The Court finds that the queries were improperly withheld under Exemption (b)(2) High because the information, if disclosed, would not significantly risk circumvention of the law. Similarly, the queries were improperly withheld under Exemption (b)(7)(E) because the documents were not investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and would not, if disclosed, risk circumvention of the law. DHS should therefore disclose the queries withheld on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(7)(E).5
What was further withheld from disclosure under Exemption (b)(5) look like draft sections of information sought by ICE personnel to incorporate into the Government's response to questions asked by New Haven's Mayor about the operation. These draft responses provide purely factual
5 It appears to the Court that the queries in the email string of document 3.117-52604 were disclosed (as well they should have been, the Court might add).
30

information about the operation. Again, putting aside the issue of whether these documents are preor post-decisional (since they all post-date the operation), they are not deliberative at all and do not reflect a debate over policy. "A document is deliberative when it is actually . . . related to the process by which policies are formulated." Grand Central P'ship, 166 F.3d at 482 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "[T]he privilege does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formation; the record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." Id.; see Tigue v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70, 80 (2d Cir. 2002) (same).
"To be protected under Exemption 5, the kind and scope of discretion involved must be of such significance that disclosure genuinely could be thought likely to diminish the candor of agency deliberation in the future." Petroleum Info. Corp. v. Dep't of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1436 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1992). As the D.C. Circuit has explained, the "key question in Exemption 5 cases [is] whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions." Dudman Commc'ns, 815 F.2d at 1568. The answer to that question as it relates to these particular documents is "No," because the documents in question appear to merely gather and set forth purely factual information about the operation in response to questions from the Mayor. See Mink, 410 U.S. at 87-88; Grand Central P'ship, 166 F.3d at 482. In those circumstances, the Court does not believe invocation of Exemption (b)(5) is appropriate. See Playboy Enter., Inc. v. Dep't of Justice, 677 F.2d 931, 935 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ("A report does not become a part of the deliberative process merely because it contains only those facts which the person making the report thinks material.").
The deliberative process privilege also does not protect communications "made after the
31

decision and designed to explain it." Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 421 U.S. at 152. Because Exemption (b)(5) shields only pre-decisional, not post-decisional, communications, it "permits the withholding of documents that reflect the thought process in developing law and policy, but requires disclosure of all opinions and interpretations implementing the agency's law and policy." Cozen O'Connor, No. 05-4332, 2008 WL 3271154, at *17 (citing Sears, 421 U.S. at 152-53). As stated above, the information that DHS withheld under Exemption (b)(5) appears to be information gathered for a draft response to the Mayor's inquiry that sets forth the normal parameters of ICE fugitive operations as well as facts related to the implementation of Operation Return to Sender. DHS asserts that the documents fall within Exemption (b)(5) since they are the type of documents – recommendations, drafts, and suggestions – "prepared in order to assist ICE in arriving at a decision." Def. Mem. Supp. Summ. J. [doc. # 19-1] at 17. DHS has characterized its "exchange of subjective opinions among ICE personnel," id., over how to respond to the Mayor's fact-based inquiry regarding a particular ICE operation as deliberation worthy of protection under Exemption (b)(5). However, after reviewing the documents in camera, it is apparent that the information requested for inclusion in ICE's response to the Mayor's inquiry is nothing more than an answer to a purely factual question concerning what transpired on June 6, 2007. Contrary to DHS's assertions, the withheld purely factual information does not reflect personal opinions of ICE personnel or concern the formulation of agency policy. Thus, Exemption (b)(5) is inapplicable and DHS should disclose the information withheld on the basis of this exemption.
J. Law Enforcement Agent Notes (3.144-52604 to 3.146-52604) The withheld portions of these three documents set forth names and telephone numbers of
32

what appear to be law enforcement personnel, issues that this Court will take up in a later ruling. K.
Conference Call with Mayor DeStefano (3.147-52604) This document appears to be internal DHS notes of a conference call with New Haven's Mayor on June 8, 2007. Apparently, DHS has released the document but redacted the name of a law enforcement officer (on which the Court will rule later) and three tasks that are listed under a portion of the notes that is captioned "Get Backs from ICE." DHS withheld that portion of the document on the basis of Exemptions (b)(2) High and (b)(5). See Consolidated Vaughn Index [doc. # 19-6] at 6566. The withheld portion of this document does not contain information which if available would significantly risk circumvention of the law within the meaning of Exemption (b)(2) High. Nor is the withheld portion deliberative in any ordinary sense of that word. It is a list of factual information that needed to be gathered following the call with the Mayor as well as a designation of which offices would be contacted to determine what information ICE could release. The Court does not see how this summary of next steps, or "to-do list," is deliberative. It does not relate to policy formulation, see Grand Central P'ship, 166 F.3d at 482, or "expose an agency's decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions." Dudman Commc'ns, 815 F.2d at 1568. The Court therefore highly doubts that disclosure of the redacted information would result in subordinates failing to offer their "uninhibited opinions and recommendations without fear of later being subject to public ridicule or criticism," risk "premature disclosure of proposed policies," or "confus[e] the issues and mislead[] the public." Coastal States Gas Corp., 617 F.2d at 866. In sum, the information that DHS redacted is not the type
33

of information that the deliberative process is designed to protect, and it was thus improperly withheld under Exemption (b)(5). DHS should therefore disclose the portion of the document withheld on the basis of this exemption.
III. DHS is ordered promptly to disclose the improperly withheld information identified in the Court's opinion and to furnish the Plaintiffs with similar previously-withheld information contained in documents not submitted to the Court for its in camera review. After consulting with one another about any documents that remain in dispute, the parties should provide the Court with a joint proposal identifying next steps no later than October 14, 2008. Upon receipt of the joint proposal, the Court will schedule an on-the-record telephone conference with the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Mark R. Kravitz United States District Judge
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: September 30, 2008.
34

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 81 Filed 01/30/09 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCIÓN and

:

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE

:

ACTION, INC.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF :

HOMELAND SECURITY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

Civ. No. 3:07cv1224 (MRK)

RULING ON DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN CAMERA Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 19]. Following the Court's on-the-record status conference with the parties on January 5, 2009, the Government submitted the last portion of this motion's disputed documents to the Court for its in camera review. This ruling is limited to Plaintiffs' challenges to the Government's redactions in whole or in part to the following fifteen documents: 3.18 to 3.19-52604; 3.113-52604; 3.30-52604; and, 2.29 to 2.39-53311. The Court previously ruled on certain documents that were submitted for in camera review, and the Court refers readers to that decision for background regarding Plaintiffs' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and the applicable legal standards regarding the Government's claimed exemptions under FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq. See Unidad Latina En Acción et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 253 F.R.D. 44 (D. Conn. 2008). After the Government submitted these fifteen documents for this Court's in camera review, the Court held an on-the-record telephone conference with the parties. In accordance with the telephone conference dated January 29, 2009, the Court's decision on the documents submitted in

