Case: 3:18-cv-3050 As of: 11/02/2019 12:48 PM PDT 1 of 4
ADRMOP,CLOSED,CONSENT
U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:18−cv−03050−JCS

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero Cause: 05:552 Freedom of Information Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/23/2018 Date Terminated: 02/26/2019 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 895 Freedom of Information Act Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

represented by Vasudha Talla ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 621−2493 Fax: (415) 255−8437 Email: vtalla@aclunc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Lye ACLU Foundation of Northern California, Inc. 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 621−2493 Fax: (415) 255−8437 Email: lye.linda@gmail.com TERMINATED: 11/15/2018

Sean Connor Riordan ACLU Foundation of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 621−2493 Fax: (415) 255−1478 Email: sriordan@aclunc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

represented by Kimberly Anne Robinson US Attorney's Office 450 Golden Gate 9th Fl San Francisco, CA 94102 415−436−7298 Email: kimberly.robinson3@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robin Michael Wall United States Attorney's Office Northern District of California 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36055 San Francisco, CA 94102−3495

Case: 3:18-cv-3050 As of: 11/02/2019 12:48 PM PDT 2 of 4
415−436−7071 Fax: 415−436−6748 Email: robin.wall@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 10/09/2018

Date Filed 05/23/2018
05/23/2018
05/25/2018 05/25/2018 05/29/2018 05/29/2018 05/30/2018 05/31/2018 06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/07/2018 06/11/2018 06/19/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief for Violation of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ET SEQ. against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 0971−12376593.). Filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Civil Cover Sheet) (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 5/23/2018) Modified on 5/27/2018 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 05/23/2018)
2 Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E−Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.
Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5−1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 6/6/2018. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/23/2018) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
3 Certificate of Interested Entities by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 5/25/2018) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 8/17/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/24/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2018) (Entered: 05/27/2018)
5 Proposed Summons. (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
6 Proposed Summons. (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
7 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.. (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 5/30/2018) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
8 Summons Issued as to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Attachments: # 1 U.S Attorney's Office) (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2018) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
9 ***PLEASE DISREGARD, EFILED IN ERROR**** CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 6/7/2018) Modified on 6/14/2018 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2018)
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 6/7/2018) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
11 RETURNED OF SERVICE EXECUTED as to U.S Attorney's Office by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 6/7/2018) Modified on 6/14/2018 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/07/2018)
12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served on 6/11/2018, answer due 7/2/2018. (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 6/11/2018) (Entered: 06/11/2018)
13 CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.. (Wall, Robin) (Filed on 6/19/2018) (Entered: 06/19/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-3050 As of: 11/02/2019 12:48 PM PDT 3 of 4

06/19/2018
06/21/2018
07/20/2018 08/13/2018 08/14/2018 08/16/2018 08/16/2018 08/24/2018

14 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation Extending Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Wall, Robin) (Filed on 6/19/2018) Modified on 6/20/2018 (ddkS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/19/2018)
15 ORDER GRANTING re 14 Stipulation Extending Defendant's Time to Respond to Complaint filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 6/21/18. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2018) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
16 ANSWER to Complaint byU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Wall, Robin) (Filed on 7/20/2018) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
17 ADR Clerk's Notice re: Non−Compliance with Court Order (ewh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/13/2018) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
18 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 8/14/2018) (Entered: 08/14/2018)
19 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3−5 b) of discussion of ADR options ADR Certification by Parties and Counsel (Wall, Robin) (Filed on 8/16/2018) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
20 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Wall, Robin) (Filed on 8/16/2018) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
21 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Initial Case Management Conference held on 8/24/2018. Dispositive Motion due by 12/14/2018. Cross− Motions due by 1/18/2019. Replies due by 3/1/2019. Responses/Opposition/Reply due by 2/15/2019. Further Case Management Conference set for 10/5/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. Motion Hearing set for 4/5/2019 09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

FTR Time: Not Reported.

Plaintiff Attorney: Vasudha Talla.

Defendant Attorney: Robin Wall.

10/04/2018 10/04/2018 10/05/2018

Attachment: Minute Order. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)
22 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kimberly Anne Robinson (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/4/2018) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
23 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Kimberly Anne Robinson Amended (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 10/4/2018) (Entered: 10/04/2018)
24 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Case Management Conference held on 10/5/2018. Defendant shall complete the responses to the FOIA requests by 10/31/18. The parties shall meet and confer in November to narrow the issues. Case Management Statement due by 11/14/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 11/16/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.

FTR Time: Not Reported.