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 81 Filed 01/30/09 Page 2 of 4
camera is as follows: ICE 3.18-52604
This document, entitled "Operation Return to Sender," contains the alien numbers, names, dates of birth, country of citizenship, and address information for thirty-two private individuals. Although the Court would normally conclude that the individuals listed in this document have a cognizable privacy interest in the information contained in the document, the exact information contained in this document – indeed it appears the same document – has already been made available to Plaintiffs through their FOIA action in the State of Connecticut. Moreover, the same document is currently publicly available through the National Lawyer's Guild National Immigration Project website. See National Immigration Law Project, New Haven Immigration Raids Documents, January 21, 2009, http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/Danbury_raids/ Target%20List.pdf. Because this same document is already in the public domain, whatever interest in privacy the individuals listed on the document had is now non-existent (at least insofar as the information set forth on the document). Therefore, the Court orders the Government to release this document to Plaintiffs in its entirety.
ICE 3.19-52604 This untitled document contains the same information as document 3.18-52604 but also includes some numeric ICE team assignments. This Court previously ruled that the Government should release the team assignment information for any individual for whom the Plaintiffs provided a consent form. See Unidad Latina En Acción, 253 F.R.D. at 55. Since this document has already been made public, except for the team numbers, in accordance with the Court's previous decision, the Court orders the Government to release the entire document, including the team assignment
2

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 81 Filed 01/30/09 Page 3 of 4
numbers. To the extent this record contains private individuals' address information not currently in the public domain, the Government may withhold that information under Exemption (b)(6).
ICE 3.113-52604 This document has some of the same information as document 3.18-52604 but also includes additional information including possible conviction history, social security information, and predator status. Plaintiffs do not seek social security numbers; nor do they seek the possible conviction history or predator status of any particular individual included on the document. Rather, Plaintiffs seek generalized and disaggregated information about the conviction histories of those involved in Operation Return to Sender. Assuming this information is not matched up with any individual's name, the Court sees no reason why that generic information should be withheld. Accordingly, the Court orders the Government to disclose to Plaintiffs in a manner that will not identify any specific individuals, the criminal history and predator status information contained in this document.
ICE 3.30-52604 and 2.29 to 2.39-53311 Each of these documents, entitled "Field Operations Worksheet," includes highly personal information about particular individuals. Each worksheet contains a box entitled "Criminal History." Plaintiffs seek only the information contained in this box. The Court concludes that this limited piece of information, which is left blank on most of the documents, will not undermine the Government's law enforcement efforts or disclose investigative techniques. Nor will that information invade privacy interests, so long as identifying information is removed before the document is disclosed. Therefore, the Court orders the Government to disclose to Plaintiffs only the criminal history portion of each of these documents.
3

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 81 Filed 01/30/09 Page 4 of 4

This Court has issued numerous rulings and orders regarding the merits of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 19] since that motion was filed on April 4, 2008. See generally, Unidad Latina En Acción et al. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 3:07cv1224(MRK) [docs. ## 37, 60, 67, 68, 71, and 76]. Certain aspects of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, such as the adequacy of the Government's search, have been withdrawn and others, such as Plaintiffs' request for law enforcement agent identifying information, have been declared as moot based on the representations of the parties. So far as this Court understands, this Ruling resolves the parties' disputes concerning the final documents at issue with respect to what remains of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Rather than attempt to match each of the Court's rulings and the parties' agreements to each aspect of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court concludes that the most appropriate action at this stage is to DENY as moot Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment [doc. # 19].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/

Mark R. Kravitz

United States District Judge

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: January 29, 2009.

4

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 119 Filed 11/04/09 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

__________________________________________

)

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCIÓN and

)

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY, )

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Civ. No. 3:07-cv-01224-MRK November 4, 2009

JOINT STIPULATION RESOLVING ALL REMAINING CLAIMS OTHER THAN COSTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

WHEREAS Unidad Latina en Acción and Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed FOIA Requests 07-52939, 07-52604 and 07-53311 seeking

disclosure of records from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“Defendant”);

WHEREAS Plaintiffs filed the present action to compel the release of the requested

records on August 10, 2007;

WHEREAS Plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy of Defendant’s search for records

and Defendant’s failure to disclose records;

WHEREAS pursuant to a joint stipulation [dkt # 111] and rulings and orders of this Court

[dkt # 60, 67, 68, 93, 106, 109] all claims pertaining to the adequacy of Defendant’s search for

records have previously been resolved;

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 119 Filed 11/04/09 Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS the parties have briefed the propriety of Defendant’s assertion of exemptions from disclosure [dkt # 19, 20, 21, 77, 79, 87] and the Court has ruled on the propriety of a number of such asserted exemptions [dkt # 37, 81; 104];
WHEREAS Defendant has subsequently reviewed the outstanding exemptions asserted, released further responsive records to Plaintiffs in part or in full, and produced additional Vaughn indices to Plaintiffs;
WHEREAS Plaintiffs do not concede the adequacy of any of the Vaughn indices produced or the propriety of the asserted exemptions on which the Court has not ruled, but also do not seek further relief from this Court in regard to any of the Vaughn indices produced or the propriety of exemptions asserted by Defendant and on which the Court has not ruled;
WHEREAS Defendant asserts that the Vaughn indices no longer challenged by Plaintiffs are legally sufficient and that all remaining exemptions are properly asserted under the Freedom of Information Act;
NOW THEREFORE the Parties hereby jointly enter into the following stipulation: 1. With the exception of costs and attorneys’ fees, the Parties seek no further relief in this action; 2. With the exception of costs and attorneys’ fees, all remaining claims in this action are subject to dismissal with prejudice by this Court; 3. In accordance with this stipulation, all prior stipulations between the parties and the Court’s rulings and orders, judgment shall enter for Plaintiffs in part and for Defendant in part;

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 119 Filed 11/04/09 Page 3 of 4

4. The Parties shall have until January 8, 2010 to resolve the issues of costs and attorneys’ fees or to make a motion requesting judicial resolution of the same.

Respectf

ully submitted,

PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT

/s/

_/s/

MICHAEL J. WISHNIE

DOUGLAS P. MORABITO

Supervising

Attorney Assistan

t U.S. Attorney

Attorney Bar # ct 27221

Attorney Bar # ct 20962

P.O. Box 209090

157 Church Street

New Haven, CT 06511

New Haven, CT 06510

Telephone:

(203) 432-4800 Telephone:

(203) 821-3700

Fax: (203) 432-1426

Fax: (203) 773-5373

Email: Michael.Wishnie@yale.edu Email: Douglas.Morabito@usdoj.gov

So ordered this ____ day of ____________, 2009.

____________________________ United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 119 Filed 11/04/09 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATION
I herby certify that on November 4, 2009, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

Hunter

BY: _______/s/__________________________ Smith, Law Student Intern

 
 Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 124 Filed 01/15/10 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

_________________________________________

)

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCIÓN and

)

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE ACTION, INC., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

)

HOMELAND SECURITY

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

Civil No. 3:07-cv-1224 January 15, 2010

STIPULATION FOR COMPROMISE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE OF CLAIMS REGARDING FEES AND COSTS

WHEREAS, by letters dated June 26, 2007, Unidad Latina en Accion and Junta for Progressive Action (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) submitted requests pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA”) for records relating to, inter alia, the City of New Haven’s municipal ID card and the June 6, 2007 immigration enforcement operation to the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”);
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Department of Homeland of Security (“DHS”), of which ICE is a component, seeking the release of such records;
WHEREAS, on November 9, 2009, pursuant to a stipulation by Plaintiffs and DHS (collectively, “the Parties”), this Court entered judgment in this matter;

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 124 Filed 01/15/10 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs have indicated their intent to file an application for attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in connection with this litigation pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); and
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to resolve their disputes concerning the application for fees and costs without further litigation;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties, as follows:
1. The Parties do hereby agree to settle and compromise each and every claim, credit, demand, and right, whether known or unknown, directly or indirectly relating to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this litigation, under the terms and conditions set forth in this Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of Claims (hereinafter “Stipulation”), unless specifically and expressly excluded from the terms and conditions of this Stipulation herein.
2. In consideration for the release of Plaintiffs’ claims regarding attorneys’ fees and costs against ICE, the United States shall pay to the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization within thirty (30) days of the execution of this Stipulation the sum of sixtyfour thousand dollars ($64,000.00) in the form of a check made payable to same, which sum Plaintiffs and their counsel agree to accept as full settlement of any and all claims, credits, demands, rights and causes of action for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this action.
3. Plaintiffs and their guardians, heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and each of them, hereby expressly agree to accept the payment above-described in paragraph 2 in

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 124 Filed 01/15/10 Page 3 of 5
full settlement and satisfaction of any and all claims, credits, demands, rights, and causes of action relating to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in litigating this case, which they may now have or hereafter acquire against Defendant, the United States of America, its agencies, representatives, agents, servants, and employees, past or present, in their official or individual capacities, for fees and costs relating to or incurred in the litigation of the above-captioned action. 4. This Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of Claims is not in any way intended to be, and should not be construed as, an admission of liability on the part of the United States of America, its agencies (including but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security), representatives, agents, servants, and employees, and it is specifically denied that they are liable to the Plaintiffs under the Freedom of Information Act, for the claims in this litigation, including for attorneys’ fees and costs. This settlement is entered into by all Parties for the purpose of compromising disputed claims and for avoiding the expenses and risks of further litigation. 5. The Parties agree that this Stipulation, including all the terms and conditions of this compromise settlement, may be made public in their entirety, and the Parties expressly consent to such release and disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b). 6. The persons signing this Stipulation warrant and represent that they possess full authority to bind the entities, agencies and organizations on whose behalf they are signing to the terms of the Stipulation. 7. This Stipulation represents the entire agreement between the Parties with regard to the matters set forth herein and no other agreements, understandings or representations, oral

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 124 Filed 01/15/10 Page 4 of 5

or otherwise, bind the Parties except as herein expressly set forth in writing and signed by all Parties. 8. This Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of this Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted,

PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANT

/s/ MICHAEL J. WISHNIE Supervising Attorney Attorney Bar # ct 27221 P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06511 Telephone: (203) 432-4800 Fax: (203) 432-1426 Email: Michael.Wishnie@yale.edu

_/s/ DOUGLAS P. MORABITO Assistant U.S. Attorney Attorney Bar # ct 20962 157 Church Street New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 821-3700 Fax: (203) 773-5373 Email: Douglas.Morabito@usdoj.gov

Case 3:07-cv-01224-MRK Document 124 Filed 01/15/10 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 15, 2010, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. The following counsel will be notified via the Court’s electronic filing system:
Douglas Morabito, Esq. United States Attorney’s Office 157 Church Street, Floor 23 New Haven, CT 06510
/s/ Michael Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization P.O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520-9090 203-432-4800

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNIDAD LATINA EN ACCIÓN and

:

JUNTA FOR PROGRESSIVE

:

ACTION, INC.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF :

HOMELAND SECURITY,

:

:

Defendant.

:

Civ. No. 3:07cv1224 (MRK)

RULING ON THE ADEQUACY OF DHS'S SEARCH

Following the subm ission of a Second Supplem ental Declaration fr om Ca trina Pavlik-

Keenan in Support of the Depa rtment of Ho meland Security' s ("DHS") Motion for Sum mary

Judgment [doc. # 19], the Court addresses the adequacy of DHS's search for documents responsive

to Plaintiffs' request under the Freedom of Inform ation Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq.

Plaintiffs dispute the adequacy of DHS's search as well as Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's declarations. As a

consequence, they ask the Court to deny DHS' s m otion for sum mary judgm ent and to order

depositions of knowledgeable agency employees regarding the distribution, replication, and storage

of DHS records. This ruling is lim ited to issu es regarding the adequacy of DHS' s search and

declarations. The Court previously ruled on certain documents that were submitted for in camera

review, and the Court refers readers to that decision for background rega rding Plaintiffs' FOIA

request. See Unidad Latina En Acción vU. .S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 253 F.R.D. 44 (D. Conn.

2008). In later rulings, the Court will address DHS' s continued assertion that certain records are

exempt from disclosure under FOIA.

I. Once again, the parties agree on the legal principles governing the Court's consideration of the adequacy of DHS's search and declarations. As was true previously, the disagreements arise in applying those legal principles to the facts of this case. Thus, it is common ground that an agency responding to a FOIA request must make a good faith effort to conduct a search for requested records, using methods that are reasonably calculated to produce all relevant documents. See, e.g., Truitt v. Dep't of State, 897 F.2d 540, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Amnesty Int'l USA v. CIA, No. 07 Civ. 5435 (LAP), 2008 WL 2519908, at * 9 (S.D.N.Y. June 19, 2008); Moayedi v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, 510 F. Supp. 2d 73, 78 (D.D.C. 2007); Garcia v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 181 F. Supp. 2d 356, 368 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).That said, "a search need not be perfect, only adequate, and adequacy is measured by the reasonableness of the effort in light of the specific request." Meeropol v. Meese, 790 F.2d 942, 956 (D.C. Cir. 1986);see Amnesty Int'l, USA, 2008 WL 2519908, at *9 ("Reasonableness does not demand perfection . . . ."). The issue is not whether any further responsive documents might conceivably exist but rather whether the agency's search for such documents was reasonably calculated to discover responsive documents. See Amnesty In'tl, 2008 WL 2519908, at * 9; Moayedi, 510 F. Supp. 2d at 79 (citing Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 705 F.2d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). Therefore, the mere fact that an agency might later uncover some additional responsive documents does not necessarily mean that the agencys' original search was inadequate.See Grand Central P'ship, Inc. v. Cuom,o166 F.3d 473, 489 ( 2d Cir. 1999) ("That som e docum ents were not discovered until a second, m ore exhaustive, search was conducted does not warrantoverturning the district court's [finding that the search was adequate].").
2

The burden of demonstrating that a FOIA search was adequate rests with the agency. See Carney v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). Tosatisfy that burden, the agency may submit a non-conclusory declaration that explains in reasonable detail the scope and method of the age ncy's search, as well as any justifications for non-disclosure. Id.; see Grand Central P'ship,166 F.3d at 488-89;Safecard Servs., Inc. v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197, 1200 (D. C. Cir. 1991). An agency need not subm it a declaration from every em ployee who participated in the search; it is sufficient if the declaration is fromthe employee who supervised the search.Carney, 19 F.3d at 814.
A satisfactory agency declaration should providereasonably detailed information about the type and manner of search performed, the structure of the agency's records system, the files likely to have relevant records, and the files searche d, all of which would enable a FOIA requester to challenge the adequacy of the search and the court to rule on such a challenge. See El Badrawi v. Dep't of Homeland Security, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2008 WL 4480363, at *7 (D. Conn. Sept. 30, 2008); Tarullo v. United States DOD, 170 F. Supp.2d 271, 274-75 (D. Conn. 2001);Katzman v. CIA, 903 F. Supp. 434, 438 (E.D.N.Y. 1995). "Adistrict court in a FOIAcase may grant summary judgment in favor of an agency on the basis oafgency affidavits if they containreasonable specificityof detail rather than merely conclusory statements, and if they are not called into question by contradictory evidence in the record or by evidence of agency bad faith." Grand Central P'ship, 166 F.3d at 478 (citation and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis in original).
Declarations submitted by an agency are accorded a "presumption of good faith." Carney, 19 F.3d at 812. Therefore, if the agency' s declarations are satisfactory on their face, discovery relating to the agencys' search is unnecessary.See id. To justify discovery, the FOIA requester must "make a showing of bad faith on the part of the agency sufficient to impugn the agency's affidavits
3