Plaintiff Attorney: Vasudha Talla.

Defendant Attorney: Robin Wall, Kim Robinson.

(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 10/5/2018) (Entered: 10/05/2018)

Case: 3:18-cv-3050 As of: 11/02/2019 12:48 PM PDT 4 of 4

11/14/2018 11/14/2018 11/20/2018

25 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Sean Connor Riordan (Riordan, Sean) (Filed on 11/14/2018) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
26 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (Talla, Vasudha) (Filed on 11/14/2018) (Entered: 11/14/2018)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/16/2018. Case Management Statement due by 1/4/2019. Except as modified the court adopted the dates in the joint case management conference statement for summary judgment 26 . Further Case Management Conference set for 1/11/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor.

FTR Time: Not Reported.

Plaintiff Attorney: Vasudha Talla.

Defendant Attorney: Kimberly Robinson.

11/20/2018
12/19/2018 12/27/2018
02/15/2019 02/19/2019
02/19/2019 02/22/2019 02/26/2019

(This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/20/2018) Modified on 11/20/2018 (klhS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/20/2018)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Cross Motions due by 2/13/2019. Dispositive Motion due by 1/16/2019. Replies due by 3/27/2019. Responses due by 3/13/2019. Motion Hearing set for 4/26/2019 09:30 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2018) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
28 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 12/19/2018) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
29 CLERK'S NOTICE. Pursuant to the joint request of the parties in their joint case management conference statement, the Further Case Management Conference is re−set for 2/22/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 2/15/2019. (This is a text−only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2018) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
30 CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/15/2019) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
31 ORDER re 30 Case Management Statement filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Court will vacate all dates and deadlines. Case management conference continued to 3/22/19 at 2:00 PM. Signed as modified, by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero on 2/19/19. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Further Case Management Conference set for 3/22/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
32 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Re: Settlement and Dismissal filed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (Robinson, Kimberly) (Filed on 2/22/2019) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
33 Order, signed 2/26/19, by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 32 Stipulation Re: Settlement and Dismissal with Prejudice.(klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2019) (Entered: 02/26/2019)

 
 Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 11

1 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
2 LINDA LYE - #215584 llye@aclunc.org
3 VASUDHA TALLA - #316219 vtalla@aclunc.org
4 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111
5 Telephone: (415) 621-2493 Facsimile: (415) 255-8437
6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND DIVISION

10
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF 11 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
15
Defendant. 16

Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, 5 U.S.C. § 552 ET SEQ.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 11

1

INTRODUCTION

2

1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. §552

3 et seq., to enforce the public’s right to information about U.S. Immigration and Customs

4 Enforcement’s (“ICE”) use of surveillance technology to track the movements of drivers on

5 America’s streets.

6

2. Automated License Plate Reader (“ALPR”) systems combine a camera, an image-

7 processing device, and a database to recognize and store license plates associated with date, time,

8 and location recorded at the time of recognition. ALPRs are deployed by local police 9 departments, private companies, tow trucks, and repossession services to collect data on millions 10 of drivers on the street, in apartment complexes, at shopping centers, and large employee parking

11 lots. Millions of license plate scans are collected each month and shared by local law 12 enforcement agencies with dozens of out-of-state and federal agencies. Private companies can 13 accumulate billions of pieces of data on a driver’s location stretching back months or years.

14

3. While local law enforcement agencies seek to use license plate data for criminal

15 investigations, the excessive collection and storing of this data in databases—which is then

16 pooled and shared nationally—results in a systemic monitoring that chills the exercise of

17 constitutional rights to free speech and association, as well as essential tasks such as driving to

18 work, picking children up from school, and grocery shopping.

19

4. Earlier this year, the public learned that ICE had purchased access to two private

20 databases of ALPR data. The potential use by ICE of data for civil immigration enforcement, an 21 entirely different purpose for which it was originally collected by local police—local criminal 22 investigations—has generated widespread media interest and public concern. Access to

23 information about ICE’s use of ALPR databases is necessary to inform meaningful public debate 24 over the scope of government conduct that potentially threatens core civil rights and liberties

25 protected by the Constitution.

26

5. Over two months ago, on March 19, 2018 and March 21, 2018, respectively,

27 Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (“ACLU-NC”), a non-profit

28

1

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 11

1 civil rights organization, submitted two FOIA requests to Defendant Immigration and Customs 2 Enforcement (“ICE”) seeking records relating to contracts between ICE and private companies 3 for access and use of ALPR databases, along with relevant training material, privacy policies, 4 and other guidance regarding the appropriate use by ICE of this surveillance technology.