or declarations, or provide some tangible evidence that an exemption claimed by the agency should not apply or summary judgment is otherwise inappropriate." Id. (citations omitted); see Wood v. FBI, 432 F.3d 78, 85 ( 2d Cir. 2005); Hawthorn Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Housing & Urban Dev., No. 03:96cv2435 (AHN), 1997 W L 821767, at * 3 (D. Conn. Dec. 18, 1997) (granting discovery upon a showing of bad faith) . An ag ency declaration cannot be rebutted by "purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of other docum ents." Safecard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1200 (quotation m arks om itted); see Grand C entral P 'ship, 166 F.3d at 489; Carney, 19 F.3d at 813.
II. Before addressing Plaintiffs' specific concerns regarding the adequacy of DHSs' search and Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's declarations, it will be useufl for the Court to comment on the overall adequacy of Ms. Pavlik-Keenan' s declarations, since DHS' s attorney suggested at oral argum ent that Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's Second Supplemental Declaration was unnecessary. The Court disagree s. Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's original Declaration, dated March 20, 2008 [doc. # 19-3], was inadequate to allow for a meani ngful assessment of the reasonablene ss of DHS' s search. The explanation of DHS' s search – which consumes a total of six of the twenty-five pages of Ms. Pavlik-Keenans' declaration – is neither "relatively detailed" nor "non-conclusory."See El Badrawi, --- F. Supp.2d --- , 2008 WL 4480363, at *14 (finding DHSs' declarations inadequate). Indeed, most of the six pages is consumed with a description ofthe dates on which Plaintifs' FOIA request was transmitted to various offices. Only about two pages of the declaration actually describe the records systems searched, and those descriptions are cursory and conclusory. The Court does not believe that a FOIA requester could knowledgeably challenge the search based on Ms. Pa vlik-Keenan's first declaration; nor could a
4

court responsibly use that declaration to rule on the FOIA requester's challenge. See id. Fortunately for t he Court, DHS subm itted a Second Supplem ental Declaration dated
September 25, 2008 [doc. # 36] from Ms. Pavlik -Keenan. Though Plaintiffs also criticize Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's Second Suppl emental Declara tion, the Court finds (with one exception noted below) that her second declaration is reasonably detailed, non-conclusory, and sufficient to satisfy DHS's obligation to dem onstrate the adequacy of its search. The second de claration is 42 pages long, containing 139 separately numbered paragraphs, and by contrast to the first declaration, most of the second declaration is devoted to detailed descriptions of the records searched and the types of searches perform ed. Thus, the second declaration contains sufficient detail regarding which records were searched and which were not, with anexplanation of why certain records systems were not searched. The second declaration also disucsses which offices undertook the searches and why, the records systems at various relevant offices, andthe searches undertaken at specific sites. In sum, the second declaration contains m ore than suffi cient inform ation to allow a FOIA requester to challenge the adequacy of the agency's search and a court to rule upon the requester' s challenge. See, e.g., Sussman v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, No. 03 Civ. 3618 (DRH), 2008 WL 2946006 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008) (granting in part summary judgment on the basis of the agency's submission of more detailed declarations); Amnesty Int'l USA, 2008 WL 2519908, at * 9-11 (finding the Government's search adequate on the basis of its reasonably detailed declarations);Radcliffe v. IRS, 536 F. Supp. 2d 423, 432-34 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding agency's search adequate on the basis of affiant's initial and reply declarations).
III. Plaintiffs raise several questions regarding Ms. Pavlik-Keenan' s Second Supplem ental
5

Declaration, and the Court will address each in turn. First, Plaintiffs com plain that Ms. Pavlik-Keenan does not have sufficient first -hand
knowledge to subm it the de claration. The Court disagrees. Ms. Pavlik-Keenan supervised the relevant searches, and there is no need for individuals from the various offices to submit their own declarations. See Carney, 19 F.3d at 814; Safecard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1201; Wood v. F.B.I., 312 F. Supp.2d 328, 340 (D. Conn. 2004),aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other ground,s432 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2005).
Second, Plaintiffs raise a num ber of specific concerns about Ms. Pavlik-Kennan' s second declaration. For exam ple, they com plain that som e of t he descriptions are too vague or contradictory. But the Court disagrees; Ms. Pavli-kKeenan's second declaration is very detailed and not conclusory in the least. Mo reover, in its brief, DHS has provided the Court with satisfact ory explanations for the concerns Plaintiffs raise. For example, Plaintiffs say that DHS failed to locate documents provided by the Connecticut Departm ent of Public Saf ety ("DPS") or United States Postal Inspectors. But as DHS convincingly explains in its brief, the DPS documents fell outside of the scope of Plaintiffs'requests and DHS ddi locate the documents uncovered by the United States Postal Inspectors.
Third and most important, Plaintiffs' principal challenge to Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's declarations is based on their concern that certain docum ents were to have been created for the June 6, 2007 operation but these docum ents were not located during DHS' s search. In particular, as DHS acknowledges, an Operational Order/Plan, see [doc. # 42-2] Ex. B, created before the June 6th operation states that a number of specific recordswould be created in connection with the operation. These documents include a pre-operational SPEAR Report, post-operational Significant Incident
6

Reports ("SIR") and post-A/S Notes,daily reports, and a SECTOR report1. Id. at 5, 7. For example, the Operational Order/Plan states that "a[] significant incident report will be prepared andofrwarded via the SEN database pursuant to policy." Id. at 2. Curiously, however, none of the docum ents referenced in the Operational Order/Plan have been located or produced. Whi le DHS labels Plaintiffs' concern about the existence of these documents "speculative," the agency's criticism is unfounded. DHS's own Operational Order/Plan called for the creation of these records. Plaintiffs are not speculating about that. DHS has not providedthis Court or Plaintiffs with any explanation for why the agency decided to dsiregard its own Operational Order/Plan and not create the specified documents; nor is DHS required to provide such an explanation in the context of a FOIA request. However, DHS is required to ensure that it conducted a reasonable search for the docum ents that the agency's own records called for, and while for the most part, DHS has done so, the Court has one lingering concern that DHS must address.
Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's second declaration states that she is informed that the documents called for by the Operational Order/Plan were not created in connection with the June 6th operation. She goes on to state that had any of these docum ents been created, they would be m aintained in the operational file of the Hartford Office of Detention and Removal Operations ("DRO") Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer ("SDDO") and that no such documents were found in that file. Thus, paragraph 81 of the Second Supplemental Declaration states that "[n]o <After action reviews
1 Plaintiffs also complain that the pre-operational report states that Paula Grenier would be the media contact for the operation but that they were given none of Ms. Grenier' s records. In Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Second Supplem ental Declaration in Support of Motion for Sum mary Judgment [doc. # 47] , at 6 n.5, DHS explains that it did in fact search Ms. Grenier' s records and m any pages of her records were produced. Plaintiffs have not disputed DHS's representation.
7