5

6. Since that time, ICE has provided ACLU-NC with no records.

6

7. ACLU-NC now brings this action to obtain the information to which it is

7 statutorily entitled.

8

PARTIES

9

8. Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California is an affiliate of

10 the American Civil Liberties Union, a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization with the

11 mission of protecting civil liberties from government incursions, safeguarding basic 12 constitutional rights, and advocating for open government. ACLU-NC is established under the 13 laws of the state of California and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. ACLU-NC has

14 approximately 169,000 members. In support of its mission, ACLU-NC uses its communications 15 department to disseminate to the public information relating to its mission, through its website, 16 newsletters, in-depth reports, and other publications.

17

9.

Defendant ICE is a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

18 ICE is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). The agency has its headquarters in

19 Washington, D.C., and field offices all over the country, including San Francisco, California.

20

JURISDICTION

21

10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the

22 parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§552(a)(4)(B) and 552(a)(6)(C)(i). This Court also has subject

23 matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1346.

24

VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

25

11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C.

26 §§1391(e) and 1402. Plaintiff has its principal place of business in this district.

27

28

2

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 4 of 11

1

12. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d), assignment to the San Francisco division is

2 proper because Plaintiff is headquartered in San Francisco.

3

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Federal Government’s Tracking and Storing of Americans’ License Plate Information

4

is a Matter of Significant Public Interest

5

13. For most Americans, driving is a necessity. For generations, Americans have

6 relied on their vehicles as a source of mobility, driving through cities and towns alike, on roads

7 and freeways, and across state lines. A car allows people to get to work on time, pick up

8 children after school, attend doctors’ appointments, and shop for dinner. According to the AAA

9 Foundation for Traffic Safety, nearly ninety percent of U.S. residents aged 16 years and older

10 drive.1

11

14. Drivers are required by state laws to display government-issued license plates on

12 their vehicles. Failure to mount license plates may result in citations, fines, or other various civil

13 penalties. License plates assist with tracking insurance, traffic enforcement, and at times

14 criminal investigations.

15

15. Yet compiling information about a driver—including the precise time, date, and

16 location of a car—can reveal extremely sensitive information about an individual’s movements.

17 As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit explained:

18

A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly

church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an

19

outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or

political groups – and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.2

20

21

16. Federal and state legislatures have recognized the significant privacy interests an

22 individual possesses in license plate information. In 1994, Congress passed the Driver’s Privacy

23 Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721, which generally prohibits the Department of Motor Vehicles

24 from disclosing personal information without the express consent of the person to whom such

25 information applies.

26 1 See http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-

27 content/uploads/2016/09/AmericanDrivingSurvey2015_FactSheet.pdf. 2 United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 562 (D.C. Cir. 2010).

28

3

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 5 of 11

1

17. ALPR systems sold by private companies facilitate the mass aggregation of a

2 driver’s movements over months and years. ALPR devices can be placed on stoplights, bridges,

3 and overpasses, or mounted on police or private cars. The devices typically take high-speed

4 photographs of every passing car and check the recognized license plate against “hot” or “alert” 5 lists that instantly alert law enforcement when a match is found.3 The license-plate data is also

6 collected in databases, providing people with access to search for license plates and expose the

7 historical location of drivers stretching back months or years. Public and private entities that use

8 ALPR systems to collect millions of license-plate scans each month often provide outside

9 entities, both public and private, with searchable access to license-plate data collected locally.

10

18. When the photograph and location information of every vehicle that crosses the

11 path of an ALPR is stored and shared with law enforcement agencies and private companies, the

12 result is a database containing hundreds of millions of data points, revealing the precise locations

13 and travel histories of millions of innocent drivers. In many jurisdictions, the information from

14 these license plate readers is retained for months or years, and sometimes, indefinitely. Longer

15 retention periods and more widespread sharing allow law enforcement agencies to assemble a

16 single, detailed portrait of any given individual’s life.

17

19. Private companies such as Vigilant Systems and Thomson Reuters possess

18 databases containing billions of pieces of data on drivers’ license plates collected across the

19 country. These companies sell access to their databases to law enforcement agencies and other

20 private companies.

21

20. ICE has claimed in a statement that it is not seeking to build a license plate reader

22 database.4 However, in December 2017, ICE entered into contracts to gain access to nationwide

23

24 3 The ACLU released a report on license-plate readers in July of 2013: YOU ARE BEING

TRACKED, HOW LICENSE PLATE READERS ARE BEING USED TO RECORD AMERICANS' 25 MOVEMENTS, https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/location-tracking/you-are-being-

26

tracked. 4 See Privacy Impact Assessment for the Acquisition and Use of License Plate Reader (LPR)

27 Data from a Commercial Service at 1, DHS/ICE/PIA-039, Mar. 19, 2015,

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-lpr-march2015.pdf.