and reports,' 'pre-operation SPEAR,' or 'Formal After Action Reports' were created in connection with the June 6th Operation [and] [i]f these documents were created [they] would be contained in the Op erational File m aintained by the SDDO within the Hartford DRO Office." See Second Supplemental Declaration [doc. #36] at 26, ¶ 81; see also id. 25, ¶ 77 ("The SDDO would have knowledge of after action report, post A/S note, and post operation SIR, as these documents would have been contained in the operation file fo r the June 6th Operation m aintained by the SDDO. These documents do not exist as the SDDO has noknowledge that these documents were prepared and these documents were not contained in the operational file maintained by the SDDO."); id. at ¶ 78 ("SECTOR was not utilized for the June 6th Operation").
Ordinarily, the Cour t m ight find these representations sufficient to satisfy the agency' s obligations, and they certainl y go a long way to discharging the agency' s burden. But in these particular circumstances – which include detailed pre-operational statements about which documents would be created to docum ent the June 6th ope ration, none of which was located – t he Cour t believes DHS must do somewhat more. As Plaintiffs point out, Ms. Pavlik-Keenan' s declaration does not state all of the locations where the documents recited in the Operational Order/Plan would be kept if they had been created. She does say that the docum ents would be m aintained in the Hartford DRO SDDO Operational File, that the filewas searched, and that no such documents were found in that file. However, Ms. Pavlik-Keenandoes not state whether these documents would also be maintained in other files, or in other offices, and whether those files we re searched as well (or whether a search of those files would be unduly burdensom e in som e wa y).2 After all, "the
2 At oral argum ent, Plaintiffs suggested that a post-A/S note was am ong the docum ents produced, and if that were true, it would certainly suggest that some of the documents referenced in the Operational Order/Plan were in fact creatde, contrary to Ms. Pavlik-Keenans' representations.
8

adequacy of a FOIA search is generally determ ined not by the fruits of the sea rch, but by the appropriateness of the methods used to carry out the search." See, e.g., Iturralde v. Comptroller of the Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Of course, as the Court previously noted, an agecny ordinarily is not required to search every possible record system for every conceivable document responsive to a request. See, e.g., Safecard Servs., Inc., 926 F.2d at 1201 ("The SEC's failure to make hopeless and wasteful efforts to locate copies that would never have been created in the normal course is not a ground for reversal of the district court."). But the circum stances presen ted her e a re not usual. For here, DHS' s own Operational Order/Plan for the June 6th operation states that the agency planned to create a fair number of specific records to document the operation. Yet DHS says, without explanation, that none of the documents was ever created. True, thedocuments were not found in the file most likely to contain them – the Hartford DRO SDDO Opera tional File – and that fac t goes a long way to satisfying the agency's burden. But as the D.C. Circuit noted inOglesby v. U.S. Dep't of the Army, 920 F.2d 57 (D.C. Cir. 1990), an "agency cannot limit its search to only one record system if there are others that are like ly to turn up the inform ation requested. It is not clear from [the agency's] affidavit that the Central Records systemis theonly possible place that responsive records are likely to be located. At the very least, [the agency] was required to explain in its affidavit that no other record system was likely to produce responsive documents." Id. at 68 (emphasis added); see also
However, as DHS explained in a post-argument submission, the document referenced by Plaintiffs is not a post-A/S Note. See Status Report to Court [doc. # 59] ("[The docum ent] identified by plaintiffs at the status conference as a Post A/S Note pursuant to the operation plan, is not such a note but instead is a briefing note to the assistan t secretary regarding the complaint raised by the Mayor of New Haven in light of the opera tion conducted in New Haven on June 6, 2007."). Plaintiffs have not disputed DHS's representation.
9

Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1121 (D.C. Cir. 2007); Valencia-Lucena v. U.S. Coast Guard, 180 F.3d 321, 325 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (noting an agency's obligation to "follow through on obvious leads to discover requested documents"); Weisberg v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 627 F.2d 365, 369 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Ms. Pavlik-Keenan's second declaration does not satisfy that requirement.
While Plaintiffs seek a deposition to pursuethe so-called missing documents, the Court does not believe that a deposition is necessary in these circum stances. This case is not like the El Badrawi case touted by Plai ntiffs, and they have not shown any bad faith on DHS' s part; nor do Plaintiffs have any firminformation that theso-called missing documents were ever created. Cf. El Badrawi, --- F. Supp. 2d ----, 2008 WL 4480363, at *13-14. Indeed, Ms. Pavlik-Keenan says that the documents were not created, and her representations under oath are entitled to a presumption of good faith.
In these circum stances, therefore, the Court believes it will be suf ficient for Ms. PavlikKeenan to subm it a supplem ental declaration that states in reasonable detail: (1) w here else, if anywhere, besides the Hartford DRO SDDO Operational File would the documents referred to in the Operational Order/Plan be maintained, if they had been created; (2) that DHS looked in those locations for those documents; and (3) that none of the documents was found. It may well be that DHS has already done each of these tasks, but regrettably, Ms. Pavlik-K eenan's Second Supplemental Declaration does not say so. Moreover,it is certainly possible that the documents in question would be maintained only in the Hartford DRO SDDO Operational File and nowhere else, and if so, Ms. Pavlik-Keenan can sim ply say so. See Moayedi, 510 F. Supp.2d at 80 ("Here, the defendant states that the TECS is the 'only database that would reasonably contain the information requested . . . .'"). However, her Second Supplemental Declaration fails to do so. Either way, once
10

Ms. Pavlik-Ke enan subm its a supplem ental declaration along the lines suggested, the Court is

prepared to grant DHS summary judgment regarding the adequacy of its search because, with this

one exception, the Court believes that the agency hsaadequately addressed Plaintiffs'other concerns

and demonstrated that it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using

methods that are reasonably calculated to produce all relevant documents.

IV.

DHS will have until January 6, 2009 to file the supplemental declaration required by this

ruling. Plaintiffs will have until January 16, 2009 to file any response to the supple

mental

declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED,

/s/ Mark R. Kravitz United States District Judge
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: December 9, 2008.

11

 
 Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 1 of 12
CLOSED,EFILE
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:07−cv−01224−MRK

En Accion et al v. Department of Homeland Security Assigned to: Judge Mark R. Kravitz Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/10/2007 Date Terminated: 11/09/2009 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Unidad Latina En Accion

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch Yale Law School −POB PO Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520−9090 203−779−9401 Email: clasch@suffolk.edu TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hope R. Metcalf Yale Law School 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520 203−432−9404 Email: hope.metcalf@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Wishnie Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: michael.wishnie@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Muneer I. Ahmad Jerome N. Frank Legal Services − Wall St Yale Law School 127 Wall Street New Haven, CT 06511 202−432−4800 Fax: 202−432−1426 Email: muneer.ahmad@yale.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Junta for Progressive Action, Inc

represented by Christopher Nelson Lasch (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Hope R. Metcalf (See above for address)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 2 of 12
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Wishnie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Muneer I. Ahmad (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Department of Homeland Security

represented by Douglas P. Morabito U.S. Attorney's Office−NH 157 Church St., 23rd floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−821−3700 Fax: 203−773−5373 Email: Douglas.Morabito@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Lynn McConaghy U.S. Attorney's Office−NH 157 Church St., 23rd floor New Haven, CT 06510 203−821−3700 Fax: 203−773−5373 Email: michelle.mcconaghy@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Victoria S. Shin Seyfarth Shaw − 8th Ave NY 620 Eighth Ave New York, NY 10018−1405 212−218−5539 Fax: 212−344−1222 Email: vshin@seyfarth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/10/2007
08/10/2007
08/10/2007 08/10/2007 08/10/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Department of Homeland Security ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number N022076), filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.(Rodko, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
2 Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Motions to Dismiss due on 11/10/07.Amended Pleadings due by 10/9/2007.,Discovery due by 2/9/2008.,Dispositive Motions due by 3/10/2008.. Signed by Clerk on 8/10/07. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
3 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 8/10/07. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
4 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)
Summons Issued as to Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Rodko, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 3 of 12