28

4

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 6 of 11

1 databases of ALPR data. These contracts have generated significant public interest and 2 concerns over the use of surveillance technology to target immigrants for arrest and deportation.5

3 Even the limited knowledge of the relationship between ICE and private ALPR companies that

4 has come to public light to date has led localities, including sanctuary cities, to reject or delay 5 contracts for ALPR technology.6

6

21. ICE’s access to ALPR databases implicates the privacy rights of drivers and the

7 use of information for purposes far afield from those justifying its initial collection. Further,

8 ICE’s use of ALPR databases to locate individuals threatens the freedom of drivers to engage in

9 the necessary activities of daily life.

10

22. ICE has not made publicly available its contracts with the private companies that

11 operate those ALPR databases. These contracts set forth the terms governing the ALPR data and

12 databases to which ICE has purchased access. Further, ICE has not made publicly available the

13 internal privacy guidance or training materials governing its personnel’s access and use of ALPR

14 data and technology. Audit logs showing the frequency with which ICE queries ALPR

15 databases, the types of investigations for which it does, and details regarding the sharing of

16 ALPR data among ICE and other federal, state, and local agencies, are also non-public. As such,

17 the public is unaware of the extent and purposes to which their personal information is shared

18 among ICE, state and local agencies, and third parties. And the public has no knowledge of

19 ICE’s use, maintenance, and sharing of any “hot” or “alert” lists stored in its vendors’ ALPR

20

5 See Russell Brandom, ICE Is About to Start Tracking License Plates Across the US, THE 21 VERGE, Jan. 26, 2018, https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/26/16932350/ice-immigration-

22

customs-license-plate-recognition-contract-vigilant-solutions; Tal Kopan, ICE Inks Contract for Access to License Plate Database, CNN, Jan. 26, 2018,

23 https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/26/politics/ice-license-plate-readers/index.html; Chantal Da Silva, City Refuses to Let ICE Track License Plates With 'Digital Deportation Machine', NEWSWEEK,

24 Feb. 14, 2018, http://www.newsweek.com/city-refuses-let-ice-track-licenses-places-digital-

deportation-machine-806845. 25 6 See Tracy Rosenberg, City of Alameda Rejects ALPR Contract with Vigilant, Oakland Privacy,

26 Feb. 7, 2018, https://oaklandprivacy.org/2018/02/07/city-of-alameda-rejects-alpr-contract-withvigilant/; Tracy Rosenberg, San Pablo Postpones $2.9 Million Dollar ALPR Contract with

27 Vigilant, Oakland Privacy, Mar. 19, 2018, https://oaklandprivacy.org/2018/03/19/san-pablo-

postpones-2-9-million-dollar-alpr-contract-with-vigilant/.

28

5

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 7 of 11

1 system.

2

23. The information sought in ACLU-NC’s FOIA request would reveal for the first-

3 time information concerning ICE’s use, maintenance, and handling of sensitive personal

4 information, and would allow members of the public a meaningful opportunity to vet the federal

5 government’s surveillance of motorists. This information should shed light on important and on-

6 going public debates about ALPR technology in communities across the country.7

7

Plaintiff Submitted a FOIA Request to ICE Headquarters But ICE Has Failed to Produce

8

Any Records

9

24. On March 19, 2018, ACLU-NC submitted a FOIA request to the ICE

10 Headquarters in Washington, District of Columbia, seeking information relating to contracts by

11 and between ICE and contractors related to ALPR technology. A copy of Plaintiff ACLU-NC’s

12 request is appended hereto as Exhibit 1.