09/13/2007 09/13/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/18/2007 10/19/2007
10/19/2007 10/19/2007 10/22/2007 03/03/2008 03/04/2008 03/05/2008
03/05/2008 04/04/2008 04/04/2008

5 NOTICE of Appearance by Victoria S Shin on behalf of Department of Homeland Security (Shin, Victoria) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
6 ANSWER to Complaint by Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Shin, Victoria) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
7 MOTION for telephonic status Conference by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
8 NOTICE by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc re 7 MOTION for telephonic status Conference (CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
9 MOTION Leave to Appear as Law Student by Unidad Latina En Accion.Responses due by 11/8/2007 (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
10 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Law Student by Unidad Latina En Accion.Responses due by 11/8/2007 (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
11 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Law Student by Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.Responses due by 11/8/2007 (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
12 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Law Student by Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.Responses due by 11/8/2007 (Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 10/18/2007)
13 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Conference. A telephonic status conference will be held on October 22, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. Plaintiffs' counsel will initiate the conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/19/2007. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
14 ORDER granting 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 Motions to appear as Law Student Interns. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/19/2007. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/19/2007)
Set Deadlines: Telephone Status Conference set for 10/22/2007 11:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/22/2007)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz : Telephone Status Conference held on 10/22/2007. 15 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/24/2007)
16 First MOTION for Status Conference by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Status Conference held on 3/4/2008. 8 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion for Conference. The Court having conferred telephonically with counsel on March 4, 2008, the following schedule will govern: All Defendant agencies must file dispositive motions by April 4, 2008. No further extensions of this deadline will be granted for any reason. Plaintiffs shall file their responses no later than April 25, 2008. Defendants shall file their reply briefs no later than May 9, 2008. There will be no further extensions granted. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/5/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 4/4/2008 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/06/2008)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Douglas P. Morabito on behalf of Department of Homeland Security (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
19 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Department of Homeland Security.Responses due by 4/25/2008 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit to Declaration, # 4 Exhibit to declaration, # 5 Exhibit to declaration, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Statement of Material Facts)(Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 04/04/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 4 of 12

04/25/2008
05/09/2008 05/19/2008
06/10/2008 06/10/2008 06/11/2008 06/12/2008
08/07/2008 08/15/2008
08/15/2008 08/26/2008
08/28/2008 08/29/2008 09/02/2008

20 OBJECTION re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment of Defendant U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix of Unpublished Cases, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of Simon Moshenberg, # 3 Exhibit Exhibits A through E, # 4 Exhibit Exhibits F through S, # 5 Exhibit Exhibits T through U, # 6 Exhibit Exhibits T through EE, # 7 Statement of Material Facts 56a Statement)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
21 REPLY to Response to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Declaration)(Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
22 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Oral argument set for 6/12/2008 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/19/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Lynn Colson on behalf of Department of Homeland Security (Colson, Michelle) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
24 MOTION for Leave to Appear as Law Student Intern by Department of Homeland Security. (Colson, Michelle) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
25 ORDER granting 24 Motion to Permit Appearance of Law Student Intern. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 6/11/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 06/11/2008)
26 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: taking under advisement 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion Hearing held on 6/12/2008 re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security. Total Time: 2 hours 6 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 06/13/2008)
27 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/15/2008 at 09:00 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz for the purpose of discussing in camera review of documents. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
28 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/8/2008 at 03:30 PM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 08/15/2008)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Status Conference held on 8/15/2008. 46 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
30 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. NOTE NEW TIME: Telephonic Conference reset for 9/8/2008 at 08:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
31 MOTION to Withdraw Law Student Intern Appearance by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
32 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Withdraw Law Student Intern Appearance of Justin Cox. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 8/29/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
33 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Status Conference set for 9/4/2008 at 09:30 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiffs' attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 5 of 12

09/04/2008 09/05/2008
09/05/2008 09/25/2008 09/30/2008 10/01/2008 10/02/2008 10/03/2008 10/06/2008 10/06/2008 10/09/2008 10/14/2008 10/15/2008

call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 09/02/2008)
34 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/4/2008. 48 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 09/04/2008)
35 ORDER. As discussed during an on−the−record telephonic conference on September 4, 2008, the Court sets the following schedule for supplemental filings: The Government will file a supplemental declaration from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") regarding additional searches no later than September 25, 2008. Plaintiffs must file any supplemental briefing related to the adequacy of the search no later than October 2, 2008, and the Government may respond no later than October 10, 2008. The Government will file a supplemental Vaughn Index regarding additional DHS documents no later than October 22, 2008. The parties will confer regarding the contents of the Index and the need for supplemental briefing and will submit a joint schedule for any additional briefing no later than October 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/5/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
Set Deadlines as to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 10/31/2008 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 09/08/2008)
36 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security Second Supplemental Declaration (Morabito, Douglas)in support of 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Modified on 9/26/2008 to create link to document No. 19 (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 09/25/2008)
37 RULING on Documents Submitted In Camera. Joint Proposal to be submitted no later than 10/14/2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 9/30/2008. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
38 MOTION for Extension of Time to file response/reply to 19 motion for summary judgment until Oct. 9, 2008 re Plaintiffs' Supplemental Briefing 35 Order, by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/2/2008 to correct event (Kelsey, N.). Modified on 10/10/2008 to create link to document No. 19 (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 10/01/2008)
39 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 38 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiffs' shall file their Supplemental Brief no later than October 9, 2008. The time for Defendant's Response is extended until October 17, 2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/2/2008. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 10/02/2008)
40 First MOTION for Extension of Time to file response/reply until November 6, 2008 re 35 Order, by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) re 19 motion for summary judgment. Modified on 10/3/2008 to correct event (Kelsey, N.). Modified on 10/10/2008 to create link to document No. 19 (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 10/03/2008)
41 ORDER granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time. The Government shall file its supplemental Vaughn Index regarding additional DHS documents no later than November 6, 2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/6/2008. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 10/06/2008)
Set Deadlines as to Vaughn Index 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Responses due by 11/6/2006 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
42 RESPONSE re 36 Notice Response to Second Supplemental Declaration re 19 motion for summary judgment filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wishnie, Michael) Modified on 10/10/2008 to create link to document No. 19 (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 10/09/2008)
43 STATUS REPORT by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
44 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security re 36 Notice (Other) of Service (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 10/15/2008)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 6 of 12

10/15/2008
10/17/2008
10/17/2008 10/27/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/28/2008 10/29/2008 11/06/2008 11/06/2008 11/07/2008 11/10/2008
11/18/2008 11/21/2008 11/26/2008 12/09/2008

45 ORDER. Based on the Status Report 43 filed with the Court on October 14, 2008, the Parties' deadline for filing a joint proposal that responds to the Court's Ruling on Documents Submitted In Camera 37 is extended to October 27, 2008. In addition, the Court previously granted the Government until November 6, 2008 to file its supplemental Vaughn Index regarding additional DHS documents 41 . Following the Government's filing of the supplemental Vaughn Index, the Court directs the Parties to confer regarding the contents of the Index and the need for supplemental briefing and to submit a joint schedule for any additional briefing no later than November 14, 2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/15/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
46 SCHEDULING ORDER: A Status Conference is set for 11/21/2008 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/17/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
47 REPLY to Response to 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 10/17/2008)
48 MOTION for Extension of Time until October 28, 2008 (with consent) to file joint proposal identifying next steps by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
49 ORDER granting 48 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for the parties to file a joint proposal identifying next steps is extended to October 28, 2008. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/28/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
50 MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Interns Hunter Smith and Jane Lewis by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
51 Joint STATUS REPORT proposing next steps by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 10/28/2008)
52 ORDER granting 50 Motion for law student interns Hunter Smith and Jane Lewis to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/29/2008. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
53 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security Vaughn Index (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
54 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security Vaughn Index 52939 (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
55 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security re 54 Notice (Other), 53 Notice (Other) (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 11/07/2008)
56 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. NOTE NEW TIME. The Status Conference set for 11/21/2008 will begin at 09:00 AM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 11/10/2008)
57 Joint STATUS REPORT by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
58 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: In Court Status Conference held on 11/21/2008. Total Time: 1 hour 19 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/21/2008)
59 STATUS REPORT by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
60 RULING on the Adequacy of DHS's Search re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Department of Homeland Security. Signed by Judge Mark R.

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 7 of 12

12/19/2008 12/23/2008 12/24/2008
12/24/2008 01/02/2009 01/05/2009 01/05/2009
01/05/2009
01/05/2009

Kravitz on 12/9/2008. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
61 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security re 60 Order (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 12/19/2008)
62 MOTION to Alter Judgment, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc.Responses due by 1/13/2009 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A−G)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 12/23/2008)
63 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephonic Scheduling Conference set for 1/5/2009 at 10:00 AM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiff's attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. Counsel are ordered by the court to be prepared to discuss the merits of all pending motions. Counsel are further ordered to be prepared to discuss the status of all pending declarations, the number of non−exempt documents that have yet to be released, and the nature of any remaining challenges to exemptions DHS has invoked with respect to documents located and/or reviewed after this Court's Ruling dated September 30, 2008. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
64 NOTICE OF REVISED E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. The telephone conference scheduled for 1/5/09 has been reset for an in−court conference on 1/5/2009 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. All persons entering the courthouse must present photo identification. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 12/24/2008)
65 MOTION for Extension of Time by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 01/02/2009)
66 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: In Court Status Conference held on 1/5/2009. 44 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
67 ORDER. As explained during the on−the−record in−court conference on January 5, 2009, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Order and for Preliminary Injunction 62 insofar as it seeks to depose Ms. Catrina Pavlik−Keenan and SDDO Richard McCaffrey regarding the adequacy of the DHS search. The Court will withhold judgment regarding the adequacy of the DHS search pending the depositions of Ms. Pavlik−Keenan and Mr. McCaffrey. Plaintiffs shall conduct the depositions of Ms. Pavlik−Keenan and SDDO McCaffrey no later than February 5, 2009, at a time and place convenient to the parties. Further, based on DHS's representation that all other responsive, non−exempt documents have been produced, the Court orders DHS to produce the OPR documents to Plaintiffs no later than January 12, 2009. The Court will reserve on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as it may develop that the motion is moot. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/5/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
68 ORDER. As explained during the on−the−record in−court conference on January 5, 2009, the Court grants DHS's oral motion to withdraw its Motion for Summary Judgment 19 without prejudice to renewal insofar as it pertains to the adequacy of DHS's search. Further, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 is denied as moot insofar as it sought to withhold law enforcement officers' names and telephone numbers from disclosure because DHS has disclosed the names to Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs do not seek the officers' telephone numbers. That leaves as the only issue remaining for decision on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 19 , whether any remaining records were properly withheld under Exemption (b)(7)(E). DHS will review its withholdings and submit to the Court for in camera inspection any remaining records that the parties themselves have not resolved. The records shall be submitted to the Court no later than January 12, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/5/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
69 ORDER. As explained during the on−the−record in−court conference on January 5, 2009, the Court grants DHS's Motion for Extension of Time 65 to file its

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 8 of 12

01/05/2009 01/07/2009 01/08/2009
01/12/2009 01/20/2009 01/21/2009
01/21/2009 01/22/2009
01/22/2009
01/22/2009 01/26/2009
01/27/2009 01/29/2009 01/30/2009 02/17/2009 02/18/2009

summary judgment motion no later than January 23, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/5/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/05/2009)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 1/23/2009 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
70 STATUS REPORT by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
71 ORDER. Having reviewed the Status Report 70 , and in light of the Court's Orders dated January 5, 2009, the Court vacates its prior order dated December 9, 2008 60 requiring the filing of the supplemental declaration by January 6, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/8/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/08/2009)
72 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security Amended Vaughn Index (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certicifcate of Service)(Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 01/12/2009)
73 Second MOTION for Extension of Time by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
74 ORDER granting 73 Motion, on Consent, for Extension of Time. Defendant Department of Homeland Security shall file its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for submission of documents at issue for this Court's in camera review no later than January 27, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/21/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 1/27/2009 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
75 ORDER. In accordance with the Court's on−the−record telephonic status conference dated January 22, 2009, the Court grants Plaintiffs until January 26, 2009 to respond to Defendant's January 12, 2009 submission of documents for this Court's in camera review. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/22/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
76 ORDER. Based on the representations of counsel during this Court's on−the−record telephonic status conference dated January 22, 2009, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 62 . Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/22/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Status Conference held on 1/22/2009. 10 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
77 Memorandum in Opposition regarding documents submitted for in camera review on January 12 2009 re 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit A)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/26/2009)
79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents by Department of Homeland Security.Responses due by 2/17/2009 (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Conference held on 1/29/2009. 13 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
81 RULING on Documents Submitted In Camera denying as moot 19 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/29/2009. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
82 First MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents until 2/23/09 by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
83 ORDER granting 82 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents. Plaintiff shall file its brief on records submitted by Defendant DHS for in camera review no later than February 23, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/18/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered:

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 9 of 12

02/23/2009 02/24/2009 02/27/2009 03/02/2009 03/05/2009 03/06/2009 03/06/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009 03/09/2009
03/09/2009 03/11/2009

02/18/2009)
84 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents until March 2, 2009 by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/23/2009)
85 ORDER granting 84 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents. Plaintiff shall file its brief on records submitted by Defendant DHS for in camera review no later than March 2, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 2/24/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 02/24/2009)
86 STATUS REPORT regarding Defendant's search for records by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 02/27/2009)
87 Memorandum in Opposition re 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Law Student Intern Jane Lewis, # 2 Exhibit A−J)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/02/2009)
88 MOTION for Status Conference by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 03/05/2009)
89 ORDER granting 88 Motion for Conference. A status conference will be held at 1:30 p.m. on March 9, 2009, in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/6/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/06/2009)
Set Deadlines: Status Conference set for 3/9/2009 1:30 AM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
90 MOTION for Leave to Appear Law Student Intern Erin Macdonald by Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
91 ORDER granting 90 Motion to Appear as Law Student Intern Erin Macdonald on behalf of Junta For Progressive Aciton, Inc. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/9/2009. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
92 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: In Court Status Conference held on 3/9/2009. 32 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
93 ORDER. During an on−the−record, in−court status conference dated March 9, 2009, Plaintiffs made an oral application that this Court order Defendant Department of Homeland Security to process certain documents that haven't yet already been processed. The Court grants Plaintiffs' application and orders Defendant to process and determine which documents, if any, are subject to a partial or complete release under FOIA with respect to all outstanding records regarding Operation Return to Sender that resulted in the arrest of 29 individuals on June 6, 2007, including, but not limited to, records contained within the ICE FOIA working file and any other records identified by Ms. Catrina Pavlik−Keenan during her deposition. The Court further orders Defendant to process all OPR documents and to determine which documents, if any, are subject to a partial or complete release under FOIA. Defendant shall comply with all aspects of this Order no later than March 30, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/9/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 03/09/2009)
94 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice: Attorney Muneer I. Ahmad, by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number N026963. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 03/11/2009)
95 ORDER granting 94 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Muneer I. Ahmad for Unidad Latina En Accion and Junta for Progressive Action, Inc added. Signed by Clerk on 3/11/2009. (Kelsey, N.) (Entered: 03/11/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 10 of 12