13

25. In particular, the request seeks records containing the following information:

14

15

1. Any contracts, addenda, attachments, memoranda of understanding, amendments, modifications, or other agreements made and/or negotiated

16

pursuant to the Request for Quotation No. 70CDCR18Q00000005, “Request

for Quote for Access to License Plate Reader (LPR) Database,” issued by

17

ICE/Detention Compliance & Removals on December 15, 2017 (the “Request

for Quotation”), along with communications related to such contracts,

18

memoranda of understanding, or other agreements;

19

2. The contract with the vendor that is referenced in the document titled “Privacy Impact Assessment Update for the Acquisition and Use of License Plate

20

Reader (LPR) Data from a Commercial Service,” DHS/ICE/PIA-039(a), dated

December 27, 2017 (the “Updated PIA”) related to access to a commercial

21

ALPR database, along with all associated communications, addenda,

attachments, memoranda of understanding, amendments, modifications, or

22

other agreements;8 and

23

3. Any contracts, addenda, attachments, memoranda of understanding, amendments, modifications, or other agreements made and/or negotiated

24

pursuant to the Solicitation and Contract Award No. 70CDCR18P00000017,

25 7 See, e.g., Sophie Haigney and Annie Ma, Immigrant activists ask Livermore’s Vigilant

26 Solutions to end ICE contract, SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, May 11, 2018, https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Immigrant-activists-ask-Livermore-s-Vigilant-

27 12908715.php. 8 See https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/privacy-pia-ice-lpr-january2018.pdf.

28

6

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 8 of 11

1

“Access to Commercially Available LPR Database,” issued by ICE, along

with communications related to such contracts, memoranda of understanding,

2

or other agreements.9

3

4

26. ICE acknowledged receipt of the request on March 28, 2018 and assigned a

5 tracking number 2018-ICFO-26258 to the request.

6

27. More than 20 working days have passed since ICE received the request.

7

28. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff ACLU-NC has not

8 received any response from ICE to the request.

9

29. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff ACLU-NC has not

10 received a determination from ICE of whether ICE will comply with the request.

11

30. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff ACLU-NC has not

12 received any documents from ICE that are responsive to the request or any correspondence

13 indicating when ICE might provide any documents.

14

31. Plaintiff ACLU-NC has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.

15

32. ICE has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff ACLU-NC.

16 Plaintiff Submitted a Second FOIA Request to ICE Headquarters But ICE Has Failed to Produce Any Records
17

18

33. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff ACLU-NC submitted a second FOIA request to the

19 ICE Headquarters in Washington, District of Columbia, seeking training materials, privacy

20 guidance, audit logs, and other documents relating to ICE’s use and sharing of ALPR data. A

21 copy of Plaintiff ACLU-NC’s request is appended hereto as Exhibit 2.

22

34. In particular, the request seeks records containing the following information:

23

1. Any quotations, information, offers, proposals or other responses provided in

24

response to Request for Quotation No. 70CDCR18Q00000005, “Request for

25

Quote for Access to License Plate Reader (LPR) Database,” issued by

26 9See

27 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5629706f5736d22bd17b11965f5ac

4c&tab=core&_cview=0.

28

7

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 9 of 11

1

ICE/Detention Compliance & Removals on December 15, 2017 (the “Request

for Quotation”), attached hereto as Attachment A;

2

2. Any training materials, written instructions, presentations, manuals, or

3

publications regarding the commercial ALPR database contract referenced in

the Updated PIA, the contracts discussed by the Request for Quotation, and

4

the Commercial ALPR Database Contract, including but not limited to

training or written instructions referenced on pages 6–7 of the Request for

5

Quotation;

3. The document titled “Privacy Guidance: Agency Access to and Use of

6

License Plate Reader Data and Technology,” issued December 2017 from the

7

ICE Office of Information Governance & Privacy that is referenced in

footnote 2 of the Updated PIA;

8

4. Any communications between agency personnel and any representative of any

law enforcement agency in the state of California regarding the use or sharing

9

of license plate reader data by agency personnel, or by third parties;

10

5. Audit logs for ICE’s use of the Vendor’s ALPR database, exported in Excel format, which are available through the Vendor’s web interface (as described

11

on page 16 of the Updated PIA), including any statistical reports generated by

the Vendor (as described on page 17 of the Updated PIA);

12

6. Any information tending to show ALPR data10 from other entities to which

ICE has access, including but not limited to a sharing report, in Excel format,

13

generated by the Vendor’s system listing all entities sharing data with ICE and

14

all entities with which ICE has shared ALPR data; 7. The names of any “hot” or “alert” lists that ICE has created, maintains, shares,

15

or receives, including but not limited to any such lists stored in the Vendor’s

ALPR system; and

16

8. Audit logs for ICE’s use of the database(s) to which it has access pursuant to

the Commercial ALPR Database Contract, exported in Excel format. 17

18

35. ICE acknowledged receipt of the request on April 2, 2018 and assigned a tracking

19 number 2018-ICFO-27097 to the request.

20

36. More than 20 working days have passed since ICE received the request.

21

37. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received a

22 determination from ICE of whether ICE will comply with the request.