03/16/2009 03/16/2009 03/18/2009 03/19/2009 03/19/2009 03/20/2009 03/20/2009
03/26/2009 03/27/2009
03/27/2009
03/27/2009 03/27/2009 05/28/2009

96 MOTION to Withdraw 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
97 OBJECTION re 96 MOTION to Withdraw 79 MOTION In Camera Review of Documents filed by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/16/2009)
98 ORDER denying 96 Motion to Withdraw. The Court will conduct an in camera review of the documents that the Government submitted on January 27, 2009, and will address other issues raised by the parties as they are tendered to the Court in the future. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/18/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 03/18/2009)
99 Third Supplemental Declaration of Catrina Pavlik−Keenan re 60 RULING on the Adequacy of DHS's Search (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service), by Department of Homeland Security(Morabito, Douglas). Modified on 3/20/2009 to create link to underlying document and correct entry text (Kelsey, N.). (Entered: 03/19/2009)
100 MOTION for Extension of Time until March 26, 2009 to inform the Court of the parties' progress re: adequacy of search by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
101 ORDER granting 100 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for Plaintiffs to inform the Court on their position on the adequacy of Defendant's search for records and the need for further discovery thereon is extended to March 26, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/20/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
102 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. In−court Conference set for 3/27/2009 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz for the purpose of the Court to issue an oral ruling on 79 MOTION For Submission of Documents For In Camera Review. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 03/20/2009)
103 STATUS REPORT by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
104 ORDER. The Court grants Defendant's 79 Motion for In Camera Review. For the reasons stated on the record on March 27, 2009, the Court finds that Defendant properly withheld certain portions of the documents under the claimed FOIA exemptions, but that other portions of the documents were improperly withheld or reasonably segregable. In accordance with the Court's oral ruling, Defendant shall disclose to Plaintiffs all improperly withheld information no later than 5pm on March 30, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/27/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
105 ORDER. On Plaintiffs' consent, the Court grants Defendant's oral motion made on the record on March 27, 2009 requesting that the Court partially amend its Order dated March 9, 2009. Defendant shall process all documents and determine which documents, if any, are subject to a partial or complete release under FOIA no later than May 15, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/27/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
106 ORDER. The Court grants Plaintiffs' oral motion made on the record on March 27, 2009 requesting that Defendant advise it of its email backup system, if any. Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs with this information no later than April 6, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 3/27/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Miscellaneous Hearing re; oral ruling on contested exhibits held on 3/27/2009. Total Time: 2 hours and 15 minutes(Court Reporter T. Finkelstein.) (Brown, S.) (Entered: 03/31/2009)
108 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Conference set for

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 11 of 12

05/29/2009
05/29/2009 05/29/2009 06/19/2009 06/30/2009 07/01/2009 08/13/2009 08/14/2009 08/14/2009 09/14/2009 10/05/2009 10/06/2009
10/06/2009 11/04/2009

5/29/2009 at 03:30 PM before Judge Mark R. Kravitz. Plaintiffs' attorney will initiate the telephone conference call. After all of the parties are on the conference call, they should then call chambers at (203) 773−2022 on the above date and time. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 05/28/2009)
109 ORDER. Having conferred with the parties during an on−the−record telephonic conference dated May 29, 2009, the parties appear to have worked out an agreement regarding the adequacy of Defendant's search for responsive records, though it requires limited additional searches to be completed by DHS. Accordingly, Defendant is required to complete the additional searches and to produce the documents from any such search to Plaintiffs no later than June 22, 2009. Plaintiffs shall review the documents and advise Defendant of their need for Vaughn indices no later than July 10, 2009, and Defendant shall provide the Vaughn indices to Plaintiffs no later than July 24, 2009. In addition, Defendant shall file any motion for summary judgment no later than September 4, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 5/29/2009. (Flynn, E.) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 9/4/2009 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
110 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Mark R. Kravitz: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/29/2009. 11 minutes(Court Reporter Finkelstein.) (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
111 Joint STIPULATION re: Adequacy of Search by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 06/19/2009)
112 MOTION for Christopher N. Lasch to Withdraw as Attorney by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lasch, Christopher) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
113 ORDER granting 112 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. The appearance of Attorney Christopher Nelson Lasch on behalf of Plaintiffs in terminated. Plaintiffs have continuing alternate legal representation. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 7/1/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
114 MOTION for Extension of Time 109 Order,,, by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 08/13/2009)
115 ORDER granting 114 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant shall file a supplemental Vaughn Index no later than September 14, 2009, and shall file any motion for summary judgment no later than Octoer 2, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 8/14/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 10/2/2009 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
116 NOTICE by Department of Homeland Security Vaughn Index (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 09/14/2009)
117 MOTION for Extension of Time until October 16, 2009 Set Deadlines/Hearings, 115 Order on Motion for Extension of Time, by Department of Homeland Security. (Morabito, Douglas) (Entered: 10/05/2009)
118 ORDER granting nunc pro tunc 117 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for filing dispositive motions, including all motions to exclude testimony of experts pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702−05 and the Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) line of cases, is extended to October 16, 2009. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 10/6/2009. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 10/06/2009)
Set Deadlines: Dispositive Motions due by 10/16/2009 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
119 Joint STIPULATION Resolving All Remaining Claims Other Than Costs and Attorneys' Fees by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 11/04/2009)

Case: 3:07-cv-1224 As of: 02/17/2013 08:00 PM EST 12 of 12

11/05/2009 11/09/2009

120 ORDER. The parties' Joint Stipulation Resolving All Remaining Claims Other Than Costs and Attorneys' Fees 119 is approved and so ordered. All remaining claims, with the exception of costs and attorneys' fees, are dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs in part and in favor of Defendant in part. If the parties would like the Court to resolve the issues of costs and attorneys' fees, they must file a motion requesting such judicial resolution by January 8, 2010. If no such motion is filed by that date, the Clerk is directed to close this file. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 11/5/2009. (Berwick, B.) (Entered: 11/05/2009)
121 JUDGMENT.

11/09/2009

For Appeal Forms please go to the following website: http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/forms.html. Signed by Clerk on 11/9/2009. (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY: The following link to the survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Upon entering the survey, all responses are completely anonymous.

11/09/2009 01/08/2010 01/11/2010
01/15/2010 01/19/2010

https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi−bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
Set Deadlines as to resolve the issues of costs and attorneys' fees Responses due by 1/8/2010 (Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 11/09/2009)
122 MOTION for Extension of Time until January 15, 2010 to file final Stipulation on Costs &Fees by Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/08/2010)
123 ORDER granting 122 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties shall file a stipulation regarding remaining issues in this case no later than January 15, 2010. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/11/2010. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
124 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT re: Costs &Attorneys' Fees by Department of Homeland Security, Unidad Latina En Accion, Junta for Progressive Action, Inc. (Wishnie, Michael) (Entered: 01/15/2010)
125 ORDER. 124 Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release of Claims Regarding Fees and Costs is So Ordered. Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/19/2010. (Carotenuto, R.) (Entered: 01/19/2010)