23

38. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiff has not received any

24 documents from ICE that are responsive to the request or any correspondence indicating when

25 ICE might provide any documents.

26

27 10 “ALPR data” means information or data collected through the use of an automated license-

plate reader system.

28

8

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 10 of 11

1

39. Plaintiff has exhausted all applicable administrative remedies.

2

40. ICE has wrongfully withheld the requested records from Plaintiff.

3

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Violation of Freedom of Information Act For

4

Wrongful Withholding Of Agency Records

5

41. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

6

42. ICE has wrongfully withheld agency records requested by Plaintiff under FOIA

7 and has failed to comply with the statutory time for the processing of FOIA requests.

8

43. Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies with respect to

9 ICE’s wrongful withholding of the requested records.

10

44. Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief with respect to the release and disclosure of

11 the requested documents because ICE continues to improperly withhold agency records in 12 violation of FOIA. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury from, and have no adequate legal 13 remedy for, ICE’s illegal withholding of government documents pertaining to the subject of 14 Plaintiff’s FOIA request. 15 /// 16 ///

17 /// 18 /// 19 ///

20 /// 21 /// 22 ///

23 /// 24 ///

25 ///

26 /// 27 ///

28

9

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 1 Filed 05/23/18 Page 11 of 11

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:

3

A. Order Defendant ICE to promptly process and release all responsive records;

4

B. Declare that Defendant ICE’s failure to disclose the records requested by Plaintiff

5 is unlawful;

6

C. Award Plaintiff its litigation costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in this

7 action;

8

D. Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

9

10 Dated: May 23, 2018 11

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

12

By: /s/ Vasudha Talla

.

13

Vasudha Talla

Linda Lye

14

Attorneys for Plaintiff

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

CASE NO.__________________

 
 Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 33 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 4

1 VASUDHA TALLA (SBN 316219)

SEAN RIORDAN (SBN 255752)

2 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION

OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.

3

39 Drumm Street

4

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 621-2493 ext. 308

5

FAC: (415) 255-8437

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff ACLU of Northern California

7 DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

8 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Chief, Civil Division

9 KIMBERLY A. ROBINSON (DCBN 233155)

Assistant United States Attorney

10

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

11

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7298

12

FAX: (415) 436-6748

Kimberly.robinson3@usdoj.gov

13

Attorneys for Defendant United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17

18 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ) CASE NO. 3:18-cv-03050-JCS

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

)

19

)

Plaintiff,

) STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

20

) RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH

v.

) PREJUDICE

21

)

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND )

22 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,

)

)

23

Defendant.

24

25

Plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California (“plaintiff”) and defendant

26 United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“defendant”) hereby enter into this Stipulation

27 and [Proposed] Order Re Settlement and Dismissal With Prejudice (“Stipulation”), as follows:

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

CASE No: 3:18-cv-03050-JCS

1

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 33 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 4

1

WHEREAS, on May 23, 2018, plaintiff filed its Complaint under the Freedom of Information

2 Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, as amended;

3

WHEREAS, plaintiff and defendant wish to avoid any further litigation and controversy and

4 compromise fully any and all claims and issues that have been raised, or could have been raised in this

5 action;

6

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Stipulation, and

7 other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby anticipated, the parties agree as

8 follows:

9

1. Defendant shall pay to plaintiff the amount of eight thousand five hundred and ninety-

10 seven dollars and sixty-eight cents ($8,597.68) in full and complete satisfaction of plaintiff’s claims for

11 attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses under the FOIA in the above-captioned matter. This

12 payment shall constitute full and final satisfaction of any and all of plaintiff’s claims for attorneys’ fees,

13 costs, and litigation expenses in the above-captioned matter, and is inclusive of any interest. Payment of

14 this money will be made by electronic funds transfer, and plaintiff’s counsel will provide the necessary

15 information to defendant’s counsel to effectuate the transfer. Defendant will make all reasonable efforts

16 to make payment within sixty (60) days of the date that plaintiff’s counsel provides the necessary

17 information for the electronic funds transfer and this Stipulation is approved by the Court, whichever is

18 later, but cannot guarantee payment within that time frame.

19

2. Upon the execution of this Stipulation, plaintiff hereby releases and forever discharges

20 defendant, its successors, the United States of America, and any department, agency, or establishment of

21 the United States, and any officers, employees, agents, successors, or assigns of such department,

22 agency, or establishment, from any and all claims and causes of action that plaintiff asserts or could

23 have asserted in this litigation, or which hereafter could be asserted by reason of, or with respect to, or in

24 connection with, or which arise out of, the FOIA request on which this action is based or any other

25 matter alleged in the Complaint, including but not limited to all past, present, or future claims for

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

27

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

28

"A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

CASE No: 3:18-cv-03050-JCS

2

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 33 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 4

1

to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him must

have materially affected his settlement with the debtor."

2 Plaintiff, having been apprised of the statutory language of Civil Code Section 1542 by its

3 attorneys, and fully understanding the same, nevertheless elects to waive the benefits of any and all

4 rights it may have pursuant to the provision of that statute and any similar provision of federal law.

5 Plaintiff understands that, if the facts concerning any liability under FOIA or liability for attorneys’ fees,

6 costs, or litigation expenses are found hereafter to be other than or different than the facts now believed

7 by it to be true, the Stipulation shall be and remain effective notwithstanding such material difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

14 of any allegation or claim raised in this action, or as evidence or as an admission by the defendant

15 regarding plaintiff’s eligibility for or entitlement to attorneys’ fees, costs, or other litigation expenses

16 under FOIA. This Stipulation is entered into by the parties for the purpose of compromising disputed

17 claims and avoiding the expenses and risks of litigation. This Stipulation shall not be used in any manner

18 to establish liability for fees or costs in any other case or proceeding involving defendant.

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

20 respective successors and assigns.

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

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

23 impaired thereby.

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

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

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

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

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

CASE No: 3:18-cv-03050-JCS

3

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 33 Filed 02/26/19 Page 4 of 4

1

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

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

3

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

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

5

12. The Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and is effective on the date by which

6 both parties have executed the Stipulation.

7

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

8 DATED: February 22, 2019

Respectfully submitted,

9

DAVID L. ANDERSON

United States Attorney

10

/s/ Kimberly A. Robinson

11

KIMBERLY A. ROBINSON*

Assistant United States Attorney

12

Attorneys for Defendant U.S.

Immigration and Customs

13

Enforcement

14 DATED: February 22, 2019
15
16
17

/s/ Vasudha Talla VASUDHA TALLA Attorney for Plaintiff ACLU of Northern California

18

19 * In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer of this document attests that all signatories listed 20 have concurred in the filing of this document.

21 22 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

TATES DISTRICT C

23

UNITED S
ALIFORNIA

OURT NORTH

24 DATED: February 26, 2019 25 26 27

The Honorable JJuodsgeepJohseSphpCe.rSopero United StatesERMNagDiIsStrTaRteIJCuTdgOeF C

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

CASE No: 3:18-cv-03050-JCS

4

 
 Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 20 Filed 08/16/18 Page 1 of 5

1 ALEX G. TSE (CABN 152348)

United States Attorney

2 SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Chief, Civil Division

3 ROBIN M. WALL (CABN 235690)

Assistant United States Attorney

4

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

5

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7071

6

Fax: (415) 436-6748

robin.wall@usdoj.gov

7

Attorneys for Defendant

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11

12 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF ) Case No. 18-cv-03050-JCS

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,

)

13

) JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Plaintiff,

) STATEMENT

14

)

v.

) Date & Time:

Aug. 24, 2018, 2 p.m.

15

) Courtroom:

G, 15th Floor

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

) Location:

Phillip Burton Federal Building

16 ENFORCEMENT,

)

450 Golden Gate Avenue

)

San Francisco, California

17

Defendant.

) ) Hon. Joseph C. Spero

18

)

19 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
20 The parties jointly submit this case management conference statement pursuant to the Court’s
21 May 5, 2018, Order (ECF 4), Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California, dated
22 January 17, 2017, Civil Local Rule 16-9, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f).
23 1. Jurisdiction and Service.
24 There are no issues concerning personal jurisdiction, venue, or service. Plaintiff asserts
25 jurisdiction under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (“FOIA); and Defendant has been
26 served.
27

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18-CV-03050 JCS

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 20 Filed 08/16/18 Page 2 of 5

1 2. Statement of Facts.

2

Plaintiff filed two FOIA requests with Defendant seeking records reflecting information related

3 to contracts by and between Defendant and any contractors related to automated license plate reader

4 (“ALPR”) technology, as well as any training materials, privacy guidance, audit logs, and other

5 documents relating to any use and sharing of ALPR data by Defendant. Plaintiff’s FOIA requests were

6 dated (1) March 19, 2018 (tracking number 2018-ICFO-26258) and (2) March 21, 2018 (tracking

7 number 2018-ICFO-27097). As of the filing of the complaint on May 23, 2018, Defendant had not

8 released records responsive to Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff’s complaint asserts that Defendant

9 wrongfully withheld the requested records in violation of FOIA. Defendant denies plaintiff’s

10 allegations.

11

Defendant is currently working to respond to the two FOIA requests. Defendant made its first

12 interim release on July 13, 2018, and a second interim release on July 18, 2018. Defendant has collected

13 more than 1,800 additional pages and a number of spreadsheets that are currently being reviewed for

14 release in response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests. Defendant plans to produce any non-exempt records to

15 Plaintiff on a rolling basis in monthly interim releases until the responses are complete. Defendant

16 anticipates that it will complete its review, production, and response to Plaintiff’s FOIA requests in mid-

17 November 2018.

18 3. Legal Issues.

19

Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF 1) raises a number of issues, including whether Defendant wrongfully

20 withheld agency records in violation of FOIA and whether Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief.

21 4. Motions.

22

The parties anticipate that any issues that cannot be resolved between the parties will be

23 submitted to the Court via cross-motions for summary judgment.

24 5. Amendment of Pleadings.

25

At this time, the parties do not anticipate amending the pleadings.

26

27

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18-CV-03050 JCS

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 20 Filed 08/16/18 Page 3 of 5

1 6. Evidence Preservation.

2

The parties certify that they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of

3 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”). The parties acknowledge their duty to preserve

4 relevant materials in accordance with applicable rules and case law.

5 7.

Disclosures.

6 At this time the parties do not anticipate the need for discovery in this FOIA action and

7 respectfully request that the Court excuse the parties from the exchange of initial disclosures pursuant to

8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

9 8.

Discovery.

10 The parties do not anticipate the need for discovery in this FOIA action at this time.

11 9.

Class Actions.

12 Not applicable.

13 10. Related Cases.

14 None.

15 11. Relief.

16 Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the search, release and disclosure

17 of requested agency records, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

18 Defendant states that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.

19 12. Settlement and ADR.

20 The parties are currently working to resolve their disputes and do not believe that ADR is

21 necessary or appropriate at this time. If the parties are unable to resolve all of the issues raised by

22 plaintiff’s complaint, the parties may seek referral to a United States Magistrate Judge for a settlement

23 conference at an appropriate time.

24 13. Consent to Magistrate Judge for all Purposes.

25 The parties have consented to United States Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this case.

26 14. Other References.

27 This case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special master, or the Judicial

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18-CV-03050 JCS

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 20 Filed 08/16/18 Page 4 of 5

1 Panel on Multidistrict litigation.

2 15. Narrowing of Issues.

3

The parties are working to resolve their disputes and narrow the issues (if any) to be presented to

4 the Court for its resolution by cross-motions for summary judgment.

5 16. Expedited Trial Procedure.

6

The parties do not believe that this case is appropriate for an expedited trial.

7 17. Scheduling.

8

The parties propose the following schedule for summary judgment in the event that they cannot

9 resolve their disputes:

10

Event

Date

11

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment December 14, 2018

12

Plaintiff’s Opposition and Cross-Motion for January 18, 2019

Summary Judgment

13

Defendant’s Opposition and Reply

February 15, 2019

14

Plaintiff’s Reply

March 1, 2019

15

Hearing on Cross-Motions

March 8, 2019

16

17 18. Trial.

18

At this time, the parties expect that any disputed issues will be resolved on cross-motions for

19 summary judgment and do not anticipate the need for trial in this FOIA action.

20 19. Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons.

21

Plaintiff states that there are no interested parties that must be disclosed pursuant to Civil Local

22 Rule 3-15.

23

This requirement does not apply to the federal defendant.

24 20. Professional Conduct.

25

All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional Conduct for

26 the Northern District of California.

27 //

28 //

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18-CV-03050 JCS

Case 3:18-cv-03050-JCS Document 20 Filed 08/16/18 Page 5 of 5

1 Dated: August 16, 2018 2 3 4 5

ALEX G. TSE United States Attorney
/s/ Robin M. Wall ROBIN M. WALL Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Federal Defendant

6 Dated: August 16, 2018 7 8 9

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
/s/ Vasudha Talla VASUDHA TALLA Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

11

CERTIFICATION

12

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), the undersigned hereby attests that Vasudha Talla has

13 concurred in the filing of this document.

14 Dated: August 16, 2018 15

ALEX G. TSE United States Attorney

16

/s/ Robin M. Wall

ROBIN M. WALL

17

Assistant United States Attorney

18

Attorneys for Federal Defendant

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 18-CV-03050 JCS